Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th February 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think I will offend too many people if I say that no one could object to this amendment. Fares play an important role, but I do not think we should overemphasise the role they play. Travel West Midlands, a company with which I was involved for some years, did regular passenger surveys—largely a tick-box exercise, for obvious reasons, handed out by the driver or staff at bus stops. Funnily enough, fares never topped the list of complaints; reliability, congestion and safety all came before fares for passengers in the West Midlands. That is not to play down the impact of fares on passenger carrying, but it should be kept in perspective.

As for the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, I kept count at Second Reading, and that is 11 different reviews, reports and committees that the Conservative Party has so far advanced in the debates on this legislation. I hope that management time—or ministerial time, for that matter—can perhaps concentrate more on running effective services and less on producing reports to the demand of the Conservative Party, largely about matters that its period in office considerably worsened for the bus industry.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Effingham]

64: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Financial inclusion in public transport policies(1) Local transport authorities (LTAs) must ensure that all guidance, regulations, and policies implemented under this Act take into account the principle of financial inclusion.(2) In particular, LTAs must have due regard to—(a) the affordability of bus services for passengers on low incomes,(b) the availability of payment methods, including cash, that are accessible to all passengers, including those who do not have access to digital or contactless payment methods, and(c) measures to prevent financial barriers from excluding any groups of passengers from accessing essential bus services.(3) LTAs must publish a report every four years on steps taken to promote financial inclusion in bus services, including measures adopted to ensure access to cash payment options and affordable services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on Local Transport Authorities to prioritise financial inclusion in their public transport policies. It requires LTAs to ensure affordability and accessibility, including access to cash payment options, and mandates periodic reporting on progress.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 64 in my name. This amendment places a responsibility on local transport authorities to ensure that bus services remain accessible, not just through affordability but through the diversity of payment methods available. The reality is that different passengers have different preferences on how they want to pay. If we take rural areas, for example, we know that public transport services are often limited in these regions, and buses may be the only form of transport available. For many elderly residents in rural areas, cash is their preferred method of payment. If we remove cash payment options from bus services, we could unintentionally exclude a significant portion of the population, especially in rural and isolated areas where public transport is already sparse. This would not just inconvenience elderly passengers but severely restrict their ability to access essential services such as medical appointments, local shops and social support in the community. For these passengers, financial inclusion is about the ability to pay for their travel in a way that works for them. This amendment is not about one-size-fits-all solutions; it is about recognising that different passengers need different options. The elderly, the digitally excluded and those on lower incomes should be catered for in our transport policies. By ensuring that cash payments remain an option and that services remain affordable for all, we are creating a system that truly works for everyone, not just those who have the latest technology. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 71 and 72 in this group, with a slightly different angle on this interesting topic of payment, which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Effingham. Normally, I like to give the Government a good roasting, criticise them and explain why it is that I am so much further ahead in my ideas than they are. On this occasion, since I have tabled these amendments and made further inquiries, I am glad to say that this will be an easy ride for the Government because they are doing quite a lot on this already and things are going generally in the right direction.

My first amendment relates to the payment by concessionary fare holders, and the second relates to contactless payment. The two may seem to be roughly the same, but they are very distinct. Contactless payment using a bank card, debit card or credit card cannot be used by those who have concessionary rights to travel on the buses because, obviously, if you are going to use a card, that right has to be evidenced by some identifier.

Let me give an example: those who have a national bus pass will have a photo card of a distinctive style, with an English rose on it; I remember that that was an important feature when it was designed. It is a card of a distinctive style with your face on it, and you need it in order to demonstrate your right both to the bus driver, who probably takes no notice of what is on the card, and, certainly, to a revenue protection officer were they to board the bus and check. This cannot be done with a bank card. One therefore needs two types of technology involved, which I want to deal with separately.

In London, the system that was developed for concessionary fare holders was originally the system used for all contactless payment. This was the Oyster card technology, which is still used for concessionary card holders. That includes not just the elderly—the national bus pass people—but also those with freedom passes and young people who have free travel as well. That technology is used.

However, when the national bus pass was introduced—by Gordon Brown’s Government, as I recall—that technology was not used and the DfT preferred its own technology, which goes under the name of ITSO. TfL regarded it as rather clunky, but the fact is that TfL then had to fit all of its bus card readers with equipment that could read two separate technologies in order to read what is going on. This was a very foolish way of going about things. The purpose of Amendment 71 is to suggest that, as this matter develops, there should be a single system that is applicable to concessionary card holders.

Amendment 72 relates to contactless payment. Contactless payment is widely used in London and was promoted by TfL in collaboration with the banks. In fact, it is quite likely that the banks would never have taken the risk of introducing contactless payment into the country if it had not been for TfL turning up and saying, “We have 4 million transactions a day; if we were to get together, maybe we could make contactless work. It will de-risk it for the banks, to some extent, and will give us something even cheaper than the Oyster card system”. I mentioned it being cheaper.

We should bear in mind that the driver of this, from the bus operators’ perspective, is the cost of collection. The point I would make—I would never disagree with what my noble friend Lord Effingham says—is that inclusion is very important, but one has to remember that cash is expensive to collect. It is much less for electronic payments. Of course, you have to pay the banks, but TfL was quite lucky because it had a proposition for the banks, which meant, I think, that it could negotiate a very good deal with them in terms of what it paid per transaction. Certainly, it is much less than the cost of cash collection, or even of Oyster card operation. If you are an ordinary passenger on TfL services nowadays—not a concessionary fare holder—you must notice that all the advertising encourages you to use contactless and not to get an Oyster card at all. That is the direction in which everything is going.

Outside London, however, contactless payment is still rare. The reasons for this are partly that the different bus companies all have different back offices, and the system needs to work in such a way that it will work with all the different back offices. I am perhaps pre-empting what the Minister will say, but I am delighted to be able to say that I have had some very interesting and valuable conversations with Midlands Connect, which is the non-statutory transport body for the West Midlands and the east Midlands. On behalf of the Government, it is carrying out work to develop a system that would work with all the different back offices of the various different bus companies so that it is possible that, over time, we could have contactless payment on buses throughout the rest of the country. That would be very welcome. It would be useful if the Minister could say in his reply what the timetable for that is; how much resource the Government are putting into it; what level of priority they regard it as having; and how they will now work with the multiple LTAs up and down the country, which will be running the buses, to make sure that this is adopted in a coherent way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their amendments; I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his remarks just now. The Government know how important affordable and reliable bus services are in enabling people to access education, work and vital services. We also know that buses are particularly important for people in the lowest-income households, who make nearly twice as many bus trips as the average, and for younger people, who are much more likely to use buses than other age groups.

The Government also understand the importance of making payment methods on buses accessible and available to all. This is why we have provided guidance to local transport authorities and bus operators on developing their bus service improvement plans, which encourages both parties to work in partnership on improving the provision of fares and ticketing to ensure that the needs of all local bus users are taken into account. To this end, local transport authorities are also encouraged to capture local information about cash usage and electronic payments to inform the development of their bus service improvement plans. The bus franchising powers in the Bill will also give local authorities greater control over fares and ticketing while, through their enhanced partnership arrangements, they can work closely with bus operators to ensure that fares and ticketing policies are inclusive for passengers.

I should just add that, from my own experience as the person who was at the time responsible for the removal of cash payments from buses in London, contrary to the belief of the then mayor that it was the poorest people in London who habitually paid cash, it was completely the reverse: the poorest people in London had already worked out the value of Oyster cards and of daily, weekly and monthly ticketing. In fact, it was the ABC1 males who insisted on trying to pay the enhanced cash fare. When we withdrew it, they immediately moved to Oyster cards themselves. We have already discussed better ticketing once this afternoon, of course.

Amendment 71 looks to have integrated ticketing across the bus network; I note that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, largely took Amendments 71 and 72 together. His sentiments are right: it is good for passengers, as well as for the bus network, its operators and franchising authorities, to have the most modern methods of payment with the lowest possible transaction costs. I completely agree with him.

What we do not want is to try to force people to do things that they cannot currently do while the work in progress that the noble Earl described is going on, to make payment methods as easy as possible. He asked me for a timetable, which I am not sure I can give him, but the multiplicity of back offices across the bus and railway networks in Britain needs to be untangled, and substantial work is going on within the department to enable multimodal ticketing, particularly in Manchester and the West Midlands, outside London. The consequence of that will be—I hope in time, and as quickly as possible—to allow the back office, in the way that he wants and as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, described, to provide seamless ticketing across bus networks. That work continues, and will take some time. He is, of course, right that in London the volume of transactions was so great that the credit card companies were willing to come to the table very easily. Outside London, it is a bit different, but the department is working very hard to do it.

Since the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, rightly says that the Government are moving quite well in that direction—and he also observes, as I can confirm from observation just now, that the English national concessionary pass has the English rose on it, because mine has it on—I submit, on his own assurance that the Government are moving quite fast, that neither amendment is necessary.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the Minister, who have all contributed to this short debate. It really is critical that we ensure financial inclusion for everyone. Based on what the Minister has just said, we will look at this issue further, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 64 withdrawn.

Moved by

[The Earl of Effingham]

65: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“SEND pupils and home-to-school buses(1) In discharging their duties under this Act, local transport authorities must have due regard to the needs of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) when planning, commissioning, or providing services for home-to-school buses.(2) In particular, local transport authorities must take into account the following when providing home-to-school bus services for SEND pupils—(a) the specific travel requirements of SEND pupils, including but not limited to the provision of accessible vehicles, safe travel arrangements, and appropriate support during transit;(b) the need for flexibility in travel arrangements to accommodate the varied needs of SEND pupils, including those with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities;(c) the availability of transport options that support the inclusion of SEND pupils in mainstream education, ensuring they can access education on an equal basis with other pupils;(d) the potential for tailored travel arrangements, such as assistance with transfers, escort services, or adaptations to vehicles, to ensure the safety and comfort of SEND pupils during their journey to and from school.(3) Local transport authorities must also ensure that—(a) there is clear communication with parents, carers, and guardians of SEND pupils regarding bus transport arrangements and options available to meet their child’s specific needs;(b) where applicable, there is collaborative working between the local transport authority and educational institutions to ensure that home-to-school bus travel arrangements align with the pupil’s education plan or needs assessment.(4) The Secretary of State must, by guidance, specify further details on the best practices and requirements for local transport authorities to meet the needs of SEND pupils in the provision of home-to-school bus travel, with regard to accessibility, safety and effectiveness.(5) The Secretary of State must, every three years, publish a report on the adequacy of home-to-school bus travel provisions for SEND pupils, including any identified gaps in provision and the steps being taken to address them.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) must consider the needs of SEND pupils when arranging or overseeing home-to-school bus travel services.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I shall speak to all the amendments in this group standing in my name.

We must support our most vulnerable people, and we believe that His Majesty’s Government should prioritise SEND pupils when considering school bus services. Amendment 65 would place a vital obligation on local transport authorities to have due regard to the needs of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities when planning, commissioning or providing home-to-school bus services. We often speak in your Lordships’ House of our duty to ensure that every child has access to education, yet for many SEND pupils the journey to school is fraught with obstacles. Transport is not merely a logistical issue; it is a fundamental enabler of equality. Without suitable and reliable transport, education itself becomes inaccessible.

This amendment acknowledges a simple but often overlooked reality: that children with SEND require transport that is adapted to their needs, ensuring safety, accessibility and dignity. It is not enough to assume that standard transport provisions will be sufficient. Many of these pupils require accessible vehicles, safe and structured travel arrangements and, in some cases, specialist support during transit. Without these measures, their journey to school can be distressing, unsafe, or even impossible. Flexibility is key. The needs of SEND pupils vary widely. Some require physical adaptations, while others need assistance due to sensory sensitivities or cognitive challenges. A rigid, one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Local transport authorities must recognise the diversity of needs and build flexibility into their transport planning, ensuring that no child is left behind.

This amendment also speaks to the broader issue of inclusion. If we are to uphold the principle that SEND pupils have a right to mainstream education on an equal basis with their peers, we must ensure that they can physically access their schools. The provision of suitable transport is not an additional benefit—it is a necessity. This is not about adding burdens to local authorities; it is about embedding fairness and inclusion in our transport system. It is about ensuring that SEND pupils are a priority in our transport planning.

With Amendment 66, we must ensure that pupils attending schools outside their local transport authority’s boundary are not disadvantaged. This amendment requires LTAs to work collaboratively with neighbouring authorities to co-ordinate travel arrangements that are reasonable and accessible. Given the potential impact of franchising in certain areas, there is concern that changes to bus routes may inadvertently disrupt essential school transport services. This amendment ensures that LTAs take this issue into account when making transport decisions.

It is crucial that the Secretary of State provides guidance on co-ordinating cross-authority travel and evaluates its effectiveness at regular intervals. This will help to address any barriers preventing pupils, particularly those with SEND, accessing their education due to inadequate transport links.

Amendment 67 also comes in the context of a wider concern, which is His Majesty’s Government’s VAT on private school fees. The implementation of VAT on private school fees has caused financial strain on many families, but particularly those with SEND children. The Telegraph has reported that inconsistencies between Treasury and HMRC guidelines have resulted in some private schools having to add VAT to fees for essentials such as school lunches. Furthermore, the decision to push through the VAT levy during the academic year, without providing schools adequate time to adjust, has placed additional burdens on families. Not all SEND pupils have education, health and care plans. This means that many parents have been forced to pay transport fees out of pocket to ensure that their children’s needs are met.

We are simply asking for a review by the Secretary of State and consideration of an exemption on bus services for SEND pupils. As I said earlier, this is not about adding burdens to local authorities; it is about ensuring that SEND pupils and those who travel across authority boundaries are a priority. The Government have said they want to ensure that all children have the best chance in life to succeed—and that is, of course, absolutely correct. Fairness should extend to all pupils, particularly those with SEND, regardless of where they receive their education.

On Amendment 68, please let me highlight the critical issue raised in this amendment, which seeks to review the impact of national insurance contribution increases on transport services for those children with special educational needs and disabilities. The proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions will create a serious financial strain on private bus operators that provide SEND transport services. Many of those providers already work within narrow financial margins, and the increase in employment costs will likely make it financially unsustainable for some of them to continue offering their essential services.

The Confederation of Passenger Transport has estimated that this will cost the bus industry a total of £100 million. For a bus driver earning £30,000 per annum, the additional cost will be approximately £800 per year. This is a significant burden for small and medium-sized private operators, many of which already struggle to remain profitable in an industry with tight margins. If these private providers can no longer afford to maintain SEND bus services, local councils will be forced to step in, which means they will need to retender thousands of contracts—an administrative process that could take months. Delays in retendering would cause disruption to transport services, leaving vulnerable children without the critical support that they need to attend school. Such delays could also affect the quality of services, as new providers may not be able to offer the same level of expertise or flexibility that the private operators previously provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I was referring to support to local authorities for home-to-school transport schemes. I will take that away and come back to him with the clarification that he seeks in this respect. I can say that the Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment as the amendment suggests. I do not think that it is required.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, my noble friend Lord Moylan, and the Minister for their contributions in this debate. We have heard so much in the Chamber about how SEND pupils may be adversely affected by various new government policies, so we feel that a review, or an impact assessment as per these assessments, is a fair and reasonable request. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Amendment 65 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Well, that is a very serious rebuke on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I nearly wilted and decided to curtail my speech as a result of that intervention, but I have found the strength to continue. I remind the noble Lord that there is no question of time being spun out here. We are in day three of a four-day Committee, and we are very likely to finish the Committee today. We are going at rapid speed, and any suggestion that any member of this Committee has been using the time to spin out the debate is preposterous and is denied by the facts, so I will return to what I was saying.

This was the purpose of the traffic commissioners; they were set up for that purpose. So we come to 1985. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, considers 1985 an historical date or one that is part of the modern and contemporary world; for me, it is fairly contemporary, but I would not want to comment on the noble Lord’s age or experience of these matters. Of course, in 1985, all those functions in relation to buses were taken away from the traffic commissioners. By then—this is important—they had acquired functions in relation to the freight industry, as well as certain safety functions on top of that, so there was a reason for continuing the traffic commissioners then.

The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, will have noted, in his careful scrutiny of my amendment, as will have other noble Lords, that it refers only to the bus functions of the traffic commissioners. There is nothing here that would abolish them entirely. That is a pity, in my view, but I was advised by the Public Bill Office that an attempt to abolish them entirely would be outside the scope of the Bill.

The commissioners survived 1985, although there was really very little need for them. The Government are returning to a sort of 1920s view of how buses should be run in the Bill before us, but not giving the same functions back to the traffic commissioners. The decisions about where the routes should run, who should have a special licence and what the fares should be will in effect fall to the local transport authority, not the traffic commissioners, but they are to continue. Their functions include enforcement on safety matters, yet their budget for that is derisory and, effectively, there is very little enforcement. A lot of that work is done, in relation to freight at least, by the DVSA and not by the traffic commissioners.

Generally, it would be a good time to have a bit of a clear out of the bureaucracy that encrusts our modern society. I would like to see the traffic commissioners go entirely and what functions they have transferred to the Department for Transport, but the proposal today, for scope reasons, as I said, is slightly more modest. I do not expect the Minister to accept it, but it is a proposal that those of us here in Committee with a slightly more revolutionary spirit—I am sorry that does not include the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, or maybe it does; we shall hear when he comes to speak—should embrace to see some real change, at last, at the seat of government.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might briefly address one of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I was present in the Chamber, as I frequently am, during the Football Governance Bill. I appreciate that he might not be that interested in the difference between the crests and the arms, but the College of Arms is run by my noble kinsman His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, and I can tell him that the argument put forward as between crest and arms is relevant and has implications. It is important to realise that. He may well want to look into it; I am happy to explain to him why it is important, if he is interested.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the imminence of the recess suggests to me that I should not challenge the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his knowledge of the history of the traffic commissioners, but I will do that over a drink some time. I am less interested in the development of the Road Traffic Act 1930, or indeed the Transport Act 1985, than I am in the future of the bus service in the 2020s.

Traffic commissioners play an important and strategic role in the transport sector and, these days—principally but not wholly—in road use safety. I certainly refute completely any suggestion that there is an absence of enforcement; the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency does that. Traffic commissioners are an admirably economic and cost-effective way of dispensing justice to bus operators and bus drivers—those who are licensed to provide these important and, indeed, safe services—in a way that is widely celebrated in the industry and regarded as far more effective than any other solution. Indeed, the independent review of the traffic commissioner function undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, published in May 2023, found that

“the Traffic Commissioner function generally operates effectively”

and noted a strong level of support from the industry for functions continuing to sit with the traffic commissioner. The truth is that for a regulatory arrangement to be so widely celebrated by the industry it regulates is something to be celebrated, rather than abolished.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Effingham]

82: Clause 30, page 31, line 9, at end insert “, subject to subsection (4A).
(4A) Sections 1 to 15 may not come into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament the report required by section (Impact assessment on rural areas).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment combined with another ensures that the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the impact of sections 1 to 15 on rural areas before they come into force.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I am aware that we have already discussed various aspects of this amendment in the debates, so I will be brief. Before we move forward with significant changes to our bus services, we think it very important to pause and ask: what will this mean for rural communities? That is precisely why this amendment is so important. It would ensure that before Clauses 1 to 15 of the Bill take effect, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the impact on rural areas.

This report is not about delaying progress; it is about ensuring informed progress. We need to understand whether these reforms will improve rural connectivity or unintentionally make services even harder to access. Will funding be allocated fairly? Will small operators that serve rural routes still be viable? Will local authorities have the powers and resources needed to support these services? These are critical questions that must be answered before the Bill comes into force. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his remarks on Amendment 82. I also thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and all other noble Lords for the issues they have raised in Committee. I have found the exchanges useful in discussing the purpose of the Bill and considering issues raised across your Lordships’ Committee. The Bill reflects how important it is to improve local buses for passengers across the country, including those who are woefully underserved in rural areas. Throughout this process, the needs of people living and working in and visiting rural areas have been integral to policy development.

Government officials have worked hard to publish a thorough and comprehensive impact assessment that has been rated green by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. The assessment covers every one of the Bill’s measures in detail, including in the context of rural areas, so I am afraid I would struggle to justify why a further duplicate assessment is required. Although the noble Earl says this is not about delay, the amendment would have the potential to delay progress on the Bill and therefore to delay its introduction in areas that need its provisions.

It is important to remember that the freedoms allowed by the Bill to franchise and set up a local authority bus company are entirely optional. These powers simply give local transport authorities more choices in how their bus networks are operated. If a rural authority decides to establish a local authority bus company, it will have the flexibility to scale the company to match the needs of its local passengers, its ambitions for the network and the available funding. Additionally, it is important to highlight that the Government have allocated funding to build LTA capacity and capability on buses, including, but not limited to, the Bus Centre of Excellence. They also plan to pilot different franchising models that may be particularly suited to rural areas.

I conclude my remarks there, and once again thank all noble Lords for the excellent debates across the days we have shared in Grand Committee. I look forward to further debate on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Berkeley, whose amendments in the first group were relevant to my amendment. I do not think we need to discuss further and, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 82 withdrawn.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[The Earl of Effingham]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance 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.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

[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.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak only briefly, but I want to raise a particular point with the Minister on which I would like his clarification. What I would say to the noble Baroness who has just spoken is that, having just arrived in this place from the House of Commons, I find it noticeable that the depth of scrutiny of Bills seems to be rather deeper here. In many ways, as a former MP, I regret that, as it should not be like that. It is important that legislation is scrutinised carefully and questions are asked. I think that this House plays a very important role in ensuring that legislation is as good as it possibly can be.

The issue I have to raise with the Minister is the reason I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I worry that ideology may sometimes get in the way of good service. I know that it would not happen in his case—I have the highest respect for the Minister—but I can quote one or two other examples in government, the future of academies, for example, where ideology seems to be treading on the toes of what is best for young people. I would not wish that to happen in the area of transport and buses, and I have misgivings about the Government’s plans to allow the setting-up of municipal bus companies. There is no obvious mechanism to ensure that there is a high-quality case for doing so.

I have also been quite worried about a simple principle. One of the things that has always attracted me to deregulation is the ability of an individual or a group of individuals to decide that the firm they work for is not doing a good job, so they will set one up in competition and do a better job themselves. I see no real reason why a simple clause such as this that places a duty on not just the Minister personally but those who work for him to ensure that the decisions they take, the interactions they have and the things that follow through from this legislation deliver high-quality, better bus services and are not just there for ideological reasons.

My noble friend mentioned London and the concern that certainly exists outside London. What makes London distinctive in bus terms is that it is vastly more subsidised than any other part of the country. I remember as Secretary of State being surprised to discover the level of discrepancy. What we all want is the best possible service. That is why I relaxed the franchising rules five years ago. I cannot see the objection to a simple clause that places a duty on the Minister and the teams who work for him to ensure that every decision taken is the best one for the passenger.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the first group of amendments relates to the Bill’s purpose. At Second Reading, I set out the need for this Bill and explained why the Government are taking action to transform bus services across England. The Bill provides new powers for local leaders, so that local communities in England have greater control over bus routes and schedules. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their amendment and the opportunity to revisit the Government’s objectives.

Amendment 1 would place a direct requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to improving the performance and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain—in fact, it would make this the statutory purpose of the Bill. I absolutely support the reasons why noble Lords have drafted this amendment: they, too, want to achieve a better bus network that is more reliable and performs well. That is a shared goal. The reason we are here debating this important legislation is to reform the industry.

I recognise the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, about the KPMG report, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, about the benefits of buses to individuals and communities, as well as the inadequacies of the current arrangements. However, I am bound to disagree with the assertion that there is no evidence for the Government’s approach. There is plenty of evidence, some of which we have already talked about, such as the improvements in Manchester and elsewhere, including Cornwall, which is not a large conurbation. I also disagree with the assertion that there is public good and private bad in here. This is a very large menu of choices for local transport authorities. It is certainly not one size fits all.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, observed, during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Gascoigne, tabled a very similar amendment. It sought to insert a purpose clause setting out improvement of passenger railway services as the purpose of that Act. At the time, I explained that the Secretary of State’s and the Government’s wider plans and objectives for the rail network included improving performance but noted that this was not the sole purpose. I offer the Committee the same rationale for this Bill. The amendment to the public ownership Bill was not carried.

Of course the objectives of this Bill include improving reliability and performance. They are important aims, but the Bill seeks to do more. It seeks to improve safety and accessibility, to provide local leaders with the powers to make the right decisions for their local areas, to support reaching net zero and to put passengers at the heart of the Government’s reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, was kind enough to suggest that I would not let ideology triumph over the right solutions. In this case, the Government are not doing that, either.

The Bill contains a range of solutions for local bus issues, which allow local choices for the best solutions and would recognise, in appropriate cases, both the adequate provision of bus services by their existing means, with commercial operators, and the range of solutions, including both large and small operators. To single out one objective would undermine the message that the Government are trying to convey to local authorities, passengers, operators and the wider industry. Thus, I do not support the proposal.

Extending this requirement across Great Britain also presents significant difficulties. The Committee will have noted that most of this Bill extends to England and Wales but applies only in England, with a limited number of clauses that extend and apply to Wales and/or Scotland. In tabling Amendment 1, noble Lords appear to be seeking to apply all the Bill’s measures across the whole of Great Britain. That would raise the potential of cutting across the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Governments to decide how to run their own bus networks and what is best for their local communities. That would not be the right approach. It would mean the UK Government interfering in policy areas where the devolved Administrations categorically do not want that. It also potentially undermines their reform agendas; as some noble Lords will be aware, the Welsh Government are due to introduce their own Bill into the Senedd in the coming months, as they seek to introduce bus franchising.

This amendment would also have significant ramifications on time and resources. Local transport is devolved, so legislative consent Motions would be required. That would potentially slow down the passage of the Bill and the pace of the Government’s reforms, which would be a bad outcome for passengers, who desperately need better bus services now, for the reasons set out by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness earlier. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not want this outcome and therefore hope that this amendment will be withdrawn.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, but I cannot hide the fact that we are disappointed. The former Secretary of State for Transport in the other place, Louise Haigh, stated:

“Reliable, affordable and regular buses are the difference between opportunity and isolation for millions of people across the country”.


She went on to pledge that a Labour Government would empower every community

“to take back control of their bus services, and … support local leaders to deliver better buses, faster”.

Action speaks louder than words and we must see follow- up. That is why we must ensure that the Bill lives up to the expectations of those who rely on bus services every single day.

Promises will do little to help the millions who depend on reliable transport. They need tangible improvements and accountability to be enshrined in this legislation. I believe that placing this explicit duty on the Secretary of State would provide a valuable guiding principle throughout the Bill’s implementation. It would ensure that every step taken under the Bill would be aligned with the objective of improving bus services for all those who rely on them.

I remind all noble Lords that paragraph 1 of the Government’s Explanatory Notes for this Bill states:

“The Bus Services … Bill brings forward primary legislative measures intended to support the government’s commitment to deliver better buses”.


Please may I ask: what better way is there to show commitment to passengers than by committing to this amendment? If the Government do not feel that this purpose clause is necessary for the Bill, can the Minister please explain how they will make clear their wholesale commitment to passengers across the board? On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Avanti West Coast

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Indeed, I have discussed with him and others the rather too frequent regularity of cancellations north of Preston. I will not reiterate what I have just said about the effects of the storms last week. There have been other occasions when the railway infrastructure has not been up to withstanding the weather and storms. However, I agree with my noble friend, as I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that one expectation of those who run railway services for the department is that there should be sufficient resilience in what they do to cater for the exigencies of normal operation. It is this that I will be discussing in some detail with Avanti and Network Rail on Friday.

In respect of the future renewal and upgrade of the west coat main line north of Preston, the news that was in the papers in the past few days is premature because it was Network Rail’s proposition to renew the overhead wires between Preston and the Scottish border. The arrangements are not yet agreed, and the release of that information to the public—I think by one of the train operators—was premature. That was industry’s consultation, and there will be more to be said about it at a future date.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I would simply like to ask the Minister exactly the same question that many of his own noble friends felt it was fair and reasonable to ask us when we were working hard to solve the Avanti issue. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked:

“What will it take for the Government to do their job and relieve Avanti of any responsibility for being involved in our railway system?”.—[Official Report, 26/10/22; col. 1527.]


The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked:

“Why have the Government not acted, as a decisive Government would, and withdrawn the franchise from these disastrous operators?”.—[Official Report, 1/12/22; col. 1947.]


Finally, the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked

“why the Government are not doing something immediately to end this shambles and outrage on one of our country’s major lines?”.—[Official Report, 7/9/22; col. 261.]

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The answer to those questions is that the contract that these people have been given does not allow the withdrawal of the franchise for performance that many people in this House think is lamentable. Of course, the other action that the previous Government took was to allow Avanti to offer an extraordinary amount of money—£600 to drivers working rest days—which has been the subject of much criticism ever since, particularly recently, but is rarely attributed to the previous Government’s action in allowing Avanti to pay it.

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this statutory instrument, which amends airport slots. I thank the civil servants who spoke to me on Friday to provide more detail to the background, and the Minister for the opening statement. Put simply, these slots provide the permission to use airport infrastructure on a specific date and time for take-off or landing, and they apply, as the Minister has outlined, to congested airports in the UK only.

The first change is logical—it is putting in place rules to cover scenarios such as a pandemic. Slot alleviation was granted on a temporary basis during Covid to prevent flights running empty in order that airlines could keep their slots. These new rules would cover any government-imposed measures whereby passenger travel would be significantly reduced. I am pleased to read that nine out of 10 respondents supported this, and it makes clear sense. Perhaps the Minister could advise whether this is something that is also being implemented in the EU or in other countries post pandemic.

The second area is an amendment to the definition of a new entrant carrier from an airline that has fewer than five slots at an airport on a day to one that has seven. My key question when reading the statutory instrument was where the demand has come from to raise this number to seven. Why do the Government want to make this change? I could not see anywhere that the airline industry was clamouring for it. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that

“some respondents felt that the suggested change to fewer than seven slots was too small to have a tangible effect on competition and wanted a higher threshold”.

What conversations has the department had with the airline industry? Is there any consensus or appetite for the definition of a new entrant carrier to include a higher number of slots?

Conversely, is there a concern that while raising the slot threshold to seven could make it easier for new entrants, it might also limit opportunities for smaller carriers? Surely we need to ensure safeguards and encourage broader market diversity. Perhaps the Minister can clarify how the Government will ensure that the allocation of slots increases choice for passengers.

What conversations has the department had with the EU about its plans in this area? While I understand that this change would bring UK legislation in line with international guidelines, which were updated in 2020, in these areas it is often sensible to be aligned with our nearest neighbours, and it would be good to understand where the EU is in this particular field. In my view, it is not an area where divergence is necessarily needed.

I would appreciate some responses from the Minister to these questions—but, overall, the statutory instrument is acceptable in its current form.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I reiterate the words of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Many years ago I used to do business with National Air Traffic Services. As noble Lords have highlighted, that body does an excellent job—often in the background, but it plays a crucial role.

The regulation of airport slot allocation is an important aspect of maintaining the efficient operation of the UK’s busiest airports, which are often constrained by capacity. This statutory instrument implements measures raised in the previous Government’s consultation on airport slot allocation.

In line with the International Air Transport Association’s guidelines, the core objective of airport slot co-ordination is to optimise the use of available airport infrastructure, benefiting consumers and industry alike. Airport slots are allocated by independent co-ordinators to airlines for their planned operations, particularly at level 3 airports such as London Heathrow, London Gatwick and others where demand consistently exceeds available capacity.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. We look forward to working constructively with him to improve this Bill, alongside my noble friend Lord Moylan, who will be leading for His Majesty’s Official Opposition.

I hope noble Lords will allow me to say this. Given that this is the second bus services Bill introduced in this Parliament so far, it seems right that you wait a while for one, and then two come along at the same time.

The Bill’s primary goal is to deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to give new powers for local leaders to franchise local bus services. It gives local authorities the ability to run and own their own bus companies. In the manifesto, these measures are presented as a reaction to higher fares, routes disappearing and unreliable services. It is therefore only right and proper that we hold the Government to account on exactly how these new powers will address those issues directly. We have concerns that the Government are taking an ideological approach to public transport reform without considering more pragmatic ways to deliver the improvements that are needed. We will also seek to explore whether local authorities have the skills and experience in place to franchise bus services effectively and the appropriate funding to do so.

There is also the question of oversight. In government, we retained the Department for Transport’s oversight of local bus franchising, and we will seek to understand why the Government feel it necessary to remove these existing oversight mechanisms.

The Bill includes a whole range of measures changing the way our bus services work nationally. Whether it be zero-emissions buses, safeguarding rules for school bus services or mandatory training for drivers, we will scrutinise the provisions of the Bill closely to ensure that it will really deliver the improvements we need to see for passengers who are reliant on their bus service.

The previous Conservative Government had an excellent record of backing our bus services and we have long recognised the importance of bus services for poorly connected rural communities, as well as the crucial role the services have to play in the growth and prosperity of cities such as Manchester.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Can he tell us all the great advantages to the bus industry brought about under the last Conservative Government? Can he give the House the figures of the decline in passenger carrying in the bus industry over the 14 years they were in power?

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

If the noble Lord, Lord Snape, will allow me to continue, I can tell him that under our watch we invested a record £3.5 billion into the bus network to support the post-Covid recovery with that critical lifeline. In answer to his question, we delivered the fantastic “Get Around for £2” scheme, nationally backed by hundreds of millions of pounds. That scheme is a testament to the previous Conservative Government’s commitment to support our bus network as it recovered from the dreadful effects of the pandemic.

Let me also tell the noble Lord that it is impossible for us to hide our disappointment that this Government announced last year that bus fares would increase by 50% as of 1 January this year. That was a choice by this Government that will hit millions of hard-working people across the country.

We also led the way on bus franchising, taking a pragmatic approach while retaining the appropriate government oversight. Our Bus Services Act 2017 gave many local authorities the power to adopt a franchising model, as well as establishing enhanced partnerships.

It was the Conservative Government who gave a mayoral authority area such as Greater Manchester the go-ahead to establish its own bus services, which are now part of the Bee Network. It was the Conservative Government who provided more than £1 billion of central government funding to support the establishment of the Bee Network.

In contrast to our approach, the current Administration have tied themselves to a position in the manifesto that we would summarise as, “There are problems with our bus network; franchising will fix it”. We disagree. While franchising may be appropriate in areas such as Greater Manchester or Greater London, it may not be appropriate elsewhere.

The Bill reads as though it has been written by individuals who are not entirely familiar with rural and non-metropolitan areas. Given that franchising is not appropriate in every case, we believe there must be oversight and will seek to explore this in Committee.

Under the Bill, the key players in the Government’s bus policy will now be local authority executives. We pay tribute to every single one of the excellent councillors who work tirelessly for their communities across the country. But many of those councillors will tell you that their authority does not have the skills or necessary funding to run its own bus company. Speaking in the Local Government Chronicle last year, Andrew Carter, the chief executive of Centre for Cities, welcomed franchising powers for cities but flagged that having money to run the bus services is “crucial”.

As we have already highlighted, Greater Manchester received more than £1 billion of central government funding to set up the Bee Network. The bus funding announcement at the end of last year delivered just £1 billion for the whole country.

During the passage of the Bill, we will scrutinise the resources and skills that local authorities have at their disposal to establish whether the Government have put the right measures in place to help those authorities deliver the promised improvements in services. We are also keen to hear the government plans for bus services in areas that decide against taking advantage of franchising powers. Local people deserve better-value services, regardless of the model of provision their local leaders have chosen. The issue of local government funding links into the cost of franchising. We know from areas that already operate franchising models that this is a costly business, with London subsidising its bus network heavily. My noble friend Lord Moylan will speak about that in more detail than I can here, but it is critical that the Government accept this and put the right level of financial support in place if their “franchising first” approach is to be successful.

The Bill includes measures on transparency and accessibility of data on services and performance, enforcement powers on fare evasion and anti-social behaviour. It also seeks to improve bus stops and bus stations for disabled people. By what date will the Minister commit to improving bus stops? Surveys suggest that almost a quarter of people are put off taking the bus because shelters are inadequate.

The Bill mandates enhanced criminal record checks for drivers on school services, as well as regular training for bus drivers and other staff on disability, tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.

The Bill includes provisions to restrict the use of new non-zero emission buses on registered local bus services at some point after 1 January 2030. How can the Minister ensure that we will not see a recurrence of the recent report of electric buses in Glasgow grinding to a halt as the cold weather drains their batteries, or the almost 1,800 electric buses recalled from fleets in major cities last year because of fears they could catch fire if unattended?

The above items are not manifesto commitments for the Government, and the scope of the Bill is wide in these areas. We intend to probe the Government’s plans surgically because we want to ensure that local authorities, bus operators and the public at large can hear more on exactly how the Government intend to proceed. Where issues arise, we will seek to improve those elements of the Bill as part of a collaborative and constructive approach to its scrutiny.

As I said at the start, His Majesty’s Official Opposition have long recognised the critical nature of our bus services. We will do everything we can to deliver improved services. We will approach the Bill with a one team ethos, challenging the Government where it is logical and sensible and, crucially, where the passenger benefits. We will probe the plans as fully as possible so that together we can send an improved Bill on to the other place.