Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Well, life is not fair. These are the realities of running bus services. I just remind the noble Baroness who accuses me of not being fair that I used to chair a major bus operator. It was employee-owned for much of the time and faced the same financial constraints and problems under the coalition Government—of which, if I remember rightly, the Liberal Democrats were a part.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Stop being snide. I am sorry—I should not intervene, as I came late.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

As far as I have heard on this third day in Committee and at Second Reading, there has been a majority consensus for the Government’s proposals. What we are trying to do is to draw out those issues that we hope the Government will be able to address. One, as we have heard this afternoon, is rural bus services—and, indeed, access for island services. Equally, we understand that that will probably mean more funding. We had a debate on that on an earlier day in Committee. This is not about criticism or blame; it is about pulling out the issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 51 would require local transport authorities to carry out a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger numbers within their area. The review must look at how fare levels are influencing numbers; the social, economic and environmental outcomes of the current fare structure; ways to simplify ticketing systems; and changes to increase bus patronage and improve accessibility. This review should be carried out within six months of the Act passing and every three years, working with all key stakeholders.

We feel that there is a significant gap in the Bill relating to fares. The final-stage impact assessment states:

“Increased fares, unreliable services and fewer routes would likely drive more people away from buses, further reducing passenger numbers”.


Helen Morgan, Member of Parliament for North Shropshire, told me that Shropshire has lost more bus routes than any other county and that the £2 fare cap was not introduced in Shropshire. Fares are significantly higher and a six-mile journey into Shrewsbury can cost as much as £6.20. It is therefore essential that local transport authorities assess the impact that fares are having, alongside other factors, in the provision of local bus services following the implementation of this Bill.

I also have Amendments 74 and 80 in this group, which together place a limit of £2 on single journey bus fares, which can be reviewed every three years and adjusted by statutory instrument. The increase in the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 has created real barriers for passengers, particularly those on low incomes who rely on buses to go about their everyday lives. The £1 rise per journey adds up quickly, straining already tight budgets and forcing difficult choices between transport and other essentials. For rural communities where alternatives are few, the impact is even greater. Without addressing fares in this Bill, we risk deepening existing inequalities and leaving many people isolated. I remind Members that the final stage impact assessment states:

“There may also be benefits associated with increasing bus usage through lowering fares”.


We also strongly believe that affordable public transport promotes greener travel choices. It helps to cut carbon emissions and eases road congestion. In many parts of the country, it remains cheaper to drive than to take the bus. This is a disincentive, and putting a £2 cap on bus fares would go some way to helping to address it. This legislation is about improving bus services and enabling local authorities to have a choice about how local services are provided, but unless there are affordable bus fares, there is a huge hole in this plan. I hope the Minister can address these concerns and respond to our proposal to keep bus fares affordable across the country.

On the previous group we had a discussion about real-time passenger information and open data. Another issue linked to the price of fares is the accessibility of purchasing tickets. There has been a transformation in purchasing rail tickets, despite the fare structure being incredibly complex, through tech innovation and apps. One would want to see, as part of these changes to improve bus services, bus retail being opened up to third-party organisations to allow innovation and the ability for passengers to purchase bus tickets or rail-bus packages. When the Minister comments on our amendments, will he also reflect on improving the Bus Open Data Service and on how opening this area further might transform the passenger experience? I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this group is full of sensible amendments. I will speak to the two in my name, Amendments 77 and 79. Amendment 72 is about the concessionary travel scheme—the £2 fare cap—which has been an immense success. In the village where I live in Dorset, it has changed people’s lives. All sorts of people now do not use their cars, which saves them an awful lot of money that they can spend on things such as heating. They do not need to use their cars, they do not need to pay for parking, and they do not need the maintenance of their cars. It has made a huge difference, and many of those people are not looking forward to it going up at the end of the year to £3. It definitely increases usership. It was interesting to read Amendment 63 from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, presumably in support of the £2 fare cap, which I think is wonderful.

Amendment 79 is about a slightly different issue. It is about encouraging children to start using buses. Most children in the area I live in have to use buses to get to school if their parents cannot afford a car or cannot afford to drive them. I think it is very good practice to get children on the buses early and encourage them to understand that it is something that everybody can do. Also, to some extent, it is a little bit of independence for them. As a Green, I struggle slightly with the idea that any travel should be cheaper than walking and cycling. However, in this instance I think it is sensible to make bus travel free for children, simply because there are so many other accumulated costs on their parents. I think this would be a very good move.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 63 standing in my name. We are fully aware that fares must contribute to funding our public transport system, particularly when it comes to meeting essential social needs. However, we must also acknowledge the significant impact that fare levels have on passenger demand. This is especially relevant given His Majesty’s Government’s recent decision to raise the bus fare cap by 50%.

We are proud of our own record, particularly in extending the £2 bus fare cap throughout 2024. That policy, as we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, provided crucial support to passengers across the country, especially in low-income areas where bus services are a lifeline for many. It is therefore imperative that we fully understand the impact of increasing fares on those who rely most on these services.

This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government carry out and publish a comprehensive impact assessment on the economic and social consequences of removing the £2 bus fare cap. This assessment must include, but not be limited to, the potential impact on passenger numbers; the financial implications for local transport authorities; the effect on accessibility for those who depend on bus fares for essential travel; and the impact on passengers’ ability to reach socially necessary services, as defined in Clause 12.

We do not believe that His Majesty’s Government conducted such a detailed assessment before announcing the increase to the fare cap. However, they still have the opportunity to do so now. By undertaking that assessment, the Government can ensure that future decisions are based on sound evidence and a clear understanding of the impact on those who depend on public transport the most. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to consider this amendment and commit to a full and transparent assessment of the impact of increasing the bus fare cap.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Grand Committee

So, my Amendment 40 strengthens the requirement concerning the Secretary of State’s guidance and the actions of authorities and bus companies in implementing it. My trio of amendments aims to give disabled bus passengers the same rights under law that disabled rail passengers have and that every able-bodied member of the public has. They also probe whether the wording in Clauses 22, 24 and 25 is backed up by the Equality Act, which is why disabled people need Amendment 57. The PSED gives us the right that everyone else thinks we already have but we do not: the right that non-disabled people take for granted every day.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I signed several amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I would have signed those of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which are very good. I speak as somebody who has always loved floating bus islands, because I have no disabilities—other than not being capable of keeping my views to myself—and there seems to be a degree of real safety for cyclists going past them. But, obviously, since we have been discussing this, I have become very aware that floating bus islands are in some quite dangerous situations and difficult places, and I have now changed my mind—which is a rare thing for me to do.

There are probably three reasons for me to support these amendments. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, everyone benefits when we make things safe—that is absolutely obvious. When you have an increasingly older population, as we do in the UK, that is incredibly important. There is also the question of fairness. I want a fair society; I know we are a long way off it, but it really is something we should aim for constantly. Lastly, I have family with invisible disabilities, and I do not even know how we can help people who have those. But, clearly, as much information as possible, given as often as possible, will be part of that.

Finally, I cannot see anything in these amendments that the Minister would disagree with, so I very much look forward to the Government accepting them all and saying what a good job the Opposition are doing.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I will pick up on the points my noble friend Lord Moylan made about demand-responsive buses. I acknowledge what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said. The key point of those buses is not that they are for disabled people but that they are a fundamental part of the future of transport in many rural areas. It is enormously important that, as local authorities migrate to a new way of doing things under the terms of the Bill, they encourage the development of demand-responsive buses. The reality is that they are an important way to bridge the gap between many rural communities and local towns, given the absence of public transport. It is important that buses do not develop in a way that excludes those with disabilities. We need to encourage local authorities in this respect.

I agree that currently, demand-responsive buses are significant for the elderly and the disabled, but that is not how it must be in the future. It is important to transition to the new arrangements in a way that does not forget the important role the demand-responsive system will play for disabled people as well. It must be part of local authorities’ responsibilities to be mindful of how that happens. That may involve vehicle standards or other provisions, but demand-responsive buses and disability must go together in the context of a new world where such buses are simply a part of our public transport system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I will also speak about Amendment 23. The new “socially necessary” routes clause is incredibly important in ensuring that bus services across the country provide services that meet the needs of local communities, rather than simply those which are profitable. Sadly, that has been the case outside London for decades since the deregulation of buses in the 1985 Act. We welcome this new clause but want to improve it through these amendments in two clear ways.

Amendment 21 would ensure that access to healthcare services, whether primary, such as GP or community, or acute, such as hospitals, are added to the locations that a local service must enable passengers to access alongside schools. We felt it was really important to pull out and add these specific services, as they are so important. I am really pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has added his name to this amendment.

The need for children and teachers to have access to schools is obvious, but it should be a service that gets them to school on time. In Tonbridge in Kent, bus services have been cut so much that school bus services either drop children off far too early, leaving them hanging around the streets before school, or they arrive too late for school. This is unacceptable and impacts on children’s education and safety.

Access to health services is fundamental to keeping communities healthy and fit. When someone is diagnosed with a condition or illness, they may require regular routine appointments at a range of health buildings, not just at the main hospital but right across the community. In rural areas, these can be spread out over some distance. It is therefore crucial that socially necessary services are explicit to ensure that patients can get to appointments at different health locations without having to rely on family or volunteers to drive them there and back. At Second Reading, I highlighted the situation in Fleet in Hampshire where there is no bus route to the local hospital from neighbouring areas, yet the hospital car park often experiences 45-minute queues. Our amendment aims to address these common concerns.

Amendment 23 seeks to clarify that the relevant local authority has a duty to implement a socially necessary service, as far as is reasonably practical, should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support, if needed, and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established. We on these Benches felt that that was important, given that the Bill allows for a clear definition of socially necessary routes but gives no clarity on how these routes will be provided.

If, either through franchising or enhanced partnerships, it is proven impossible to secure a provider for a service, what happens? In many ways, this is a last-resort clause. We felt that it was important to ensure that such crucial services for communities are picked up and provided so, as part of this process, the local authority would establish the service itself and produce a report within six months that would set out details of the operation and whether the authority is unable to meet the financial cost of operating the service. This is where the new burdens doctrine would kick in, and thus the Secretary of State would have a duty to consider appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure that the socially necessary service can be provided.

From talking to some of the larger operators, they make it clear that socially necessary services will be able to achieve the aim of protecting hard-to-serve areas only if that is underpinned by funding. I am sure that where franchising is used profitable routes will be franchised together with socially necessary services to ensure that a comprehensive bus service is provided overall. However, our amendment picks up those services that are not securing an operator to ensure that communities have access to essential services. I am pleased to note that Green Alliance supports of our amendments around socially necessary local services.

I hope that the Government will respond positively to these amendments, which seek to enhance the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 22, which is a delicate, small nudge that suggests that, if you are trying to replace bus services or create new ones, looking at previous scrapped bus routes might be a way forward because, presumably, they were the last to go. I do not live in a bus desert, but obviously a lot of people do so outside London. It is a sad state of affairs when people are forced to use their cars, as so many are in the countryside. Bringing back bus routes that existed and were clearly used before various cuts would make sense.

The CPRE report, Every Village, Every Hour, nearly four years ago, set out what a comprehensive bus network for England could look like and the scale of investment needed, which, of course, is a bargain in how much it benefits communities, social enterprise and so on. If the Minister has not read that report already, I suggest that he does so. I agreed also with the previous amendments.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I was delighted to add my name. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, criticised the Bill on the first day in Committee as being mildly nostalgic and backward-looking, a sort of return to the Attlee Government. I have quoted him so many times on this that I really need to start paying him royalties. However, I would like the Bill to be nostalgic and backward-looking. I would love it to go back to the pre-Beeching glory days when buses turned up on time with smiling children. I do not know whether that actually existed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It did.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment standing in my name seeks to insert a new clause into the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill explicitly setting out its purpose; namely, improving the performance and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain. It is imperative that we make this purpose clear, not just for the sake of the Bill’s integrity but because the millions of passengers relying on buses need action in addition to words.

As many noble Lords know, bus services are a vital lifeline for millions of people, connecting communities, supporting local economies and reducing congestion and emissions. However, we also recognise that in many areas the services are not meeting the needs of passengers. The Bill seeks to address those challenges and shortcomings, and this amendment seeks to ensure that the overarching aim of improving bus services remains at the heart of all decisions undertaken in its provisions. By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to this purpose, we are embedding into this legislation a commitment to improve bus services. This is not a mere formality; it is about setting a clear duty on the Secretary of State to put the improvement of bus services at the core of any decisions he or she makes under this legislation.

As we consider the purpose of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, I draw the attention of the Committee to a recent report prepared by KPMG in conjunction with the Confederation of Passenger Transport. This report underscores the vital economic, social and connectivity benefits that local bus services deliver across the United Kingdom. The findings are compelling. The bus sector contributes a staggering £11.3 billion annually to our economy, supporting 105,000 jobs directly and an additional 53,000 jobs in the supply chain. Beyond this, the ripple effects of bus services are profound, as bus passengers spend nearly £40 billion each year in our high streets, cafes, restaurants and leisure destinations.

For rural communities, which we will discuss in future days in Committee, buses are nothing less than an absolute lifeline. Over 680 million journeys per year begin in rural areas, where buses are often the sole form of public transport, providing critical access to jobs, education and essential services. Those passengers contribute £7.1 billion to local economies, while the availability of bus services supports £1.6 billion in economic benefits through improved connectivity and affordable travel. Please let us not overlook the societal benefits. Reducing social isolation, supporting volunteerism and ensuring access to healthcare generate an additional £500 million in wider societal benefits annually in rural areas alone.

These figures remind us that buses are far more than just a mode of transport. They are an engine for economic growth, a bridge to opportunity and a force for social cohesion. They also underscore why it is essential to ensure that the purpose of this legislation is clear and focused on the improvement of performance and quality in bus services.

However, I am concerned that the Government, in their haste to overhaul the system, are pushing us back to a pre-1980s model without providing any firm evidence that this will actually work in the context of modern Britain. The Government’s proposed measures lack the necessary data, analysis or proof that they will lead to real, tangible improvements in bus services. If this Bill is not a case of “public sector ownership is good versus private sector ownership is bad”, the burden must be on the Government to provide the evidence that their approach will deliver the outcomes that they promise. This is a move that forces a one-size-fits-all approach to our bus services, a model that fails to recognise the nuances of different regions and communities across the country. We cannot simply take the London model, a model for a city of 8 million people, and attempt to shoehorn it into every other part of the country without considering the vastly different needs of those areas. The assumption that what works in one city will work everywhere else must be challenged with a laser focus.

We have to ask why the Government are pushing for this. Why remove the Secretary of State’s oversight and impose a one-size-fits-all solution without taking the time to understand the specific needs of each area? Why assume that regional authorities, some of which, as they have said, have far less experience in managing transport systems, will be able to execute a franchise model as successfully as London?

It is worth noting that, not long ago, we anticipated that this legislation might carry the name “Better Buses Bill”, and while the name has since changed, I do not believe that this reflects any attempt by the Government to shy away from their commitment to improving bus services. On the contrary, I trust that the Minister, like all of us here in the Moses Room and beyond, is firmly committed to the goal of creating an efficient and affordable bus network that meets the needs of passengers across Great Britain, but there is nothing in the Bill that reflects that. That is why we are seeking to insert this unequivocal duty, so that all current and future Ministers put the improvement of bus services first.

Allow me to be crystal clear: this amendment is not about creating unnecessary bureaucracy—far from it. It is about ensuring that the Bill’s intent is explicit from the outset. The amendment would not impose any burdensome process or stand in the way of progress. Rather, it simply sets out the overall purpose of the Bill; namely, improving bus services. By doing so, we will ensure that the focus remains squarely on what matters most: delivering tangible improvements for bus passengers. There is no new red tape, no delays in implementation, just a clear statement that the purpose of the Bill is and always should be the improvement of bus services. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Can I ask the noble Earl whether this is going to be another Bill that the Tories filibuster to the point where the rest of us just want to slit our throats? Is this really going to happen the way it did with the rail Bill? I have had enough; I have other work to do. I have tabled good amendments that I want to see happen sometime soon, so are we going to see a load of nonsense from the Conservatives again? Perhaps the noble Earl can give a clear statement on that.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that in the same way that we saw her speaking to other noble Lords on the previous Bill, when she said this was happening in the Chamber, we should continue with the proceedings and listen to what everyone has to say, which is everyone’s right in this Room.

Carbon Emissions: Bus Fleets

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that actions such as those taken in Harrogate to electrify bus fleets have real benefits. The innovative technology example, which allows charging in the course of a journey, is also to be lauded.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me, and with Green Party policy, that improving our bus services is a crucial part of fighting climate change? It enables people to get out of their cars, and many people do not want to carry on driving as they get older.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I do not think that is just Green Party policy, but I agree with the noble Baroness that that principle of encouraging public transport and bus use is absolutely what we need.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 16, on devolution of the railway, an issue dear to the hearts of the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is clearly an issue of concern to noble Lords on all sides, given the large number of similar amendments before us today and the debate we are having.

In my maiden speech at Second Reading, I said that there is no one model internationally—public, private or both—that is the perfect way to fund and run a railway, but I did refer to the huge success of devolved rail in London, be it the Overground or the Elizabeth line, and of Merseyrail. One of the greatest concerns I have about the Bill is that we are debating it without seeing the more substantial plan legislation and that we are, in effect, closing off options. I do not want to see devolution taken off the table as a result of this legislation, but that is what it will do. There is no room here for further devolution.

Devolution is not simply a duty to consult in order to allow locally and regionally elected members to make a few comments on the service they would like for their residents: box ticked, job done. It is about being able to run services in a way that serves the needs of local areas and communities and integrates them with other public transport, such as buses and trams. It is about empowering our devolved institutions to have some ownership and a genuine stake in delivering quality transport services locally. It is about that local accountability. That is what is so disappointing about this legislation. Instead of enabling greater local service delivery and accountability, it takes everything back to the department—a “Whitehall knows best” approach.

As a new Member of this House, I was concerned that I was missing something. Surely this Bill would not prevent further devolution supporting local and regional authorities, yet it does. The letter sent to Members by the Minister states that

“this single-purpose Bill does not affect the existing arrangements which allow Transport for London and Merseytravel to procure passenger rail services in their area. It will remain for these bodies to decide how best to deliver those services. Nor does this Bill change the existing role of other local authorities”.

The trouble is that the existing role, the status quo, is not good enough, and that is why this amendment has been tabled.

We want genuine consultation as each franchise comes up, to allow proactively for devolved bodies to come forward and say which lines they would like to run locally, and to support this. Further lines were planned to be devolved in London, such as the Great Northern line out of Moorgate, but with a change in Secretary of State, they were blocked. There are many metro rail services that run in London, such as those by South Western Railway or Southern Railway, that could easily be run by TfL and be part of that comprehensive transport offering in London, properly co-ordinated and branded as one coherent service.

In London, devolution has enabled that joined-up thinking not only on wider transport strategies but on housing and economic regeneration, alongside an additional level of accountability and increased responsiveness. In the first four years of the Overground alone, there was an 80% jump in ridership to 190 million passengers; fare evasion fell from 13% to 2%; the number of delayed trains fell by 11%; and the frequency of service increased on some lines. As we know only too well, the London Overground and the Elizabeth line are always at the top end of performance, according to the Office of Rail and Road.

Let us look outside London. Fellow noble Lords have mentioned Manchester today. Greater Manchester is set to play a key role in delivering the Government’s ambitions for economic growth. In recent years, the city region has had the highest rate of productivity growth in any part of the UK. Despite this success, there is potential to deliver more. Having a modern, fit-for-purpose rail network, integrated with other transport modes, is crucial to delivering economic growth, prosperity and opportunities.

By integrating and embedding rail into Manchester’s Bee Network, the Greater Manchester public transport system will be transformed, delivering a step change for the region. Transport for Greater Manchester and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority want to integrate eight core rail lines into the Bee Network by 2028. This is just the start of their plans: enhancing the current customer rail offer, the greater modal integration, accessibility and enhancements in performance. While this will significantly improve Greater Manchester’s transport offer, their longer-term plans for full local rail integration will require significant change. This legislation will remove full devolution of metro lines as an option. This cannot be the Government’s intention.

It is our belief that all devolved institutions should have a statutory role in specifying and directing rail outcomes and outputs, both services and infrastructure, including being able to run local services as they wish. This needs to be set out clearly in the legislation, and ensuring this strength locally and in our regions will counteract the risk of a centrally controlled service, isolated in Whitehall, not responsive or reactive to local need. We really want the Government to think again on this point. I hope the Minister can assure us in his response today.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

These are my first amendments in this new Parliament. It is a real pleasure to be speaking on transport, which is something I have always enjoyed. I am absolutely thrilled because this is the first time ever in 11 years that the opposition spokesman has signed an amendment of mine. I have four amendments signed, and I am just over the moon about that. I am so pleased that now the Conservatives are in opposition, they see the good sense in what I am saying.

The Green Party has long supported the public ownership of rail, along with other natural monopolies such as the NHS and water. We therefore support the Bill.

I have been told to say that the purpose of my amendments is to probe the Government’s plans on devolving control of the railways, but I do not really want to probe. I would just like the Minister to tell me whether or not he is going to accept my amendments. If he possibly could, I would be so pleased. It would be a highlight of my already very exciting day.

Greens are very keen on subsidiarity: making sure that ownership and power are devolved to the lowest possible and most practical level. This point seems especially important given the emerging devolution agenda. Can the Minister tell me whether rail will be involved in the devolution plans or remain the property of the UK Government, as the Bill currently sets out? My light-touch amendments would at least keep the door open to councils and combined authorities working together to run or oversee the railways within their areas.

There is hope for a public transport revolution under this Government, but the only way we will get people out of their cars and on to public transport is if it is integrated and easy for them to get from where they are to where they want to go—and then back again, perhaps much later at night.

Can the Minister please reassure me that the publicly owned rail companies will work in tandem with transport authorities all over the system to make sure that bus timetables are integrated into train timetables? How is the system being designed to ensure co-operation between different parts of the network; for example, so that buses and trains can run on linked timetables? In a conversation we had some time ago, the Minister said to me that the train line I use on a weekly basis, South Western Railway, is the worst in Britain. Could he expand on that, please? I would be interested to know how it is going to be improved.

As a Green, I would be thrilled to work with the Government on this exciting public transport agenda, and my honourable friend Siân Berry MP raised these points in the other place. I look forward to this particular Minister taking an incredibly practical view of the whole thing and making sure that he is not corralled by the Labour Government into doing things that he knows are wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister and the whole debate on the Bill, including notably those Members who have had a previous role in London’s transport. There is obviously the Minister but also the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Me?

Pedal Cycles

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, as per my registered interests. Of course we have lawless roads, which has been a concern of mine for two and a half decades or so. Some of that is cyclists, and I would not for a moment defend cyclists who break the law; in fact, I shout at cyclists whom I see breaking the law, and I hope that every noble Lord here does the same. Some of the crime is from cyclists, but the majority of the problem is car drivers.

When I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority from 2000 to 2012—before Boris Johnson scrapped it—I kept asking how our roads had got so lawless and why it had not been a priority for the senior officers running the organisation. As the Mayor of London’s road safety ambassador, I spent a lot of my time resisting proposed cuts to the traffic police and pressing for them to get more resources.

It is painfully obvious that many drivers ignore the rules, and the people who pay the price for that are often children, older people, pedestrians and cyclists. As has been said already, in 2017 there were 28,010 recorded hit and runs. That is around 77 hit and runs a day and, of those, more than two people a day were killed or left with a life-changing injury. This is not acceptable. It is a national scandal, and the way that the last Government dealt with it was to stop publishing the figures. I really hope that the new Government will end the cover-up and recognise the scale of the problem.

We have a national registration scheme for cars, but large numbers of car drivers just ignore their responsibility and the rules. Many go further and actively destroy cameras that enforce speed or air pollution rules. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said that the risk of being caught is the best way to stop this sort of lawlessness. When I was an assembly member, I used to cycle a lot and I was very careful not to get caught, because I could not have borne the publicity; I was very law-abiding. I see time and again that the best way of dealing with lawless drivers and lawless cyclists is to stop our overreliance on electronic enforcement and registration plates. We need more police out on the roads stopping people breaking the rules of the road. Let us remember that traffic police have always had a much higher arrest rate—seven times higher—than those on the beat.

For those suggesting a registration scheme for cyclists, I say that experience has shown that it would soon become impossible to enforce and the main impact would be to put another big barrier in the way of people who want a cheap, convenient, environmentally friendly and healthy way of getting around.

I very much enjoyed the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young. It is always a pleasure to agree with a Conservative Member of your Lordships’ House—and so rare. If we want a culture of safe and law-abiding cyclists, making cycling easy, safe and segregated from cars is the way to do it. We need to get more women and children on bikes in cities. That might start to embarrass any Lycra-clad men into slowing down and perhaps obeying the rules of the road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating the debate. He made a very balanced speech, much of which I agree with, although I profoundly disagree with his recommendations. I too will give him a word of advice: he should ditch the electric bike and get a proper bicycle, because it is much better for his cardiac health.

I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, closely. Some 18 years after he made his speech on cycling, I proposed the cycling safety Bill in 1993, which I am sure everybody is familiar with—perhaps not. I have been bicycling since I bicycled to school, but the Bill came after a cousin of mine was squashed by a lorry on Clapham Common. Cycling safety is what I am more interested in than much of what has been mentioned today. I cycled in today, so I am quite current in what I have to say. Like the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I was chairman of the All-Party Group for Cycling and Walking in the House of Commons, so I have pursued this for a number of years.

Cyclists used to be termed “vulnerable” road users, like pedestrians and horse riders. I see now that some cyclists, far from being vulnerable, are rather terrifying. As an old man on a bicycle, I too get scared by some of these people whizzing past. But they are still vulnerable. If you ride a bicycle—everybody here so far has said that they do—what you are terrified of is falling over or being knocked off because you will fall. If you are walking along the road you are less likely to fall a long distance, whereas a cyclist is bound to fall because he cannot regain his balance if he is knocked off.

We have heard a lot about the responsibility of cyclists, and I agree with what has been said. People need to show more care and to have more consideration. Certainly, they should not steal mobile telephones. But what about the responsibility of pedestrians? We have all talked about cars knocking people down, but the responsibility of pedestrians also needs to be considered. The number of pedestrians who step out in front of you without looking is legion.

Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I had a small altercation a few months ago, when, in my opinion—she will dispute this—she stepped straight out in front of me just as I was turning into a road. This happens all the time—I do not wish to criticise her in particular. Only this week, some girl with ear pods in stepped out straight in front of me. I was going quite slowly so it did not matter, but she is the person who would have caused the accident and who, if hit by a car, would have been damaged. So we must consider the responsibility of pedestrians.

I have a few questions for the Minister. How many motorists have been prosecuted for drawing into what I think are called cycle stop lanes? I do not think that any have been—I have asked these questions in the past. A cycle stop lane has traffic lights so that cyclists can go in front and not be endangered by cars knocking them off as they pull away. The danger to cyclists is enormous, so this debate should not be about prosecuting cyclists; it should be about considering whether pedestrians—as well as motorists, but pedestrians in particular—have responsibilities.

If you want to deter healthy cycling, you will overregulate it. We have heard how cycling has increased, so surely we all want to increase the number of people cycling, because it is good for their health and for traffic congestion. If we have insurance, extra regulations, the registration of vehicles and licensing, all that will deter people from bicycling—it makes it more difficult. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said about an easy registration system—that might be a way forward—but if you overregulate, you will yet again deter people. So let us enforce the rules that are being broken by motorists and let us ensure that, if necessary, pedestrians are prosecuted as well as cyclists—I agree on the speed limits and making it easier to prosecute a cyclist for killing somebody, of course—but let us not deter cycling.

How nice it is to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for once.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is rare.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

It is always good to do so. All vulnerable road users should take more care and show greater consideration, but we do not need lots more laws to enforce that.