Thank you, Chair. This group of amendments concerns the provisions relating to local bus service contracts. I begin with the first amendment in this group, which is, very neatly, amendment 1. The Bill states that local bus service contracts can only be awarded to operators who hold a community bus permit or a public service vehicle operator’s licence. The Bill requires that, where a local bus service contract is entered into in respect of a community bus service, the contract must require that the service is provided as a community bus service and that each vehicle used in providing the service is used under and in accordance with a community bus permit. I do ask Members to support amendment 1 as it is a minor amendment to the language in section 9, to reflect the fact that operators may hold more than one community bus permit.
Amendment 2 ensures that an operator with a suspended PSV operator’s licence will not qualify as 'a person holding a PSV operator’s licence' for the purposes of section 9(3)(b), and will therefore not be able to enter into a local bus service contract. If an operator’s licence has been suspended, it is because they have done something in contravention of the licence. It's important that we ensure that we are only awarding contracts to operators who demonstrate they can offer safe, responsible transport in Wales. This is why I encourage Members to vote to accept this amendment.
I recommend that Members do not accept amendment 35. We don’t think the amendment is necessary in view of existing procurement legislation that would apply to the Welsh Ministers in respect of supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in procurement. The Procurement Act 2023, which will apply to contracts issued under this Bill, requires consideration of whether barriers to participation for SMEs can be removed or reduced when procurement is carried out. That Act also requires that contracting authorities must consider whether services could be supplied under more than one contract and whether contracts could be awarded by reference to lots. Amendment 35 appears to cover very similar ground to this and would likely result in unnecessary duplication of existing statutory provision.
Moving on to amendment 66, we have been clear that we want to see existing publicly owned bus companies continue to play an important role in the delivery of bus services, just as we see an ongoing role for SMEs, larger operators, and, indeed, community transport providers. I do understand the intention behind this amendment. However, I do not think it will deliver the protections it seeks to secure for the two existing municipal bus companies. It is also important to point out that, if this amendment was accepted, further provisions in the Bill would likely be required to achieve the aim behind the amendment, which would be very difficult to achieve within the time we have available. Therefore, I ask the committee to reject the amendment. However, in order to reassure Members, TfW, on behalf of Welsh Ministers, have been engaging with the relevant local authorities about options regarding an ongoing role for Cardiff Bus and Newport Transport in the delivery of bus services. We are very happy to speak to the Member about our plans in this respect, but, in the meantime, I would urge the committee to reject the amendment.
Turning to amendments 67 and 68, I do not believe these amendments are required because they are covered by matters already included in the list in subsection 10(2)(h) 'vehicles' and (p) 'facilities and amenities to be made available to any person'. Moreover, the list included under section 10(2) is not exhaustive. Therefore, there is scope for matters that are not expressly listed in that subsection to be included in the regulations made under section 10(2). Adding more detail to the list, in particular when they are already covered, may reduce the effect of including the wording 'among others', and, therefore, limit the Welsh Ministers' ability to include pertinent matters as needed in the regulations.
Similarly, I do not believe amendment 36, which inserts the wording 'payment methods' into section 10(2)(k), is required because the matter is already covered by the wording in that paragraph, i.e.,
'ticketing, fares, and how entitlement to travel may be evidenced'.
Whilst I understand the intention behind the amendment, I can assure you that officials are working with TfW to ensure that both cash and electronic methods of payment will be accepted onboard Welsh local bus services.
Then, Chair, moving on to amendment 49, which seeks to amend section 10(2)(l) by adding that education and training should include education and training on disability, I fully support the idea behind this amendment but feel it is entirely unnecessary. This matter is already covered by the wording in paragraph (l) 'education and training'. As I’ve said previously, the list is not exhaustive and is a guide to what may be included in the regulations.
I would also draw your attention to sections 35 and 36 of the UK Government’s recent Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which apply to bus services in Wales and place requirements on operators to ensure that their drivers and other personnel dealing directly with passengers receive disability training. Those clauses also impose requirements to keep records or publish statistics to monitor compliance. With these in mind, I would urge Members to reject this amendment.
And then, amendment 50 seeks to include in the list under subsection 10(2) a stipulation around providing information in accessible formats. The Welsh Ministers will ultimately be responsible for providing information to the public under section 27. The regulations made under this provision will set out how this is to be done, including the format the information should be made available in. The intention is that those regulations will specify that information, similar to that sought by the amendment, must be published in an accessible format, including in hard copy and electronic format. I can say more on this when we get to group 11 on information and data. Again, whilst I entirely support the intent behind this amendment, this is already covered in Part 4 of the Bill and I therefore advise committee to reject this amendment.
Amendment 51 seeks to add in 'accessibility standards' to the list of provisions that may be specified in regulations under section 10 about terms that must be included in local bus service contracts. Again, I understand the aim behind this amendment, but I urge the committee not to vote for this amendment. The list in section 10(2) of the Bill already enables provision to be included in regulations about compliance with statutory requirements. The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000, which apply to certain operators, require vehicles to meet general and wheelchair accessibility standards, for example, around wheelchair spaces, ramps and priority seating, and make provision about the display of markings, signs, route numbers and destinations. So, although I do believe that local bus service operators should address accessibility standards, I am happy to say that the Bill already provides for this and I therefore recommend that this amendment is rejected. Diolch.