National Assembly for Wales

Thank you. First off, it's great to be back here in Cardiff, and thank you for the warm welcome from colleagues and the clerks. Hopefully, yes, we'll give some perspectives on the legislation today.

In terms of your question about views on the Bill, I think, overall, with what the overall premise of what the Cabinet Secretary wants to achieve is, the Bill, although quite light—I don't think it's a hugely long Bill—broadly seems to set out some of the key tenets that they want to do. I think, in the Bill, it talks about—which is quite different to what was in the English Bill initially—the Welsh bus network plan, which I think is actually quite helpful, in terms of almost framing and setting some of the broader parameters that they wish to achieve for reforming buses across the nation. So, yes, I think, in a broad sense, the Bill as written, although quite light, does seem to achieve broadly what the ambitions are for reforming bus services.

Thank you. Matt, any general reflections?

Yes. Firstly, I echo Jason's comments about the warm welcome, and it's really good to be here. Obviously, the approach here is slightly different to the one that we're used to in England, and the policy choice, I guess, has been made around bus services and around franchising, and this is really about how that's then enacted. I think I'd echo the comments that it's quite light, and I think some of the detail that may come through in regulations may help to clarify some of those points. I think, in terms of deliverability, there's a lot there and a lot to do, and I think quite an aggressive potential timescale. I think that may be just something that the committee may wish to reflect on, in terms of the sheer volume of work, and, having been through and going through that process, I think one not to be underestimated.

Excellent, thank you. Yes, and the balance between the framework Bill and what's in the regulation is something that we've more than touched on. Yes, if you want to come in now.

You said it's light. So, do you think it's good to be light on the face of the Bill? Because, sometimes, as you try to deliver the Bill, things happen and there's realisation regarding who's best placed to deliver certain elements. Just your views on that.

I think that's a—. Sorry.

The mikes are automatically turned on.

Oh, are they? All right. I think that's a really good question. So, I had the benefit, in hindsight, of working on the first piece of English legislation, the 2017 Act, and what's happened, what we've acknowledged, or what's been acknowledged by Government, since then—and obviously they've brought a further, No. 2 Bill, which is going through Parliament—is actually that Bill was probably overly prescriptive in some ways, and overly detailed. As greater Manchester being the first mover in franchising, it didn't hinder them, because they've obviously been successful in rolling out a network, but, in some ways, it added probably a little bit more bureaucracy into the process, which need not be there. So, I think, looking at the Welsh Bill, and going through it again yesterday on the train down, it is advantageous in some ways to have a broader, a little bit more of a lighter framework, so that, for example, Transport for Wales may not get tied up in knots about having to understand the legislation, have extra burdens put on them or extra weight put on them about how to interpret particular language in what will become an Act. But it is exactly as Matt said: as an enabling Bill, it is ensuring, as a committee, that subsequent legislation, subsequent statutory instruments et cetera, do fit with the intent of the overall framework. So hopefully that is helpful in terms of learning from what the original Act was, the English Bill in 2017.

Yes, because there is quite an extensive process, isn't there, in the English Bill in terms of consultation and developing a business case et cetera. Is there value in that? Maybe the suggestion is it is too onerous, but that is not to say that it is not useful. Is that fair? 

I think you can look at it in two ways. I think the English legislation is quite burdensome, going through the process, but I would say the process is really clear, so it is not open to a lot of interpretation. The steps are quite clear; there’s just a lot of them, and the steps are quite complicated. I would say, because you mentioned consultation, and I have been through two bus franchising consultations, and actually, although it is quite a significant undertaking, it is quite a valuable exercise in terms of really understanding what it is the people of, in our case, South Yorkshire want from their bus network, what they think about the current provision, and really gathering a lot of valuable, detailed information from the statutory stakeholders that are part of that process. So I found that element of things to be quite a useful part of the process.

Thank you. Janet, we'll come to you.

Thank you. The Bill takes a fundamentally different approach to bus reform than the Bill that was introduced and subsequently withdrawn in 2020. What are your views on this, particularly in relation to the fact that the current Bill does not include an option for an enhanced partnership approach? 

It is a very different Bill, but my sense from reading it—. Because initially the 2020 Bill offered Welsh partnership schemes and Welsh franchising schemes. I think what we see now in this Bill probably recognises much more clearly the policy direction that the Government wish to take. So, as stand-alone legislation, I think it does exactly what they want to achieve.

Is it enough?

Is it enough? I would say for what they have set out and what their ambition is, probably yes, because they have been quite clear about the journey that they see for bus reform. I think it does almost make sense that what they want to do and where they see buses as becoming part of, overall, the one network, one timetable, one ticket offer, I would say that the Bill will help achieve what they feel is a policy objective. That is not to say a future administration might look differently. They may wish to update the legislation, but I think from where we are now, I feel the Bill probably fits with what their overall plan is as an objective.

Do you mind if I come in? Just to underline, in the previous Bill, local authorities were going to be franchising, whereas now it is Welsh Ministers. Do you have any thoughts particularly on that? Do you think that that is better? 

I think the only analogy with the English Bill is that the power to franchise actually rests with the mayor, with the political lead. So there is a very clear analogy in terms of it is a political figurehead who makes the decision to move forward with franchising. Personally, I understand that system. I have seen it work. We have seen it work and implement in that way in England. I would not be overly concerned by that, given there is already an alignment in how that works across the border.

I think in that context, the lack of an EP option therefore makes sense, because having two different potential models with Ministers making the decisions across both of those does not feel like it is a sensible approach. So, I think in that context, we understand why the enhanced partnership is not included. 

And we might come back to political accountability later on, given that you've mentioned that. 

The Bill does not include any provision for statutory guidance. The Cabinet Secretary has explained that he's taken the view that non-statutory guidance will be sufficient. Do you agree? Are there any areas where guidance, statutory or otherwise, would be welcome? 

Guidance always is a very important topic; it's something we're living through quite live at the moment—

In terms of the risk of legal challenge as well. 

As I see it, this is an untested approach that has been taken by the Welsh Government, and I admire the courage that they're doing that to fulfill their objectives. But, as with anything, I think maybe a bit more information on certain aspects would not be unhelpful. We found guidance really important coming to the implementation, although it comes back to the previous point that there is a very different—. In England, it was enhanced partnerships and franchising. Because there's a much clearer direction here and the policy direction, I can see there probably may not be the overall need as you do in England to make some of that differentiation. But I'm confident that it would work. I'm confident that they're working on further guidance, but, as with anything, given it is so untested, a bit more information probably to stakeholders might not be unhelpful. 

Can you outline any concerns about the affordability of the Bill? The Cabinet Secretary said there is scope to get more from current funding under franchising. Do you agree in light of your own experiences elsewhere? 

Matt, do you want to come in on this one? 

Yes, certainly. One of the things that we found when looking at this was that you can be more efficient with the funding that goes into the bus system when it's deployed through one guiding mind. An example of that would be bus services that are secured through contract through the public sector, which are often loss making or services around the fringes; the ability to be able to put those together with more commercially successful routes and package those up. I think the evidence from Manchester suggests that you get better value for those services, and it allows the more commercially successful ones to offset some of the the loss-making ones.

Similarly, the money that goes into the system through zero emission bus funding or concessions; the ability to pool those funding sources and deploy them looking at the system in the round certainly gives that potential for more efficient use of public funding. What I would say is that running bus services isn't as commercially attractive now as it was maybe 10, 15 years ago. It will cost money to deliver bus services and particularly to improve bus services. So, I think that balance between the more efficient use of funding, but the fact that bus services are going to cost money, is definitely one to be considering. 

Julie can come in first and then we'll come to Jason. 

Obviously, the efficiency bit can bring in more money, but we were told in Manchester that the franchising had brought in many more passengers. So, do you want to comment on that as an additional source?

The evidence from Manchester does suggest more passengers, more revenue, and there are a few drivers, I think, behind that. One is that there is more resource that's gone into the network to boost services, to make services more punctual and reliable. There's been a lot of investment in new buses. There's been the creation of one much more straightforward-to-understand bus system. I think those elements of franchising have been the reasons why Manchester has started to see some of that that uptick in patronage. Quite clearly, more passengers, more revenue in the system helps to deal with the financial challenges of running bus services from within the public sector.

I agree. I think one thing that is really important for me, which I always think about when I talk about buses in the round, is that the reason for bus reregulation in Manchester was to create an integrated network—it was the most used form of public transport—giving the power to the political lead, the mayor, to actually then make a decision to go down a particular route to reform.

It was about making bus flourish as best as it can and giving it all the tools. But the overall outcome was not about bus itself; the overall outcome was to create a network that was—. Ultimately, you want a frictionless network, where people are quite agnostic about the mode. We talk about modes, I live modes of transport, but they're agnostic about the mode. What they want to do is just travel with ease.

I think the key thing that has happened through that model, and I think where—. Again, I've always talked about the things that have happened in Wales around having a transport strategy, which doesn't exist in England—it only exists in Scotland and Wales. And then you've got an ambition about one network, one timetable, one ticket. It's almost a very similar journey about how can we make each mode flourish and what needs to happen to make that mode flourish. Because then, you become agnostic to the mode, and I think that's what Manchester is starting to prove.

I know the committee went not too long ago up to Manchester. I'd recommend going again, probably at some point later this year, or early next year. Because the difference they've made, just by having a tap-and-go system now on buses and light rail, has opened up opportunities for time saving on running of buses, which is converting into, potentially, revenue income. I always bring it back to what is the overall thing we want to achieve, which is a modal-agnostic network, where people can just access, get on and off and move. Things like this, and legislative changes like this, ultimately help each mode flourish in that context.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Carolyn.

Earlier, you touched on the proposed timeline of delivering it being quite tight. In your experience, what's brought you to this conclusion?

This stuff is hard—let's not butter it up. You're reregulating what is not a regulated sector at the moment. Whether it's buses or other sectors, it is a journey—pardon the pun—and it is a big task to undertake. Coming back to the point raised earlier, I think the initial Act in England, because of being quite overprescriptive, probably did add some extra time within that process—actually, it did; it did add extra time in the process. And, also, the first-mover advantage. I'll let Matt talk about the experiences in the Liverpool city region and SYMCA. Those will probably be shorter implementation periods than what happened in greater Manchester.

I expect that, with the second buses Bill in England, which I'd say is probably more aligned to this Bill, it removes some of the additional or unnecessary things that caused unintended consequences. You will probably see that timeline shortened for areas that may consider it in the future. But you're intervening to change a particular market, and that is always going to be a challenge. But I feel confident that both the Government here—. And that's why I said they're quite courageous—I think they've been bold in wanting to do it. They've set a clear ambition, and I feel quite confident that that will be achieved, but there are always going to be bumps on the road.

In South Yorkshire, the timescales that we're working to, which we feel are quite challenging and quite ambitious, are around two and a half to three years from the point at which a franchise decision was taken to the start of the first buses running in operation under a franchise regime, with an 18-month to two-year roll-out to complete the job. We think it's about five years end to end, from decision to a full franchised network. Broadly, other areas are similar timescales, so in the three to five-year horizon. I think there are a few issues with that that inform that timescale. I think that one is that the public sector muscle memory around running bus services has gone. It's been so long since the public sector has run bus services outside London, that, certainly, in the case of South Yorkshire, we're having to kind of rebuild that knowledge and that expertise from a zero base, really. So, that's quite a challenge to do that and go through that process.

But I'd also say that some of the things that you need to do to deliver franchising just take time. So, I think, in the approach in Wales, the idea would be to secure a number of strategic depot locations. So, doing that requires negotiation with the incumbent operator and an agreement to sell those and even, potentially, a compulsory purchase process, and then a potential electrification, depending on the decarbonisation ambitions. Buying and building buses: a lead time on a bus can be 12 to 18 months. Certainly, in the case of South Yorkshire, we will need to bring a lot of new buses into the system, and in that kind of procurement mobilisation of contracts, we'd expect a procurement exercise to take maybe nine to 12 months from end to end, and then maybe another nine months, once that contract is awarded, to mobilise and get ready. So, I think the reality is that some of those things you can't do concurrently, you have to do sequentially, and they just take time.

Do you think that that timeline is good as an ambition, then, maybe, and is not too fixed, because we've got to manage expectation as well, and has that managing of expectation been an issue for you?

I think I would not weaken the ambition, definitely not. I think you have to have ambition, and you have to be ambitious with that ambition. But I think, as Matt really perfectly alluded to, there are a number of external factors that are not in control, like buses, and the ability to get buses. These are fixed things that are out of the remit of actually wanting to produce policy objectives, but I'm confident they've already been taken into account. But I think there is a definite—. I would think it would be helpful to maintain that ambition.

What's key is taking people on the journey, and one of the things, when I worked in greater Manchester—. And this wasn't necessarily covered in the legislation—it isn't—but it's about how we in greater Manchester, and how Transport for Wales, who will take this forward—. Taking the customer with you on that journey, keeping them informed, keeping the operators informed, is really important, and that was something that isn't prescribed in the Bill, or in any legislation in England or Wales, but is fundamental to the success. And I feel confident with some of the things that have been done already in the bridge to franchising, with some of the stakeholder engagement, that they're on it. Let's maintain that and push through. And then, if there are maybe those bumps that are not in control, some of the things that Matt said, then you can easily manage those in that communication and that managing of expectation.

Okay. Thank you. I think you've touched on my following question, which is regarding the face of the Bill being quite light, and then a lot of the operational detail will be set out in regulations. So, it's just if there's anything else you want to add on regarding that, really.

I think we've touched on that.

I think we're okay with that, are we, Chair?

Yes. I think we've covered that base, yes.

Okay. So, the Bill is currently in the process of being passed through the House of Commons in England, the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill. Are there any examples of provisions included in that Bill that you suggest we should include in our Bill here in Wales?

I'll probably come in on that; that's probably more of my life at the moment. I think they're very different Bills, actually, and I did a read-across. I think there's more alignment. To coin a phrase, I think there's regulatory alignment between the two Bills, but they are quite different. I think the No. 2 Bill is just fixing some of the unintended consequences of No. 1, and I think that's why the No. 2 Bill in England—that's what it does. But what it does do is bring in things like the ability to direct award and municipals, which wasn't in the first Bill, but I know is covered in the Welsh Bill. So, I think there's more alignment than the policy objectives, which—. But I don't think there are any, necessarily, drop and lifts. I feel quite comfortable, though, that, actually, when you've got two nations that will ultimately have to work together, particularly on cross-border services, the Bills almost dovetail quite well to achieve that objective. I don't see any barriers or impediments to allowing that to happen.

We do have a lot of cross-border routes, so is there anything else that you're concerned about with us working cross-border, or is there anything you are concerned about where they don't align, you know, the two Bills?

I've not—. I'll let Matt come in, because he's probably got more experience of them. There's nothing that jumps out from reading both that there should be any impediment to, ultimately, an end-user having any impact on services. And I think the No. 2 Bill, actually, in England, fixes some things—please don't ask me on the detail right now—around service permits where it might have been a bit burdensome or over-onerous in No. 1, which I think brings it into more alignment with, obviously, your Welsh Bill.

It's very complex, isn't it, delivering these services? This is why we're trying to get as much right at the moment as we can.

Matt, did you want to pick up on anything there?

Yes. So, I think one of the—. I guess a challenge that we're kind of grappling with a little bit at the moment is where we have two franchised areas that kind of join. So, in South Yorkshire, we join with West Yorkshire, who are also in the process of franchising their network. And how those two things kind of should or could interact, there isn't really kind of a precedent there and there's not a lot there in the English legislation that says how things need to be done. So, I guess you may face some of those challenges. It's possible that you will have franchised areas that are on the border of Wales, and you'll certainly have deregulated areas that are on the border of Wales. So, I guess, it's being prepared for both of those eventualities. As a resident of north Wales who lives right on the border of England and Wales, I kind of understand some of the potential challenges that might come up there.

Yes, okay. We were going to come on to cross-border later on, actually, so—

Sorry, Chair.

That's okay.

I jumped the gun.

Janet, then.

We've heard concerns from stakeholders, including the Confederation of Passenger Transport, over the position of small and medium-sized operators. Do you have any examples of successful approaches to enabling SME operators to engage in this process, and how could these be incorporated into the Bill? And in particular, could you outline your approach in this issue, because I know my small operators are very worried indeed.

And we learned in Manchester that, you know, despite, maybe, their best efforts, it didn't happen.

So, I don't think there are a lot of successful examples, and that's certainly something that, in South Yorkshire, we're spending a lot of time thinking about and talking with the likes of CPT in England about. Some of the things that we're thinking about are—. Well, firstly, tailoring franchise competitions for SMEs, so not necessarily having the same level of bidding process for smaller packages of contracts than we would do for larger ones—

You do? There is a differential there.

So, that's something that we're working on at the moment. So, firstly, we're looking to create packages of work that would align with our current SME operators, and then looking to set out a bidding process that would be, I'd say, more akin to what they would be used to now, with supported bus services, and they're kind of very used to operating in that sort of environment. We are exploring the potential direct award provisions in the No. 2 Bill, although there are some challenges with that around where the revenue risk would lie in a direct award, which may make it less appealing for us.

And we're also looking at the potential for subcontracting as well. So, the winner of a larger franchise could potentially subcontract some of that work to an SME, and there are ways in which we could potentially encourage or reward that as part of the scoring process for franchise bids. So, there are techniques that you can use. I think you can't guarantee work unless you do direct award, but I think it's about trying to create the conditions where SMEs can compete and can be part of the market.

Julie wants to come in.

I just wondered, how many SMEs are you dealing with?

In South Yorkshire, 20 to 30 SMEs.

Yes, because I believe it's 90 in Wales, isn't it?

Yes, it's very significant.

Very significant and very important.

And, of course, there were only half a dozen, I think, in Manchester. So, we were looking to you for something a bit more comparable, really. 

Can I ask a quick one?

On the back of that? Yes.

Yes, about direct awards. So, in the Bill, you can award permits for a service that isn't filled under the contract on franchising. Is that similar, then, do you think? 

I think it's something different. So, for us, the direct award provision that we're looking at, we can't do it now, but the expectation is that we would be able to do it under the new legislation. That's about awarding a franchise contract for a five or seven-year period to an SME in that scenario.

Thank you.

Thank you. Janet.

Is the Bill as drafted and the wider approach to its implementation likely to be effective in both urban and rural areas? Can you outline any specific issues relating to franchising in rural areas based on your experiences to date? How are you approaching these, and would you suggest any amendments to the Bill that might help address such issues?

Shall I go first? I think, just on the SMEs, by the way, just to go back on that, I spoke at an ALBUM conference last week—the Association of Local Bus Managers—which represents SMEs in municipals. I'm a passionate believer that SMEs have a role to play, personally. Particularly, I think, in Wales, given that you have such a breadth of SMEs, and because many of them are family businesses, linked to communities—. But I also think there's a space for innovation as well, where they can play a part. Matt mentioned potential subcontracting. This is something being looked at by one of our other members, I believe, Cambridge and Peterborough, about actually how you can facilitate that, because an SME, which is a family business, which may have fewer than 10 employees, if that, bidding for a big contract, are not going to have the capacity in some ways to do that. 

So, I know it's something that I think the sector as a whole, both in England and Wales, is really trying to think hard about: how do we facilitate and what can we do to make this better for SMEs in the market? And I think what is encouraging is that there's only one fully franchised area at the minute, which is GM. As we move over the next few years, I'm confident that, actually, there'll be new models and innovative models that will come through where I think SMEs—. And I think Wales and the Welsh Government actually can play a role in that by actually trying to find a way in a particular market to try and encourage that.

On your question on rural, again, parts of Manchester aren't particularly rural, but where I was brought up, there were 100 farms, and I was still classed as greater Manchester. And when I was in a deregulated service, I saw that bus service cut left, right and centre. So, I think, with new areas like South Yorkshire, which has greater rurality than probably GM, and particularly in the north-east of England, where, actually, the new combined authority, where you've got the huge councils of Durham and Northumberland, they're really beginning to think about, 'Right, looking at a reform process, what does that look like and then what happens thereafter and how do we do that?'

So, ultimately, I think we'll get to a place where you both can marry and live next to each other. What I would strongly advocate, which is great that the committee's reached out and Transport for Wales have reached out—. Let's not think of one nation against another, like England and Wales. Actually, we're all in this journey together, and let's see how you can learn from South Yorkshire, what's happening in mid Wales, and how that applies to some of the more rural areas of some of our English combined authorities. And I think, over the next couple of years, I'm confident that we can find ways where both can co-exist.

Okay. It's me again.

Rural stuff, yes.

So, South Yorkshire is in exactly that scenario. So, we've got Sheffield, one of the biggest cities in the UK—

Your tram system is brilliant.

The tram system, but we've also got a lot of the region in the Peak district national park, very rural. So, we've got to design a bus system that meets both of those needs. I think what I would say—and I go back a little bit to maybe a previous answer about the cross-subsidy of bus services—is I think what we need is for those bus networks in the urban centres to be really, really successful, because that will help to pay for the services in rural areas, which, by their very nature, won't be commercially successful. So, we need those two elements of the network to be working together, for people to feel like it's all one system, but, effectively, to really use that cross-subsidy potential in the network to make sure that we've got a really strong rural network. And particularly in the Peak district, tourism is hugely significant for our region. Getting people out to places in the Peak district where they can go and do walking or outdoor activity, that's a really important part of what we need our transport system to be able to do. So, exactly that challenge is one that you guys have, but we're facing as well.

Yes. Very briefly then, Jason.

Just really quickly, I think that highlights almost the unintended consequence of a completely commercial market. If I was an operator—. You need to get revenue, you focus revenue on your highest density to get the return. I'm agnostic about franchising or enhanced partnerships, but I think what does happen under a franchise model is you can embed equity in services across a greater area. That is the potential that can be achieved by cross-subsidising, and I think SMEs have a really good play in those tourist markets, innovative markets, areas like that. I think that's where we'll probably see SMEs, hopefully, over time, start to flourish and take up some of those areas and actually probably have, hopefully, maybe, a much more stable outlook over the long term.

Yes. Diolch yn fawr. Okay, Delyth next.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Bore da, good morning to you both. I want to ask you about some of the key concepts and definitions, particularly about the definition of local bus services in the Bill, and whether you think that's appropriate or whether you think that that should be updated because of some of the specifics about the geography of Wales. I'm thinking specifically about the 15-mile limit on the distance between stops. Do you think that that should be amended because of what we've just been talking about, rurality, because there are areas in rural Wales where maybe it could be a local service where the stops are more dispersed?

It's a very good question—a really good question. I'm just looking at some of the notes I made before. There was nothing that jumped out when I looked through in the 15-mile limit, and also some of the definitions around service permits et cetera, because my understanding is these are quite similar to what aligns in the 1985 Act. So, from our perspective and from going through two bus Bills—or through one, and going through another one—in England, although this is quite different, I don't feel that there are any issues or impediments as I see it at the moment.

Yes, I think, from our perspective, it's difficult to be able to judge, really, and I'd maybe suggest some kind of impact assessment is undertaken around that to look at the existing network and the consequences of having that definition. But, without knowing all of the detail of the routes, it's quite difficult to comment.

One suggestion made last week was that there's enough change happening anyway, so let's not disrupt things further with that kind of change. But, yes, okay. Diolch. Delyth.

Thank you. I can't take credit for the question. I agree it's a really good question, and our wonderful team spotted the need to ask about it, so all credit to the team for thinking of that. And then, secondly, the objectives that are set out in section 4 of the Bill, the section 20 duty as well to report on these—do you think that they are appropriate? Do you think that they are clear? Do you think that there's anything that is missing that should be added in?

I'm just going through my notes, because this is where it gets quite hard on the technical side, because you want to make sure you're answering the right question.

I know. Forgive me. I'm sorry—[Inaudible.]

Is this with regard to reporting once a year, within a 13-month period?

Well, for example, I wanted to know, in terms of the objectives for the bus network for South Yorkshire, how they compare with what’s been happening there, and whether there’s anything that you think that has been included with South Yorkshire that could maybe be mirrored here.

So, there's a list of objectives that need to be achieved in the Bill. 

I think it’s really helpful that there is this list, which I’ve got at the back here. I think it’s really helpful to have, given the Bill is, as we said, broadly quite light, to try and help functionality and expedite the process. I think it is. I think there is a level of transparency that is provided, because I think it has to report revisions annually, which I think is really important. I think it’s also helpful that there are regular reporting requirements. They are—. I think, in terms of how they can compare, I don’t think—. It’s like comparing apples and pears in some ways, in what you have to do in South Yorkshire, or other areas in greater Manchester, other areas in England.

Yes, I think that the objectives have to be to your local market, and align with your strategic objectives. It’s not really for me, or others, to judge what are the right objectives for Wales, versus the objectives in south Yorkshire. So, for us, it’s very much about supporting economic growth, dealing with some of the density challenges that we’ve got, for example, in Sheffield, about getting people into work, about supporting the large numbers of people that don’t have access to a car. But those objectives will be different in different places. I think that the important point is that kind of accountability, then, for the delivery of those objectives. And, clearly, in the English context, the accountability for buses lies with the mayor, once they’ve taken that decision. In your context, it will be with Ministers. And that doesn’t exist in a deregulated system. So, I’d say that’s the really important one. Objectives may change, and may be amended over time, but the accountability for delivering those, and being really clear, I think, is the important point.

Okay. Very briefly. 

I think that’s really important, because the fact that you have to come back—. As a nation you have to come back, the Cabinet Secretary has to report back on how successful—. And an update every year, I think, is actually a level of scrutiny that is welcome. And I think that’s not a bad thing when you’re considering the breadth of services that you are covering as a nation.

Okay, diolch yn fawr. We've got just over 15 minutes left, so maybe we can be succinct, because there's quite a few areas that we wish to cover still. But we'll come next to Janet. 

Thanks. What are your views on the fact that the Bill simply refers to 'local bus services contracts'? It does not specify the type of contract, or even require that these are franchise agreements. Do you welcome this flexibility, or could there be unintended consequences arising from this?

Because all the talk is about franchising. 

Yes. It sounds—

But there's nothing in the Bill particularly—

Very little, yes. 

—that necessarily means that that will happen. 

I think flexibility is advantageous, if you're wanting to achieve—. If you’re wanting to achieve an outcome relatively quickly, and at a pace, then having some flexibility is not unhelpful. I think what will be helpful, though, is the role of this committee, and how you keep that in check to make sure that, ultimately, the Government’s being held to account on what they have set out. But it comes back to the earlier points, I think: after going through No. 1 in England, having a little bit more flexibility on mechanisms to actually get the policy objectives might not be unhelpful, where you are as a nation at the moment on the journey to reform.

So, theoretically, if the flexibility was in the first Bill in England, you wouldn’t need a No.2 Bill, potentially.

I think it’s probably acknowledged that, yes, if, the first Bill in England, probably, aspects of it weren’t overprescriptive, then I think you probably would have had further arrangements around municipalisation and direct award.

Sure, for different issues, yes. 

But, if you’re excluding those, ultimately, Bill No. 2 in England is fixing unintended consequences of Bill No. 1—ultimately.

And—

Matt wants to come in. 

I'll just very briefly add to that.

Of course, yes. Go for it, Matt. 

I think there's an element of being flexible within the contracts as well. So, assuming that franchising will be part of the mix, if not the predominant way of dealing with it, the ability to flex within that contract is important, because there's a lot that you don't know until you get hold of the services and start to see how people are using them and where the money flows. So, the ability to be able to adapt during that process will be important, obviously.

Yes, that's an important point.

And many of the conditions to be attached to permits are to be set out in regulations, which may be made by the Welsh Ministers. Is there sufficient clarity on how permits will operate, and, if not, how could this be addressed in the Bill?

I think it's always helpful to get further clarity, particularly for the market. So, I think, when we were looking at the Bill, permit conditions are probably quite similar to what's set out in the English Bill, but I think we've put in our submission that further clarity around—. In response to the committee, I think we wrote that further clarity around definitions of safety, training requirements and enforcement regimes would not be unhelpful. But, overall, I think—. I think, broadly, we're not in a bad place, but some further clarity on those aspects might go a bit of a way to helping expedite the process and get the policy objectives—more for broader stakeholders.

Yes, I think, in England, permits are largely aimed at cross-border services and managing cross-border. I think the intention in Wales is that it's maybe part of the mix within Wales as well as cross-border. So, I think being really clear—and I think there's probably a little bit of a gap there in terms of the clarity about how that may work within Wales—may be, again, something for the committee to consider.

Diolch yn fawr. Okay, we'll come to Julie.

Thank you very much. Section 17 allows Welsh Ministers to provide local bus services directly, if they're satisfied that doing so would be a more effective way of fulfilling their duty to secure services than a local bus service contract. Do you feel that it is sufficiently clear in the Bill when this provision might be used?

That's a very good question. I think that having an operator of last resort, or mechanisms like that, is a positive step forward, a good idea. But it's quite a complex network you have across the nation, with dense areas and rurality. So, I think we would suggest there might be some benefit in providing a little bit further clarity on what this would look like et cetera, and to what extent they would probably see this being used. So, I think that's probably a way to go on this point. But, overall, I think—. And again, we've not got it in England yet, in terms of direct award—that will come as a mechanism of the next Bill. I think having an operator of last resort is a complex thing, but it's a good tool to have in the toolbox.

Can I—?

Very briefly, yes.

We've had issues in the past, because we haven't got too many operators and contractors, and have a lot of small businesses, where an operator's collapsed and left a gap in not just public bus transport, but school transport as well. So, you've had to come in and deliver it. Do you think that would be a good example of when an operator of last resort would be used? 

I think, ultimately, if you can find a mechanism to support bus services at moments of distress, then I think that can be a good thing, because, particularly when you're looking at learners who are hugely dependent, probably, on school buses maybe in parts of the north—correct me, if I'm wrong—which could be relatively long journeys, compared to an urban hop-off, then that might be a good thing in the toolbox to have. But, yes, I think a little bit more clarity might not be unhelpful on this point.

Yes, I think what's not totally clear is where in the list of options this is. So, is it something that is an intention, to have a direct operation of services, or is it that operator-of-last-resort-type scenario? I think that's maybe not totally clear, and I think that could, maybe, benefit from some clarity.

And then, if that is going to be part of the toolbox, it's having that capability and capacity within Transport for Wales to be able to step in at a moment's notice at an operator and go in and run that service and do it in a safe and responsible way, but not create a whole industry out of setting up a business that may never need to come into operation. So, I think that having that balance between the two would be important. 

Thank you. Okay.

So, a bit more clarity.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Going back to cross-border, which we've already referred to, do you think the arrangements for cross-border services set out in section 19 are likely to be effective, or could there be a risk of unintended consequences, in particular given that the relevant transport needs to be considered by Welsh Ministers are those in Wales, so that English needs are not considered, and, in considering those needs, no account is to be taken of any English services tendered under section 63 of the Transport Act 1985. I know we've already referred to some of this, but have you—?

So, when we've looked at this, I think we've found the exclusion beneficial, so it doesn't create a circularity.

Yes, we've struggled with this a little bit, so maybe you can—

Yes, and it's a very technical thing to look at, but when we looked at it, yes, we thought that it was beneficial because it avoids circularity of deciding which authority is deemed the service to be necessary to provide. My understanding is that there's been quite extensive engagement on this topic already, so, as it sits at the moment, I think this approach is likely to develop and mature as reform is rolled out, so I don't see any overriding concerns as we read at the moment. That's what our broad assessment is when we went through this.

I don't really have anything to add to that.

Okay. There we are. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Back to you, Janet.

Oh, yes. I'm sorry.

We're moving on to information and data, I think, aren't we?

Thank you. Do you believe Part 4 of the Bill will operate effectively, and does it strike an appropriate balance between ensuring the Welsh Ministers and the public have the information they need while ensuring commercial sensitivities are protected and the burden of providing that information is reasonable? This has been raised previously where some small and medium-sized operations are a little bit precious about sharing their data. Then, how can they be part of it with those kinds of tensions?

Well, I think it'll be really important that the regulations are really clear about what data needs to be provided and what needs to be shared. Certainly, the provision of data and really understanding how the current network works is a real challenge for us in South Yorkshire. We're making decisions and making assumptions on things that we don't really know because we don't have access to that data. So, yes, I would suggest that there's, maybe, work to do around the regulations in terms of being very, very clear about that data.

And then, section 32 of the Bill simply removes restrictions on local authorities establishing municipal bus companies. Is this likely to be sufficient and effective, or is further clarity required on how municipal operators might be established and provide services, and how could this be addressed in the Bill?

It's a very good question. Something we've been strongly pushing on the English Bill is literally how this is going to work, greater clarity on municipalisation and things like that, and that's where clear guidance on the operation of this will be vitally important and timely when the Bill becomes an Act. So, I think, ultimately, in our experience, clarity is always beneficial, and how and when this will be implemented and used, I think, is always useful early on, and early on in the process in engaging.

Okay.

Because we're aware that, with the No. 2 Bill in England, there's been quite a bit of discussion around the Teckal provision, which may or may not be relevant here in Wales because, obviously, it's not the local authority that'll be the franchising body, but it's Welsh Ministers. So, I'm not sure whether that might give us reassurance in Wales that that provision doesn't really come into play.

Yes, it's quite different, but, when we're reading through, our understanding is that it would not be the same in Wales as it is in England. So, what we're calling for around the No. 2 Bill is clear guidance when the Bill becomes an Act about how it will be used and things like that. But it is slightly different in—

And that's our take as well, although, maybe there's been a bit of ambiguity or confusion from some quarters about whether it's relevant or not, but, for us, obviously, the franchising body is the Government, or Ministers—

Exactly.

—not local authorities. So, for us, there's a differentiation there that means it's not an issue. Are there any closing, general comments that we haven't covered? Anything you feel that you'd like to share with us before we conclude? There doesn't have to be, but if there is—. We have covered quite a lot of ground, to be honest.

As I said right at the start, to have two Bills going through two nations at the same time is quite exciting when you're talking about buses, because I'm a big fan of buses, basically. I would say to the Welsh Government, and I've said this to officials in England, that although there's alignment on the objectives of the Bills, but some very different approaches, there's a great opportunity for, actually, some really good learning and innovation over time. I think it's a positive to, ultimately, have buses on the agenda, which covers loads of people, a huge amount, so that can only be a good thing.

My only concern is I often worry, with a lot of legislation we've put through here, how much awareness there is out there now that we're doing all this, and then when it starts to get to be rolled out. 

Well, that's our job as Members, I suppose, isn't it, to make sure? 

I know, I know. But it's—

I think Delyth is desperate to crack a joke. 

I know, I know.

I could see your face.

I knew you were thinking exactly the same thing as me. Jason, when you said that they've both come at the same time, I was like— 

Waiting for buses, yes. [Laughter.] Well, I think, on that note, it's probably appropriate that we draw the session to a close. Can I thank you so much for joining us this morning, for your evidence? It's really valuable, and learning from your experiences particularly in South Yorkshire, as well, is something that's valuable to us, because, clearly, we're looking forward to following you on a similar journey in years to come. So, diolch yn fawr iawn. You will be sent a draft transcript, just to check for accuracy as well, just to make sure that everything is in order and that it reflects everything that you said. So, the committee will now break, just for a very short five minutes—

A very short five minutes. 

—and then we'll reconvene, ready to start in about six, seven minutes' time. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Good morning. Bore da. Your paper says that the key challenge is whether the proposals set out in the Bill reflect the needs and priorities of both existing and potential passengers. How far does the Bill, as currently drafted, achieve this?

Bore da. Thank you. I think it does show some flexibility in terms of the specification and the flexibility in terms of putting a network together. But, the key challenge is whether the Bill reflects the needs and priorities of those existing and potential passengers. To be honest, there is a bit of a gap in the Bill in terms of how it relates to what passengers' needs are. And the better that those priorities are met, the more chance there is that people will want and value the services, and draw more people in, which will then, in turn, grow the network.

I've been really concerned, as I know other colleagues are, about disabled access and lots of issues around disability.

And we'll come on to those specifically in a minute.

Yes. Anything else on this? 

Barclay.

Yes. Thank you. Bore da, Chair. Thank you, Janet.

Seventy-five per cent of public transport journeys in Wales are made by bus. Bus is vitally important. I mean, in Wales, we have 20 per cent of the population who don't have access to a car or any other transport. We're cautiously optimistic about the future of bus services in Wales, because the general principles of the Bill are potentially good news for passengers. And we welcome the desire to improve services and put the interests of passengers at the heart of the political debate. In the previous session, there was talk of the excitement that, in two countries, bus Bills are going through, so bus services are at the top of the political agenda, which is great.

We also welcome the commitment to secure bus services that will be accessible, affordable and available to more members of society. And we're really impressed by the comment of the Cabinet Secretary, who called the Bill one of the most important pieces of legislation that we'll have taken through to give better options for the whole of our country. But, as David has outlined, there are areas in the Bill that we feel have shortcomings. And while there's much talk in the Bill about designing services to benefit passengers, there is little mention of consultation with passengers to understand their needs and to provide the services that they need and require to form part of their community.

If I could just add very quickly, I think we would like to see a commitment to consult with bus users and their representatives in drawing up regulations that will follow the Bill's provisions. Also, they'd help to demonstrate improved accountability for that service delivery.

Okay. And then, the Bill takes a fundamentally different approach to bus reform than the Bill that was introduced and subsequently withdrawn in 2020. Do you support the new approach, or were previous options for reform more desirable?

I think what we're left with is a single approach. So, that needs to work; we don't have a particular fallback. But, again, what passengers are interested in is the fact that it delivers for their priorities— so, a frequent and reliable service with value-for-money tickets. What's important is that Transport for Wales listens to those passengers and reflects the priorities. So, again, we want to see that passenger voice being represented on an ongoing basis. 

Okay, thank you.

I agree with a lot that David has said, because the average bus passenger doesn't mind what regulatory framework is in place, they just want the bus service—

They just want the bus on time, yes.

—to arrive on time, get them to where they need to be, for an affordable price. 

You made reference to the 2020 withdrawn Bill, where you had enhanced partnerships, strategy partnerships, and that would have enabled a kind of franchise-light option for Welsh Ministers to take control without assuming the risk. Because, under the present Bill, the risk would fall on Welsh Government for funding. Now, the DfT guidance to local authorities in England about setting up a bus franchise scheme says that franchising can take a number of different options, from the full-scale franchising that we see in Manchester to the minimum subsidy model used more often in Jersey. And it was CPT Cymru who last year produced a report, 'Y Ffordd Gymreig'—the Welsh way—putting this option forward as an alternative.

It's interesting that the UK local transport Minister, Simon Lightwood MP, was quoted recently as saying that Jersey is a remarkable success story, and explained that he sees Jersey very much as the gold standard of franchising when it comes to more rural and smaller towns, in the same way as he saw Manchester as the gold standard for more urban areas. So, whether there is room for a mix-and-match system in Wales is something that maybe Transport for Wales would like to consider going forward.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Did you want to come in?

Yes, please. In Manchester, it's taken a number of years just to adopt the existing network, and now they're going out to consultation with residents on how they should expand it and improve it. They might have done some consultation earlier. So, just regarding managing expectations, we discussed with the earlier panel about timeframes as well, working through different—five years. So, managing expectations and the right time and place to consult as well, and understanding of what's happening—your views on that.

Yes, it's an interesting one with Manchester. Our bus passenger satisfaction survey, called Your Bus Journey, does show that there has been improvement in Manchester, albeit quite a bit more slowly than some other areas of the country, but we are seeing that that transition and that change of system takes a while to percolate through what passengers are seeing and understand is now the norm. It does give them greater flexibility, greater control, but also there is a requirement in the English legislation to consult with users on how well franchising is being delivered. Now, that's not in the Welsh proposals. We'd like to see that put in there, so that they're actually consulting on the delivery after it's happened.

Thank you. So, in the papers that you provided to us before today's session, you both suggested that you have concerns about the cost of the new system if this Bill comes to pass. So, could you elaborate a little bit about what those concerns are, really?

Certainly. The Cabinet Secretary, when he gave evidence, claimed that more can be achieved within the current funding levels, and that surprised me a little bit, because if you look at the impact assessment costings that come with the Bill, table 8 on page 92 talks about the transition for years 1 to 5 taking £217 million—of this, £178.3 million related to depot acquisitions, £13.8 million in staffing costs and £25 million in IT systems and other costs. Also, with section 63 agreements, local authorities get a pot of money from the Welsh Government to fund socially necessary services, and some local authorities put extra money into that as well to support that. Now, there's no guarantee, once the obligation of section 63 is removed from local authorities and taken into Welsh Government, that local authorities will continue to put money into bus services, so that could go into health, education and so on and so forth, because there is a squeeze on budgets everywhere, as we know. There's a risk with the farebox revenue not being as much as anticipated, and in the regulatory assessment there's whole host of 'what if?' scenarios detailing what could potentially happen to affect the costs of providing the service.

As the Cab Sec said, he can't guarantee what future Governments will do, and we know there's a Senedd election next year, so the certainty of funding isn't available. What could happen is that the money isn't there to provide even the framework that we've got at the moment, and there might be difficult decisions that need to be taken by Transport for Wales to determine what services might need to be cut, or frequencies reduced, and that would be a disaster for passengers in Wales. 

Okay. David, do you agree with the Cabinet Secretary that there's scope to get more out of current funding under franchising?

It's a surprise, certainly. I think what we would say is that the success of it depends on the continuing commitment to a high level of public funding. There's no doubt about it: bus service provision is expensive. And certainly, on the breadth and length of Wales, the network that would be needed to provide people with the connections that they would want to see will be expensive.

I think, in the Transport Act 2000, there is a requirement for a five-case appraisal approach to affordability, which I don't think we've particularly seen the detail of for these proposals, so it's difficult to actually say what that cost would be. But I think the fundamental is how it then enables the network to be planned and funded. So, will it be on the basis of how much money is available and cut your coat according to your cloth, or is it going to be on the basis of first principles, with calculations on what the ideal service delivery would look like, and then planning service delivery from that perspective, on a serving users' needs basis? I think that will be the crux.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. I think we've touched on passengers being involved in consultations et cetera, so I was just going to move on, really, to ask—. There's nothing in the Bill about, or it doesn't include, any statutory guidance or provision for statutory guidance. Now, the Cabinet Secretary said that non-statutory guidance would be sufficient. I'm just wondering whether you agree with that or whether there are areas where you feel that statutory or otherwise guidance would be welcome.

Yes, I think there is a need for guidance. We would like to see, as I've said, a commitment to consulting with users. We'd also like to see things like an ongoing relationship and responsibility for the passenger voice being represented. Where's that going to sit? And also when it comes to—I know we're going to come on to—data and information, we'd like to see that being published and in the public domain. So, we'd like to see those being there on a statutory basis. If those points are going to be there on a statutory basis, there should be statutory guidance to go along with them. But, in any case, we would like to see guidance following up the Bill on quite a speedy process. We have seen Bills in other parliamentary processes having the guidance that follows with quite a lag. I think the industry would want to see that guidance being put in place quite quickly.

Okay.

I agree with David; guidance is essential. And, as David's outlined, if passengers in the rail industry can see the punctuality of their rail services, then the same should apply for bus users, because otherwise you're differentiating against the form of transport that, as I said, 75 per cent of the public community in Wales use every day. And as David said, it needs to be quite quickly published so that people can look at it and interpret the Bill accordingly.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, thank you. Okay, Delyth.

Diolch. Bore da. It's a pleasure to have you both in. I'm sorry that I’m not with you in the room in person. Now, I know that this—. I was going to ask you about passenger engagement. I know that this has come up a lot already, but is there anything that you would like to say, in addition to what you've said, about whether you think that TfW's approach in passenger engagement on these reforms—? How effective has it been? 

Well—[Interruption.] Sorry, go on.

You're very polite.

I think we have seen consultation. We have seen—. For example, there have been industry panels, there has been stakeholder engagement quite a lot. I think consultation is one thing, but I think what we would like to see is how the ongoing relationship would be. The responsibility for ongoing passenger relations seems to be missing from the proposals. So, how is that passenger voice to be represented? How are service delivery elements going to be measured in terms of the passenger experience? What's the mechanism for raising issues independently? And on the one hand, we appreciate your collective responsibility for holding Ministers to account, but how are Transport for Wales and the service providers to be held to account independently? That currently exists on the English side of the border, but it seems to be a big gap in the proposals here.

And I think, in one of the industry panels that David and I attended, there was talk, because south-west Wales would be the first area to come under franchising, about a 12-week campaign to get the message out to the public. We haven't actually seen that yet, so that'll be the first test of engagement with passengers about the Bill.

In terms of engagement with passengers in general, I think the engagement has got better over the last 12 months or so. Janet will be aware that the T19 service in north Wales was withdrawn, and it was only after that that we partnered with Transport for Wales and did some consultation events in Blaenau Ffestiniog, Llanrwst, Dolwyddelan, to understand the impact of the withdrawal of those services from people in those communities.

We run a campaign, Catch the Bus Month, every September, and, last September, we partnered with the Fflecsi team, and we went out and about in various communities across Wales to get passengers' feedback on that, of what a lifeline service that provides to passengers. And the TrawsCymru team more recently held events in Corwen with the T3 service, where there's a T3C bus that serves the village of Llanuwchllyn and there were concerns that connections weren't being made, so they met the community, took the feedback on board, and are looking at changing the service to provide a more secure connection and a service on Sundays, which was previously lacking. And recently I was with the TrawsCymru team looking at the T1 services, engaging with passengers in Aberystwyth and Carmarthen. So, they have got better in engaging with passengers, and, hopefully, as time goes on, that engagement will improve.

If I could just add to that very briefly, the opinions and experiences of Welsh bus passengers have been captured in our Your Bus Journey survey in 2024. The results were published in March, and they provide a really sound basis for understanding and evidence for focusing on what needs to be improved about service delivery. They're not taking part in that this year, but, hopefully, we would want to see a return to Wales taking part in that survey so that it's benchmarked, it's comparable, but it also gives that direct understanding from passengers' journey experience.

Thank you both, because the evidence that you're giving—. Your voices are amongst the most important that we need to be hearing from, and that the Government needs to be hearing from as well, because it isn't just a case of if you build the system the passengers will come, is it? We need to make sure that it's actually designed around the needs of passengers and answering that need. David, on this, I know that you've referred to the fact that producing a passenger charter isn't explicitly provided for in the Bill. Presumably, that is something that you would like to see explicitly in the Bill.

It's absolutely essential, yes. Thank you for raising that point. Yes, the charter provides accountability to passengers and also the expectations of what happens when something goes wrong. It enshrines those provisions and we would like to see that in the proposals. Again, in the English legislation, that is there as a statutory requirement. We would like to see that included, please.

Thank you. 

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. A passenger charter sets out what passengers can expect from the bus service. And we're an ADR body, an alternative dispute resolution body, so we handle complaints. We get quite a number of complaints from passengers where the last service of the day has failed to operate and the passengers have no alternative but to use a taxi to get home, and try to reimburse that from the operator, and they've said 'No'. So, the reassurance for passengers will be needed that the last journey of the day, if that fails for any reason, then any taxi fare that they incur or additional expenses they incur should be reimbursed, and that should be included in any passenger charter.

Diolch yn fawr—

Forgive me, just before we move on, Cadeirydd, that's really useful to hear. Personally, I agree with you; I know that there'll be other members of the committee who'll agree with that as well. Do you think that that passenger charter should explicitly provide a duty for vulnerable passengers to be got to a place of safety after dark where services are cancelled? Do you think there should be a duty on that public transport to make sure that any vulnerable passengers are not abandoned in a place where they might not be safe after dark?

Absolutely, yes. 

Absolutely, yes—a duty of care. 

Thank you. 

Diolch. Janet, you're next. 

Yes, just on that point, Delyth—excellent. I can remember once getting stranded at one o'clock in the morning at Chester station, but they did actually put a taxi, like a minibus almost, on for us to get us home, which I thought, fair do's. I think what you've just brought into the argument now, Delyth, is quite interesting, because too often we hear of vulnerable people where they've been let down by buses. And just one thing, recently we've had some roadworks in Llandudno Junction and they just stopped the buses completely going round a large area without—. No-one knew. So, I'd like to see better information going forward for passengers.

In your written evidence, you've both referred to a lack of detail on complaints handling. Can you outline these issues and how you feel they should be addressed? In particular, is this something that should be addressed in the Bill itself or as part of the delivery process? And going forward, if we're seeing Welsh Government Ministers having more of a say in what's happening—. At the moment, we've got Arriva. They come to me, I go to Arriva, or passengers themselves go to Arriva. Is it going to be more difficult going forward now? Will people think, 'Oh, I don't know to contact the Welsh Government' and things like that? They'll see this as them being responsible, won't they?

I think effective complaint-handling procedures are extremely important to passengers. As you outlined there, the system will change. In Manchester, for example, all of the buses are now painted yellow, so it's not immediately obvious to the passenger who to get in contact with. So, they are channelled towards Transport for Greater Manchester. Likewise, will passengers be channelled towards Transport for Wales and how will that be taken? And I think as Barclay is probably going to outline as well, it's not just the complaints, it's how, then, those are escalated.

Absolutely right. 

I'll let Barclay come in on that point. I think the complaints handling should be regarded as a service in itself, and I think that should be—. It should have standards set around it and the performance of that monitored and published, so that passengers can actually see. It keeps the industry honest. It shows transparency. But as I was outlining earlier, it's more than just about complaints, it's about that ongoing relationship with passengers, and who has responsibility for engaging with them, and raising issues that maybe the industry isn't looking at or that need further focus. We think there's a big gap in terms of that independent voice that needs to be covered within the proposals as well.

As David has outlined, a clear complaint-handling procedure needs to be in place. As I mentioned, Bus Users is an alternative dispute resolution body, so we get involved in complaints where a customer has gone to an operator or local authority, had a response, they're not happy with it, so we deal with the appeal side of it.

Or you get it where they've had no response as well.

Or where they've had no response—exactly, yes. So, we then try and negotiate with the operator, the local authority and the complainant to try and agree a mutually acceptable resolution. If we can't do that, then it goes to the appeal panel side of the ADR body, who are provided with all the information around the case, and then they make a judgment based on that information, either upholding the operator's decision or upholding the passenger's complaint and awarding costs accordingly.

At the moment, you've got a situation where—. If you take, for example, TrawsCymru, the TrawsCymru website has a clear feedback for TrawsCymru e-mail address. But we see complaints going to TrawsCymru directly, we see complaints going to the operator directly, and I see complaints coming to us as well. So, there needs to be a clear flow chart, so that customers, passengers, know where they stand. Because in the rail industry, they're quite well set out, the steps.

It is, to be fair, yes.

And this is an ideal opportunity for Transport for Wales to establish a standard set of complaint procedures, a flow chart, so customers know where they can refer their complaints to, what stage, and, as David said, you can have statistics and public stats around it to indicate what happens as a result of complaints.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Back to you, Delyth, I think. Or is it Julie? Sorry. Okay. Oh, she's waiting to be unmuted, I think—Delyth's waiting to be unmuted.

I've gone rogue, I've unmuted myself—forgive me. We were talking about how passengers can be made vulnerable. Thinking about people, passengers, who've got protected characteristics, whether they are disabled, whether they're older, whether, in certain circumstances, because they are women, any time in which, or circumstances in which, passengers could be perceived as vulnerable or made vulnerable, do you think that their needs are provided for sufficiently in the Bill at the moment? I know, for example, that the UK Bill that's going through, the UK Government's Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, includes provisions that would streamline and enforce disability awareness training. Do you think that more things like that could be done in this Bill as well?

Yes, absolutely. I think one thing that we would like to see is the equality impact assessments. We think those are missing. Those would ensure compliance with disability regulations, things like vehicle passenger information designs, but also general efforts to make travel more accessible, and for people who are in vulnerable positions to be looked after. So, we also think there's a real importance in engaging with people who find themselves in those positions, or would define themselves as having a disability, to engage with people that have got lived experience of that. And particularly where changes are being considered as well, it should also be in there, for those people to have an opportunity to influence decisions being made, through public consultation, focus groups.

But also I think there's another side to this. One of the key people that is at the front line is the bus driver, and they've become even more prominent. For example, in the Your Bus Journey survey, the drivers in mid Wales scored 91 per cent satisfaction. You don't get that by accident. That needs to be in-built, it needs to be underpinned, and there needs to be solid and effective recruitment and training, and we would like to see that enshrined in the proposals as well.

Julie wants to come in.

Just on that. Unfortunately, we do get incidents—not in mid Wales, obviously, by those figures—where people with protected characteristics or older people have been treated in a way that's not satisfactory. So, would you agree that the training that is required, the people themselves, the lived experience, should do some of that training, in order for people to understand the impact of what it's like to be treated like that on a bus?

Absolutely. The Royal National Institute of Blind People and Guide Dogs, for example, run a 'swap with me' session. So, they come along with simulated spectacles, which simulate a visual impairment. So, drivers wear those and then they try to navigate their way onto the bus to find a seat, and persons with visual impairments sit in the driver's seat with all the screens around them, and the background noises, and try to hear the passengers. So, it's a good way of understanding each other's difficulties and obstacles, barriers to overcome, and the driver's while driving, because he's concentrating on the road and the safety of his passengers and everything else. So, that's a great example of where people with protected characteristics can be invaluable in providing training for drivers. Because a lot of the time, you go about your day and you don't realise that something that is not an obstacle to you is a severe obstacle to someone else. Where I live in the Rhondda, there's a bus shelter opposite a supermarket where there's a raised kerb, so it is ideal for a wheelchair user, but the way the shelter has been positioned, you can't actually get on or off the bus with a wheelchair.

Now, in conjunction with Motability, we've produced a report, 'Why Are We Waiting', which looked at the lived experience of people with disabilities, and it highlighted a couple of things: the independence that buses provides them, that they're able to go out and about and live their lives accordingly; bus stops—many of them don't have the necessary facilities, as I have explained, such as seating or shelters, or obstacles, street infrastructure; the bus design itself, because some wheelchairs are too large to go on the bus; information and timetables are outdated or not available in accessible formats; and the bus drivers themselves, as we said. The responses we got on the bus drivers were both positive and negative. Some drivers went out of their way to make sure that the person was catered for, and others just sat in the cab and left them to it. So, it's very important.

It is, and the question for us, really, is to relate that back to the Bill, isn't it, in terms of how we make sure that the Bill, either on the face of the Bill or through regulation or another means, covers all of these bases, really.

If I may, I think part of that is enshrining, in the professional competence that drivers have to undertake, to have support and training for passengers with both seen and unseen disabilities.

Yes, absolutely. Okay. Delyth, briefly—very briefly.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Thank you, that's incredibly useful. As well as that, do you think that there should be provision in the Bill, or guidance that accompanies it, about the duties on local authorities to make sure that the urban environment that surrounds bus stops could be made more accessible, thinking about things like street lighting, and just ensuring, of course, that the buses themselves and the environment on the buses need to be accessible, and the bus stop, but also getting to and from the bus stop, with the most—? I know we can't think of absolutely every place, but I'm just thinking of making sure that there isn't a bus stop where you'd have to go under a very dark walkway, which could be very intimidating or dangerous.

Yes, absolutely, and I think you're referring to safe walking routes to and from—. That needs to be delivered by more than just people that are involved in delivering the transport services. So, for example, highways and, as you say, local authorities. So, I think that need to have a wider and more integrated delivery on the whole within that urban environment needs to be in there. I think I'm right in saying that the No. 2 Bill that's going through the UK Parliament at the moment has a requirement to list the network accessibility, and to keep that under review. I think something similar might be useful.

Excellent. Diolch yn fawr iawn. We'll come to Janet now, and then we'll come to Carolyn after.

Thank you. Are the objectives set in section 4 of the Bill clear and appropriate? Are there any additional objectives required?

I'm not sure that the objectives in terms of meeting the key priorities for passengers are actually in there explicitly. So, things like having an affordable, frequent and reliable bus service in a way that passengers have a positive experience, and the sort of information provision, which I appreciate we're going to come on to. The Bill does appear to give flexibility to Transport for Wales when applying principles to the network, but it doesn't actually say, 'in order to achieve that objective'.

I think also, we would see from our research that what drives passenger satisfaction is punctuality, but also journey time, getting to the other end in a timely fashion. So, it needs measures to address congestion, which, again, is more than just within Transport for Wales's gift; it relies on highways and other measures that need to be implemented—not least of which need capital funding. So, it's essential for those to be addressed so that the gaps in the network are actually plugged so that existing and potential users don't have that barrier of not having a service in the first place.

And simplified fares, ticketing schemes and that kind of structure, those are key passenger aspirations as well. And again, we want to see the Bill, or the guidance that goes along with it, channelling the efforts towards the delivery of that service to meet passenger needs and priorities.

Building on from what David said, I note the objective to improve the reliability of bus services there, but numerous studies—and indeed, evidence given by many partners to you—have raised the C word, congestion. I take you back to this committee when it was known as the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee. It published a report in 2017, 'Taming the traffic: The Impact of Congestion on Bus Services', which made one single recommendation:

'as a matter of urgency, the Welsh Government should develop and publish an action plan to set out how it will tackle the impacts of traffic congestion on the bus industry in Wales.'

But congestion is missing from the Bill. So, we would call for an additional objective to tackle the impacts of congestion on bus services in order to provide reliable, predictable journeys for passengers and encourage those who don't use the bus at the moment to give it a try.

Again, I think we need to see that being measured in terms of passengers' experience. Because it's only by having that positive experience that you're going to invite other people to try the bus and to use it and to grow the patronage. But if that isn't measured, and the issues being focused on and priorities being attended to, then franchising isn't going to meet people's needs.

Diolch yn fawr. We've got about 20 minutes left and we're only, I think, about halfway through the areas we wish to cover, so we might need to change gear a little bit. Carolyn.

I was just going to say that congestion has been raised, hasn't it, at the cross-party group on public transport, by operators. I know one operator is talking about pulling out of a town, basically, because you can't get a bus through a town—Buckley—because of cars parked up. It's a huge issue. And where street furniture is put, like your bus stops. Local authorities aren't communicating as well with operators, as well as the passengers, regarding that. So, maybe that could be included in the guidance—I think that would be a positive step to address it. And also, active travel. We've got the active travel Bill, so very often there's confliction, isn't there, over the road space with the active travel Bill and the bus Bill.

Anyway, going back to my question on the Welsh bus network plan, before I get told off by the Chair, I think this might have been covered already. You've raised concerns about the approach of preparing, reviewing and revising the Welsh bus network plan set out in sections 6 to 8 of the Bill, particularly on the consultation requirements and capturing passenger views. So, if it is set out in sections 6 to 8 of the Bill, is that not enough, do you believe, to capture passenger views on the network? Because you raised concerns before, didn't you?

Yes. There's a consultation, and we welcome the fact that there is to be consultation with passengers and passenger representatives in terms of how the network will be, but I think that's a one-off consultation. We want to see that being an ongoing conversation. I think the Welsh bus network plan will be a really important document when it comes out. The network has contracted in recent years, and that's contributed to a reduction in bus patronage, so that needs to be addressed and reversed.

We see in the results of our survey that satisfaction with the frequency of bus services across Wales as a whole is down in the fifties in terms of percentage: 58 per cent across Wales, 53 per cent in south-west Wales. But there's an opportunity here to address that issue. Where people do have a bus service, they really appreciate it, and satisfaction with bus services that are there is at 84 per cent across Wales and 88 per cent in mid Wales. So, when people do have a bus service, it's a good service and they value it.

But I think there's a significant responsibility in the provision on Ministers to have that consultation. But the way that that's done, it needs to be genuinely inviting people's input and then be amended as a result of that, so people can see that their views are being valued.

We've got the regional transport plans being developed at the moment by CJCs, and last week, we had a representative from the WLGA talking about that. They actually did a lot of work in drawing up the consultation. They put a lot of officers' time into that consultation process. But actually getting people to respond to it is really difficult. When a service has been terminated, that's when people come on board, in my experience. But actually getting passenger views is really difficult, and also managing that expectation. So, if you go out to consultation, then people come back with, you know, they'd love everything, a 24-hour service. Do you think that consultation done through umbrella organisations and representatives such as yourself is a good way forward, and then you can do that through your surveys? Because I am concerned about the expectation of that consultation as well.

I think that the mechanism and who is behind that mechanism is almost secondary. I think what needs to be done—and no criticism to the regional transport plan process that they adopted—is you need to give people a hook into how it affects them, why it's important for them. And I think it's not just passengers, it's people who don't necessarily use services, and putting it across to them in ways that they can understand that this is something they need to respond to. So, having that far and wide, but also looking at the channels that are used to communicate with people, social media.

Recently, we've heard of some authorities in England using platforms like TikTok for certain age groups, but then Snapchat for others, to try to engage with different age groups in a different way. And we've had research that says young people don't actually see that consultations of that nature are done in the language that they connect with, or want to involve them. So, we've got to get over those hurdles as well, to communicate in ways that people will understand, but also draw them in as to why it's important, and then to see that their views are used.

We have a lot of concessionary pass users that haven't returned to public transport, and they won't be using social media as well, so it's getting—

We need to focus on the Bill now. Did you want to come in on this?

Yes. I seem to be saying this a lot, but following on from what David said—and I agree with a lot of what he said—this ongoing consultation with users is vitally important because bus passengers don't travel within defined areas. They don't travel just within the south-west region; they travel across regions. So, it's important that you consult with passengers continually to avoid unintended consequences.

For example, if you change a service, like there was a service in north Wales changed, which meant that doctors and nurses couldn't get to the hospital in time for the start of their shift. So it's vitally important that engagement happens so that you don't fall into the trap of any unintended consequences happening, which makes the situation worse for passengers.

I think it's a difficult sell to passengers to respond to consultation on transport plans, because they think, 'This doesn't really affect me'. But it's vitally important for them, and it's trying to get that message across to them, and maybe hold some workshops and invite passengers along to that, and engage them and tell them what it's about, and tease out of them the information that helps develop those plans.

In terms of the Bill, if the guidance says that consultation needs to happen in line with best practice, we can certainly advise them on that, and I'm sure others can as well.

That's a good way of putting it, yes. Reporting requirements set out in section 20 of the Bill—do you think that they're appropriate? If not, should the Bill be amended to address this?

The timescale quoted for review is two years for the first report and four years for any subsequent reports. Quite frankly, I think that's too long. We would suggest initially that review would take place annually, and then biennially as things settle down within the network. But you need to continually review to make sure that networks are fit for purpose and, more importantly, are meeting passengers' needs and requirements.

Diolch yn fawr. Julie.

If I can ask you, David, first, in your paper, you say you'd like to understand more on the use of permits to allow private operators the right to run services in a franchise area. Could you say a bit more about that? And do you think there's a lack of clarity in the Bill itself, or the need for more explanation?

I think the measures in the Bill just say that permits will be issued for services to run, so there is a lack of detail. I think that needs to be clarified, what criteria will be used to accept or reject applications. And again, on the point about the passenger charter, will the passenger charter cover those services? Will that be a requirement? We think it needs to be. But there's currently very little detail. Passengers need to understand the rules of engagement, if you will, but also will those be measured in terms of the same level of quality of service. It's not clear whether that will be part of the criteria for providing those permits, and what conditions will be set within those permits. I think we need to see more detail.

Thank you. Barclay, your paper says it's unclear the circumstances in which the Welsh Ministers may provide services directly under section 17 of the Bill. Again, how do you think that should be addressed?

I think, in the guidance that should follow, that it would be helpful to provide some case study scenarios, so that everyone understands what powers, when those powers could be used. For example, is it operator of last resort, and so on and so forth. To have carte blanche to provide a service directly, I think there needs to be some caveats to that or some guidance around how those powers would be used.

So more information is needed. 

Yes.

I think also, there's a cost implication to taking over or setting up a municipal-type organisation. And again, just with the echo of the Cabinet Secretary's voice, in terms of providing the franchising system within the existing funding envelope, again, it's not clear where funding for that might come from as well.

Diolch yn fawr. We'll come to you, Janet.

Do you believe Part 4 of the Bill will operate effectively? Does it strike an appropriate balance between ensuring the Welsh Ministers and the public have the information they need, whilst ensuring commercial sensitivities are protected?

I think we welcome the wide-ranging data requirement that is in the provisions. We think that’s a step forward, which is good to see. But, a lot of that relates to the information that passengers need to use services, but not about the performance of the services, and, again, as we were saying before, about complaints information. Transparency with that performance data allows bus users to gain a fuller understanding of the services and how they’re operating, how they’re delivered. And we’d welcome a commitment in the Bill, or the regulations, to publish information about performance and, in particular, patronage, punctuality, journey time and passenger satisfaction data. And there’s also a question of how that will be measured independently. That will not only demonstrate the improvements in the service, but also will provide some level of accountability, which, again, we think should be in the Bill and the guidance.

How do you envisage that accountability—political accountability, of course—manifesting itself? Because, interestingly, when we went to Manchester, the mayor there regularly does a weekly appearance on radio and answers questions, and, every week, data is published about performance, and it’s very transparent and very accountable.

Yes, absolutely. And that gets out to the people that ultimately vote for the mayor being in that position and having that responsibility. There’s a real kind of multifaceted personality, in people being bus users or not, and voters, but also young people who are going to be coming to voting age in the future, and also paying taxes. So, there’s a real kind of multipersonality about people, and they should be at the heart of it—so, their priorities, their voice being heard. And I think that that feedback, in terms of the mayor, as you mentioned, in greater Manchester, being open to that public scrutiny, is a good model to follow, but also, I think, stakeholders having the responsibility for raising that public voice as well, being in the room and having that scrutiny and capability.

Yes, and not leaving it to the radio. 

Yes. 

Quite. Okay. Diolch. Janet. 

As a keen businesswoman myself, if I was, if you like, looking to operate bus franchising, I’d be looking to reach those people who don’t use the bus service now, or who may have used it and dropped off. But we haven’t got that kind of data, have we?

Yes, and, I think, in terms of people’s needs and priorities, and the barriers that they perceive, our research shows that a lot of the perception is around cost and convenience. So, those need to be met, in order to invite people that don’t use bus services, to use that—

Do you think there should be an onus on the Government to organise somehow, whether through its elected Members, almost like public consultation drop-ins, like a little church hall where they can go and actually learn more about what’s actually coming along? If you could increase your footfall on buses—

Well, we've touched a lot on consultation and engagement.

Yes, but I—

And if you are thinking about going for one of the franchises, I think you should declare an interest, given that you said that you might be going for a franchise. [Laughter.]

No, I said as a businesswoman—

No, I'm only pulling your leg. [Laughter.]

No, I said as a businesswoman—

No, no. [Laughter.]

I'm not going—. The last thing I need to do is run a bus franchise. [Laughter.]

Run a bus company, yes. [Laughter.]

That's hilarious. [Laughter.]

But what about the data, then, and information, because there are multiple channels that need to be used? I know we touched on TikTok and Snapchat and stuff earlier. Should there be an obligation in some of this stuff to not only provide it internally, in terms of usage and data in that way, but also to project it to the public so that people are clearer about timetables and how long there is until the bus arrives, and the real-time stuff that people very often depend on in so many things in life. 

Yes, absolutely, and I think that would support people’s confidence in using the service as well. Time and again, we find that people who don’t use bus services don’t know where to go for that information. So, for example, if you go onto a well-known search engine and put information in, you will get a response. People trust it, but is that the trustable data? So, again, there needs to be some work done with those kinds of platforms. We know that Traveline Cymru is very successful in terms of the information that it provides, so, it's making sure that that data is the official data that's coming up on search engines as well. But wider than that, I think you're right—there needs to be a multiplicity of different channels so that people who don't use the online—people who use paper versions—have information at bus stops, real-time information, paper information, timetables at every bus stop. Yes, the list goes on.

Can I—?

Very, very briefly, then, because we've got—

Accessibility of information is vitally important as well. Not everyone has access to technology or lives in an area where the Wi-Fi signal is good enough to support the use of smartphones, et cetera. Also, with the move during COVID to a cashless society—I know we've rolled back on that a little bit, as well—there are still lots of communities where people still budget by putting coins and notes in their envelope to pay their bills. So, it's important that those options are still available for people—paper timetables and cash payment on buses.

That's a very valid point, yes. Thank you for that.

If I could just, very quickly—

Very, very quickly.

Thirteen per cent of people across Britain still use cash on buses.

That is interesting. Okay.

How many?

Thirteen.

Yes. Thank you. So, just on the transition then to franchising because, obviously, there could well be some disruption, section 33 of the Bill amends section 63 of the Transport Act 1985 to remove the current duty on local authorities to secure local bus services. What are the implications of this amendment, particularly in terms of the process of transitioning and the risk of negative impacts to passengers?

I think it's important that socially necessary services are still provided. The basis for defining those should be made clear. Passengers should be consulted on any significant changes to the network. Section 14 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill requires enhanced partnerships in England to list and to keep under review local bus services that enable passengers to access essential goods, services, economic opportunities and social activities. We think that there should be something similar, to have that social necessity in place. Otherwise, gaps are going to start appearing in the network and joining up the journey opportunities that people would have to reach those amenities will be eroded, and that will then impact on people thinking that bus services are reliable for them to use.

Okay.

Yes, I agree. Social necessity services are vitally important, particularly in more rural areas where it's the only way people can travel, and those, in conjunction with community transport schemes and Fflecsi service schemes, really are lifelines for people in those communities who, as I said, have no other way of travelling around.

And that beautifully brings us right back to where we started, with the fact that 20 per cent of the population don't have a car and those statistics that you gave us right at the start.

Can I thank you both so much for joining us this morning, both for the written evidence and for oral evidence as well? You will be sent a transcript of the record just to check for accuracy, and, of course, we will continue to deliberate the Bill and, no doubt, liaise with you and others when we have further questions that I'm sure we may wish to ask.

Thank you so much. The committee will now break for a further five minutes and we'll reconvene ready for an 11:40 start for our third and final evidence session this morning. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Good morning. Bore da, and it's really nice to see you here getting involved in this, because this will have a huge impact, certainly, on your business—well, every portfolio you cover. Do you support the need for this legislation, and is the Bill as currently drafted likely to lead to significant improvements in bus services? Anyone?

I think that improving bus services will require significant funding uplift, regardless of who is delivering that service or how that service is being delivered. I think, actually, this is about how the Bill will be implemented. So, of course I support the objectives and the principles of the Bill, but I think it is down to implementation and the sufficient resources that are needed for that.

Thanks. Any others?

the I would say that Welsh Government, as elected representatives, having a greater say in the co-ordination of bus services based on public need rather than just commercial viability could be a positive thing. Likewise, a kind of more co-ordinated network with a bit more of a standardised, consistent user experience will be really helpful, particularly for blind and partially sighted passengers. I think consistency and familiarity are really key factors in determining whether somebody with sight loss is able to make a journey independently. So, standardising things like journey planning information across the whole bus network and making that information available in accessible formats that are compatible with assistive technologies could be a real game changer for people.

And I think we'll will come on specifically to some of the information stuff later on. Sorry, I shouldn't have cut across to you there. I apologise, but there'll be plenty of opportunity. Llŷr.

Yes, I think we support the aims of the Bill. I think it's fair to say that the current system hasn't been working effectively. There's a possibility now of ensuring that there are certain routes for work travel, that there is access to work, that there are buses that are there to support the economy, and to support things like the night-time economy. It is important, I think, to separate out some of the parts of the franchising with the wider economics of bus travel. This has the potential to work towards co-ordination and integration to ensure that the buses are there for the needs of businesses, in our case, and for others, but there will still be many of the same pressures that are on the system at the moment in terms of the costs and how much investment will be needed.

In terms of the system at the moment, I think it's worth just noting that, in our reports over the last couple of years—. We've had none on transport per se, but, in all of our reports on skills, creative industries and others, we've found that transport has come up a lot with our businesses, and almost unprompted in that research. So, you've got examples such as M-SParc mentioning that the bus was cancelled on a whim, even though it was actually quite a popular service. We've got examples of theatres that were mentioning the last bus being cancelled. Suddenly, that means a drop in revenue for them. Places like the Wrexham industrial hub noted that you've got apprentices looking at a 15-minute drive, which is, obviously, expensive for young people, comparatively to us, to me as an older person, I guess, but it takes a two-hour bus journey. So, those are just a few examples.

Clear messages there, and similarly for young people, I'd imagine.

Diolch, yes. So, broadly, we welcome any efforts to improve the availability, accessibility and affordability of bus services. Transport in general is one of the key and primary issues that comes up from all of my engagement with children and young people consistently. We haven't commented and I won't be commenting specifically on the details of the franchising and contractual arrangements within the Bill, but, broadly, areas of concern that I'll be talking about in more detail are about how much children's and young people's voices have been heard in the development of this Bill so far, also, more broadly, to what extent the Bill will adequately encompass learner travel and learner transport, which is a key area that is impacting on children. There are huge inadequacies with current arrangements, and it's not clear to me how this Bill will directly address that. I would very much like greater focus and action from Welsh Government on the area of learner travel, but bus accessibility, affordability and availability generally, to meet the needs of children and young people.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr.

The older people's commissioner—hello, Rhian—in your evidence, you note that much of the operational detail of the Bill will be via regulations, and it will be important that sufficient time is allowed for these to be consulted upon and given adequate scrutiny. Are you concerned about the balance between what is included on the face of the Bill and what is left to regulations?

I understand that we need a balance between what's on the Bill face itself compared to regulations and secondary legislation that might be needed, but I think my concern would be around ensuring that for any regulations or secondary legislation there is meaningful and sufficient consultation. In terms of engagement around the Bill itself now, I think the timeline has been very compressed in terms of ensuring adequate engagement with civil society. I've voiced those concerns, so I think it's not only about the timeline but it's about ensuring that the opportunities for engagement are not online only. That was, again, one of the concerns, in terms of how we're consulting to ensure everybody has that voice, that we make that known in non-digital means. I just want to thank the committee, because I know, from the Senedd perspective, you made that opportunity available to civic society, and that's something that I really welcome. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr. Can I just ask more broadly, then? There's no provision for statutory guidance in the Bill. Now, the Minister, or Cabinet Secretary, I should say, has said that non-statutory guidance would be sufficient. Is that something that you agree with as a panel, or are there any areas in particular where you feel that guidance, particularly, maybe, statutory guidance, would be welcome? 

To follow what Rhian said, I think a lot of it will be in the implementation, and, obviously, the stuff, the dependencies, that are actually not going to be in the Bill. However, I think there are things that could be in the Bill. For us, and you will have seen from our evidence, we want economic development to be at the heart of the Bill and a duty of economic development. There are a few reasons for that. One is that, obviously, we need to see what the impact on businesses is. We also need to be able to judge whether it's been successful from an economic point of view. There is going to be substantial investment needed, but we also need to understand what success looks like. So, I think that's really important.

So, we would like to see economic development on the face of the Bill. It would also signal that that is a priority to those then tasked with implementing it at a local level, and I think that's really important. We'd also like to ensure direct input by businesses in the process. There's a part in the Bill that mentions it being an iterative process. Well, that requires good engagement, and the danger, possibly, is that—. When it's mentioned that local authorities know best what's happening locally, I think that there's a danger that that becomes a proxy for engagement, and I think the point is, perhaps, that local authorities are best placed to engage and to find out what the needs locally are, which is a sort of different spin on it, and I think that's quite important to note as well.

That's an interesting distinction, yes. Okay. Okay. Nathan.

We would say that we're concerned that there's no tangible legislative commitment to accessibility in the Bill. I think accessibility is mentioned once in the Bill, and that's in relation to Welsh Government Ministers having due regard to accessibility as an objective, and, as we've seen with other 'due regard' duties, they're quite vague, kind of aspirational, but very difficult to pin anyone down to, really. I mean, anything can be 'due regard', can't it? So, I think we would like to see provisions in the Bill expanded to include some more robust and specific accessibility requirements. So, it's interesting that the Welsh Government intends to impose a sanctions regime for bus operators who fail to act in accordance with the Act. That could be expanded, which would provide a much clearer set of incentives and disincentives for operators to improve the accessibility of their services.

Likewise, there are provisions in the legislation for the terms that govern local bus services contracts. Again, that could be a part of the legislation that could be enhanced to include accessibility requirements so that bus operators who fail to meet those requirements are in breach of their contract, and I think that would be a much stronger incentive or disincentive to actually make progress.

Okay. Your opening remark, Rhian, was about funding. There's a need for more funding, and there have been concerns about affordability and whether this is achievable within the current envelope, shall we say? But the Cabinet Secretary did tell us in his first evidence session a few weeks ago that there's scope to get more from current funding under franchising. I'm just wondering whether you agree with that or whether you actually believe that we're already squeezing as much as we can out of resources.

I think older people's experiences across Wales are that their bus services are being cut, they're not reliable, they're not frequent enough, they're not available to take them to the places that they want to go, whether that's hospital appointments, GP appointments, or out in the evenings and weekends, and that's within that current funding envelope. I do question whether we can achieve the objectives of the Bill within that funding envelope. But my point would be around ensuring scrutiny of affordability and cost of the service long term, and ensuring that the Senedd has that element of scrutiny in terms of spend, so that it's not only commercially viable, but actually is proportionate funding allocated, compared to the wider Welsh Government budget.

Any further thoughts on that?

On the point of affordability, I was disappointed to see the lack of action and response from Welsh Government to the Petitions Committee's 'Freedom to thrive' report, which recommended that they undertake preparatory work to look at introducing free public transport for young people, which would have brought much clearer figures to answer that question. Because that hasn't been progressed, my office is currently having to undertake our own costings exercise, but we would have liked, and I think would have really welcomed, the Welsh Government responding more positively to that recommendation. Because all of—. As Rhian said, the issues are impacting on children and young people in terms of lack of availability, lack of accessibility and affordability. This is preventing them from accessing, sometimes, their place of learning, or meeting friends, or just accessing basic, essential services. It will have a cost, but this is ultimately all about choices, and it would be very important, I think, to do some detailed costings analysis and exercises to work out exactly what the different arrangements would cost. But I think it needs to be seen, really, as an investment in essential services to meet the needs of our population.

And also an investment in securing a future pipeline of bus users, because the sooner somebody starts the more likely they are to use them, I suppose, isn't it, in later life.

Sticking with that theme, I think it's crucial that we make the broader economic argument, like Rocio was saying, that buses play a critical role in promoting economic activity, particularly for people with access needs and those on lower incomes. One in four blind and partially sighted people of working age has a job, and a lack of available transport options is a key factor behind that. So, as well as the focus on affordability, I think improvement and investment needs to be seen through the lens of the wider socioeconomic impact. Our cost-of-living research has found that blind and partially sighted people, on average, spend between £100 and £200 a month additional expenditure on costs associated with their disability. We know poverty is a determinant of poor health, of isolation, so having a service that people can rely on to improve their access to those employment opportunities, education opportunities, can level the playing field and have a much greater economic return on investment elsewhere.

Well, that's taking us, I think, into an area that, Julie, you wanted to pursue.

Yes, thank you very much. Bore da. Do you feel that the needs of older people, disabled people and those with protected characteristics are more generally considered sufficiently, both within the Bill and in wider implementation plans? What further action do you think should be taken?

I think there are some key points that I would just raise here now. I'll do it succinctly. Firstly, thinking about digital exclusion as part of the Bill, certainly around the provisions around information being available to the public, there's nothing within the current Bill that would prevent that becoming online only by default. When we think about digital exclusion, not only of older people, but those who don't have access to smartphones or connectivity, I think that's really important. Within our evidence, we've suggested some wording that would ensure that it doesn't become online information only. So, that would be the first point.

And the second point is that, for us, there's very little in the Bill in terms of quality of provision and safety. Those are things that we would raise specifically about how they interconnect with some of the things that we've already spoken about. If we're speaking about accessibility, if we're speaking about quality, if we're speaking about passenger experiences, then we feel that there needs to be more in terms of that. We've made a recommendation—. The UK bus Bill, at the moment, has specific elements around safety, around driver training, that are not replicated. We would just ask that those are looked at, and, where they are workable, then we look at how they could be consistent, because of some of those elements of cross-border that we've also commented upon.

Yes, you do specifically refer in your evidence, don't you, to the lack of detail on passenger safety. So, have you got anything more to add on that particular issue, passenger safety?

I think that's one thing that older people have spoken to me time and time again about, about not feeling safe on public transport, and practical examples of not being able to embark or disembark safely, the driver moving off before they've sat down, infrastructure elements around lighting and bus stops and the journey to the bus. So, there's a real element of personal safety as well as infrastructure safety in our bus network that I think the Bill could be stronger on. I think driver training would be a real, practical way of being able to improve safety: driver training around equalities, driver training around anti-social behaviour—all things that could really improve passenger safety, whatever age that individual was.

Yes, because I assume, Rocio, that passenger safety is something that's very important for young people.

Yes, it has come up in consultations on this topic recently. Transport for Wales held a session with young members of my advisory committee, where this was raised. The issue of not feeling safe when using buses, or in bus stops particularly, was raised, including the issue of lighting but also driver training and driver behaviour. So, that is certainly a key consideration. I think, also, the wider issue of accessibility, wheelchair accessibility, accessibility for pushchairs and prams on buses is really important. It's certainly a factor that, currently, from the feedback from the young people in that session, prevents them from even thinking about using the buses, if they think they won't be able to get on or that they won't be safe. So, it is a significant concern that young people have expressed. 

And presumably the RNIB feel strongly about this as well.

Yes, I would support everything the commissioners have just said. Just to build on that, RNIB Cymru released a report yesterday called the 'All aboard?' report, which looked into blind and partly sighted people's experiences of using buses. A lot of the issues that Rhian and Rocio have raised were included in that report as well.

There are issues at all stages of the journey. So, from journey planning—not being able to access journey planning tools, those not being compatible with assistive technologies like screen readers, so people have that hurdle before they even walk out their front door—to then the routes from their home to the bus stop, being able to identify a bus stop, because some of them could just be a sign on a lamp post. Just 2 per cent said they could access bus timetables at bus stops. And then, when you're on the bus, a lack of things like audio announcements. Eighty per cent of respondents to our research said that their local bus services don't always have, or sometimes never have, audio announcements.

There was some coverage on ITV Wales yesterday about the launch of the report, featuring a chap from Wrexham. He said he asked his bus driver to let him know when he got to his stop, the bus driver forgot, and he went three miles past his stop, and then he was left with the option of either getting off the bus and waiting a couple hours for the next bus or walking back three miles. So, those kinds of barriers really do prevent people from making the journeys they want to, and none of that is addressed in this legislation. I don't see how any of those access challenges are going to be addressed through this. As I said, there's only one mention of accessibility in this entire piece of legislation, and that is a high-level aspirational kind of objective.

Llŷr, did you have anything to add on that?

Just on some of the duties around, perhaps, quality of engagement, which Rhian touched on, I think there is room to develop the points around local authorities—that there are clear things to be expected in terms of that engagement, and that includes engagement with businesses. We've discussed across many different reports the need for local authorities to perhaps map what the business networks are. That provides an access point to then engage and to perhaps promote that iterative process and to identify the needs of those businesses. And I'm sure that there are similar duties around engagement that would be helpful for other people on the panel as well. 

Can I come on that?

Very briefly, yes.

As umbrella organisations and commissioners, is that something that you could help local authorities with? Because a lot of them don't have officials any more that can do this and can consult. They've had lots of funding cuts. Engagement is really important. So, is that something that you can help with? 

At RNIB, we're always happy to facilitate engagement with local people. It's always around, for us, a small team, the quality of that engagement and it being a meaningful exercise that can have influence on the final decision, with, obviously, the 22 local authorities, as well as engaging with the Welsh Government, engaging with Transport for Wales. We are on hand to help facilitate that. But, yes, it's always a decision about capacity and resource. 

We heard that the regional transport plans were published and the consultation was—. They put together a really good package for that, but the take-up was very poor. So, it's very difficult. 

Can I just come in on that? I think, whilst we would all sit here and say that we would support people in terms of their engagement, engaging with us isn't a substitute for engaging with individuals in communities. And certainly around the regional transport plans, I think, in terms of those being the basis for the wider network plan in Wales, I would ask that we are assured that the consultation and engagement that's happened around those regional plans, firstly, hasn't been geared towards online, and therefore people not having the opportunity to engage. We're in danger then of building our national plan on regional plans that maybe haven't engaged as widely or provided those meaningful opportunities for individuals to engage. And certainly, using some of the networks, RNIB, all our age-friendly communities across Wales—we have those networks in the 22 local authority areas. They are avenues to be able to reach older people within our communities. How effectively are we using those networks to really engage with older people, understand their experiences and barriers and challenges? Because if we do not understand those, then our new bus network is not going to be able to meet the needs of older people in particular. 

I'm going to bring Delyth in here now if I may. Sorry—go on, Rocio.

Just to add, we have similar concerns about, as I mentioned already, the lack of involvement of children and young people so far in the development of this Bill. My office can and does engage with any stakeholder who would like advice in that respect, but obviously, as has been mentioned, capacity to do that is limited. It would be useful if there was a clear requirement from Government for local authorities to undertake that consultation in a meaningful way.

We have had concerns about recent consultations. For example, the national travel survey recently was only available to those aged 16 plus. There have been others that have been technically open to children and young people, but not really child friendly or accessible to children and young people. So, it is a wider conversation that needs to happen, but I think firmer and clearer expectations would really help.

Diolch yn fawr. Okay—Delyth.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Prynhawn da, good afternoon, to all of you. There are two elements to the question I wanted to ask, please, and what you've been talking about is so crucial. Firstly, in terms of infrastructure and inclusive street design, a number of you have mentioned the need for better street lighting, making sure that routes to and from bus stops are safe and are also, crucially, perceived as safe by passengers who are made vulnerable in different situations. Do you think that part of the problem here is that the Bill splits responsibilities? So, the planning and delivery of bus services is on Welsh Ministers, but bus infrastructure and a lot of that street design is left with local authorities or highways. Do you think that that is one of the ways in which the Bill—? That's a leading question. What do you think are the implications of that? 

I totally agree, Delyth. The walking journey to and from a bus station is as much a part of the journey as catching the bus itself. The report I mentioned earlier found that more than half of respondents to our survey said that they found getting to their local bus stop either fairly or very difficult. Things that come up all the time are street clutter and obstacles, cars parked on pavements, lack of pedestrian-controlled crossings, shared-use pathways, particularly, as you guys might have seen in Cardiff, the bus stop bypasses where pedestrians have to cross a cycleway in order to catch a bus. That’s really difficult if you've got sight loss, particularly if there are no controlled crossings, and often people are stepping out from buses not realising that they're actually in a cycle lane, and we've heard of people unfortunately having collisions and that really putting them off.

There are examples of best practice. Transport for Wales have done a really good job on the Cardiff bus interchange. There are loads of accessibility features installed in that piece of infrastructure, and that was designed in collaboration with disabled people. But then you leave that interchange and all of the infrastructure around that to get there is the responsibility of local authorities. We'd love to see that continuity, and just a set of principles adopted to enable those walking journeys, because that continuity and familiarity is really key for people.

Just on that point of the split responsibilities, I think the more responsibilities we put on different bodies, the greater the risk that that won't be joined up. I think it’s that assurance that we need that collective responsibility, and that bus passengers shouldn't be adversely impacted by whoever's responsibility that is. We don't want to be in a position where maybe elements are questioned and that's somebody else's responsibility. So I think that collective responsibility, that holistic overview and that working towards the same objectives are really important. 

I think the main concern for me in terms of split responsibilities relates to the lack of join-up with learner travel and learner transport. 

That was going to be the second part of my question, actually. So, if you could lead us through that, that would be really useful, the fact that that split—. What are those implications, please? 

There are huge problems and barriers with current learner travel arrangements. I've publicly voiced my disappointment with the extent of the review that's taken place to date to look at learner travel arrangements. We have a huge amount of casework from children right across Wales from nearly every local authority who are experiencing barriers, because they're mostly expected to walk up to 3 miles to school and back from school, and are only eligible for free bus travel to school after that 3-mile threshold, or 2 miles for primary-age children. We know what the weather is like increasingly in Wales, so this is just a huge issue. Local authorities have got different arrangements in place at the moment that have tried to be more generous, but many of those local authorities are now cutting back to the statutory minimum because of budgetary pressures.

It's a very inconsistent postcode lottery currently, with many children experiencing real issues because they're having to walk so far, and sometimes on unsafe routes to school—on routes that haven't been adequately assessed as safe. There are all sorts of real difficult issues that are preventing children from getting to school, and we haven't got a wholesale way of grappling or reviewing that so far, because the Welsh Government has not thoroughly undertaken that review of the learner travel Measure, in my view.

Unfortunately, although a lot of the rationale for not doing a comprehensive review of the learner travel Measure was said—. The rationale given was that this bus Bill was in development. Unfortunately, now that this has come, it still doesn't directly relate or respond to those concerns. And even if this does progress, it will still take a number of years to get this through. In the meantime, children are really struggling, and this is quite urgent. We can't wait another five years, because that's a whole educational lifespan for children. So, this needs urgent attention, and it is a big concern.

Thank you so much.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. We'll move on now to Janet.

You've covered No. 8. So, No. 9: are the objectives set in section 4 of the Bill clear and appropriate? Are any additional objectives required? To the FSB: can you outline the concerns raised in your written evidence over the use of the word 'economic' in reference to the Bill's aims? To the older people's commissioner, similarly, can you expand on the points raised in your written evidence concerning the objectives set under the Bill? How should the Bill be amended to address this? And to the RNIB, what are your views on the inclusion of accessibility within the objectives of the Bill as currently drafted? 

We'll start with Llŷr. 

We have no objection, really, to the objectives that are there. On the point of the use of the word 'economic', the quote we mention in the written evidence appears to me to discuss economic as affordable. That's obviously a completely fine goal, but it doesn't really address the idea of economic development or the economic benefits you can derive from things like this. And indeed, in terms of some of the discussion already on infrastructure, any disincentive to travel obviously will impact on the businesses—as Nathan mentioned, the amount of money that his stakeholders can bring to the economy and all of that side of it. So, for us, the idea of needing economic development to be core in the Bill and economic impacts to be on the face of the Bill, and not just coming afterwards in implementation, is a really important part of that.

There are a few objectives that are probably missing. There are also questions around the diversity of the market when looking at operators and whether there is a capacity of bus operators across Wales to fulfil some of the demand that this Bill might raise. There are questions around the speed of journeys, possibly. I'm aware that the Local Government Association—the English LGA—noted that a 1 per cent decrease in journey time has an impact of a 1 per cent drop in deprivation levels. There are measures that are quite important in terms of these things that have an economic side to them as well. So, there are a few things like that, and congestion being linked to speed of journeys and so on, of course, that have an impact outside the Bill, but I think they do need to be—. They might be policies outside of the Bill, in some respects, but possibly a duty on the Minister to take those into consideration.