Monday 2nd June 2025
(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (1 Apr 2025)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I start by thanking my friend, the Minister of State for Rail, for being an excellent advocate and custodian of the Bill as it made its way through the other place. As someone who started his career on London’s world-famous red buses, there was no better person in the country than the noble Lord Hendy to kick-start the Government’s bus reform journey. I am proud to call him my friend, and I am grateful every day for his wise counsel, frank advice and gentle good humour.
What we saw in the other place, and what I hope we may be able to secure in this House, is constructive cross-party support. We all recognise how buses connect us to the things that matter most: work and school, friends and family, essential services and the weekly shop. The billions of bus journeys each year—equivalent to over 100 every second of every day—are the difference between vibrant communities and boarded up high streets, between aspiration and isolation, and between getting on and being forced to give up.
The Bill represents years of work in opposition and now in government to discard the failed 40-year model of deregulation in favour of putting passenger needs, reliable services and local accountability at the heart of the industry.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State on the importance of buses for connectivity. I note that the Bill talks about “socially necessary” services, but it would be helpful to have a better understanding of the definition of what they are beyond my own interpretation. For example, if a constituency does not have a train station, can we therefore have a greater assurance that we will see no loss in our bus services?
Heidi Alexander
Through the Bill, we will be giving local transport authorities the power to determine socially necessary local services. That relates to access to employment, jobs, things like health facilities, and education. That power will lie with local authorities and it will be for them to determine.
Heidi Alexander
I will make some progress.
Before I come to the Bill’s key measures, I will briefly set out the context. Although it may be tempting for me to lay the blame for the current state of buses entirely at the feet of the last Government, that would be neither right nor fair. They too inherited a broken, deregulated system that forced passengers to navigate multiple operators on similar routes, but with different tickets. They, too, faced declining patronage, with 1.8 billion fewer journeys outside London last year than in 1986, and, to their credit, they tried to fix that. The national bus strategy, bus service improvement plans and greater powers for mayors were all steps in the right direction to improve services for passengers.
Heidi Alexander
I am going to make some progress.
However, in some areas such as franchising, the last Government did not go far enough, so this Bill will not only build on previous reforms but go further—much further—in fixing the faults that are still holding the industry back from meeting the needs of local people. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will see the merits of the approach that we are taking. After all, we have all heard from constituents about jobs not taken and opportunities missed because bus services are too unreliable, or do not operate on Sundays, or do not cater for night-time shifts.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In London we have benefited for a long time from bus services that are better than those in the rest of the country, and I wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend’s desire to level that up, but in London we also have floating bus stops. I know that matching the needs of cyclists, of whom I am one, with those of others involves a delicate balance, but for someone who is blind, visually impaired or encumbered by, for instance, a buggy, getting off a bus at a floating bus stop is very dangerous. What plans has my right hon. Friend to tackle the issue across the country?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend may know that in the Bill we commit ourselves to producing design guidance for local authorities so that they can look at what is best practice. She may also know that in the other place the Rail Minister said we were committing ourselves to a non-statutory pause on the type of floating bus stop that requires a passenger to alight directly on a cycle lane. I hope that that gives her some reassurance.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the work that she is doing in this regard. I am pleased to hear that the Bill requires guidance to be produced to enable authorities to make floating bus stops safe and accessible, but many blind and partially sighted people, including me, have experienced problems with them. Could a proper assessment of their safety be carried out to ensure that no passenger who uses a bus, whether it is to go to work or to attend a health appointment, will experience the challenges that so many people currently experience when trying to navigate them?
Heidi Alexander
We will be looking carefully at this issue. I am very conscious of the needs of the visually impaired community, but I am also very conscious of the need to protect cyclists and pedestrians on our roads, so I am keen for us to look at the issue in the round.
Heidi Alexander
I am going to make a little more progress, but I shall be happy to take interventions later.
I was talking about the problems caused by bus services that are unreliable, do not operate at weekends or, perhaps, do not cater for individuals working night shifts. We all know that each of those stories is the story of a life frustrated, but, taken together, they constitute an anthology of wasted potential, of living standards and growth held back. That is why improving bus services underpins our plan for change, and it is why, despite difficult choices made across Government, we confirmed more than £1 billion in funding in the last Budget to protect vital routes and keep fares down.
Heidi Alexander
I am not going to give way again to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I will give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
Ellie Chowns
Does the Secretary of State recognise that rural constituencies such as mine have particular needs, and that the funding needs to reflect the extra costs associated with rurality, as well as the demographic demands? Young people, older people and people on low incomes rely on buses more than others. Will those factors be taken into account in the funding mechanisms for bus services?
Heidi Alexander
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have taken those issues into account in our allocation of this year’s funding.
Let me now explain our approach. Funding, even record funding, without reform means throwing good money after bad, and that brings me to the Bill. Our reforms are not ideological. Regardless of what some may say, this is not about public ownership versus private enterprise. It is about enabling more people to use buses, about ensuring that those services are safer, more reliable and more accessible, and about harnessing the best of devolution.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the Bill. Sarah, one of my constituents, is here today. Her work with the National Federation of the Blind of the UK and its street access campaign has demonstrated the difficulty that blind and partially sighted people experience in accessing buses. They cannot make the choice that others make to pass their driving tests as soon as they reach the age of 17 so that they can travel to their local colleges, schools or hospital appointments. I want to draw attention to that fantastic campaign, and to ask for the Bill to make clear to local authorities that they must work to ensure that all buses are accessible—not just to people with sight impairments but to those who need to access a bus in a wheelchair, like my friends who cannot travel together and are often whizzed past by the driver, and have to wait longer than the rest of us.
Heidi Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so powerfully. I can reassure her that the Bill will introduce a duty for local transport authorities to consult disabled passengers and disability organisations before initiating a franchise scheme. It will standardise the current disability training requirements that operators will need to fulfil, and it will give the Government new powers to require operators to record data on that training. I think that, taken together, those measures should represent a positive improvement in the way in which the bus network is designed to ensure that everyone can use it.
As I was saying, the Bill was designed to harness the best of devolution. That means transferring power away from central Government and operators, and towards local leaders—those who know their areas best—and giving them the tools to deliver buses on which communities can rely. Whether we are talking about the franchising that has worked so well in London or Jersey, about the local authority bus companies that have thrived in Nottingham and Reading or about the excellent examples of enhanced partnerships in Brighton and Norfolk, it is clear to me that one size does not fit all. The Bill will expand the options available to local authorities so that each area has the bus service that is right for it, while also safeguarding the needs of passengers, particularly the most vulnerable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I know that the Secretary of State is committed to ensuring that buses are environmentally friendly and meet the net zero targets that we all want to be met. Wrightbus in Ballymena, in Northern Ireland, is a leading producer of hydrogen buses, which provide safe, reliable, cost-effective transport. Has the Secretary of State been able to have any discussions with Wrightbus—which supplies buses in London and elsewhere in the UK—with a view to ensuring that everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can take advantage of that innovative technology?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the innovative technology developed by Wrightbus. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has not only met representatives of Wrightbus but visited its facility.
Let me now explain how we are going about fixing the broken franchising process.
It cannot be right that it took Mayor Andy Burnham years to bring just one bus under public control, after being frustrated at every turn. With bus services in Greater Manchester now part of the Bee Network, usage is up by 14%, and revenues and punctuality are also moving in the right direction. However, franchising remains too complex. Proposed schemes need to jump through myriad hoops, and they still require my consent to proceed—which is odd, to say the least. The idea that I understand what passengers in Leicestershire or Cornwall need better than their local leaders do is for the birds. In December, we opened up franchising to every local authority. Through this Bill, we will further streamline the process, making it simpler for franchise schemes to be granted and assessed.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State referred earlier to placing certain statutory duties on county councils. When she considers that, will she consider including in those duties the maintenance of companion bus passes for people with learning difficulties who cannot travel on their own? It is not much good for them to have a free bus pass if they cannot take a companion with them.
Will the Secretary of State join me in expressing our sadness and commiseration over the recent passing of Mr Andrew Wickham, who spent more than 40 years in the transport industry and over a decade as managing director of Go South Coast, which operates Bluestar buses in New Forest East? I always found him to be a marvellously attentive correspondent, and he was someone who worked until almost the very end.
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he gives me the opportunity to place on record my thanks to Andrew Wickham. I have the privilege of representing the constituency of Swindon South, and he ran Swindon’s Bus Company. He was the epitome of professionalism and kindness to me—not only as a Member of a Parliament, but when I was a candidate—and I pass on my condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the importance of companion travel for individuals with disabilities. He will know that the decision to add extras to the English national concessionary fare scheme is taken by local authorities.
I was talking about our desire to make the franchising system simpler. Of course, the model will not work everywhere, which is why this Bill also strengthens enhanced partnerships and removes the ideological ban on establishing new local authority bus companies. Furthermore, by giving local authorities the power to design and pay bus operator grants in their area, the Bill gives greater protections for socially necessary local services, securing the lifeline routes that keep communities connected.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In our communities we have nearly full employment, but a lot of people are on extremely low wages. Before the bus fare cap came in, the bus fare from Kendal to Ambleside was the second highest in the entire country, costing people a quarter of their salary to get to work. As the Secretary of State makes sure that devolution happens and that franchising is done in a way that is fit for purpose in each different area, will she ensure that she does not abdicate her responsibility to fully fund the bus fare cap, so that people like my constituents can actually afford to get to work?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a spending review under way, but I can confirm that I fully appreciate the importance of having an affordable and accessible bus route. He will be aware that zero funding was allocated to fund the bus fare cap beyond the end of last year, and this Government stepped in with our commitment to the £3 fare. Although it applies to only one in six journeys—because a number of people who travel regularly will use a travelcard for a week or a month—I am aware of the importance that his constituents and others attach to the cap.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and her team, including the Minister in the other place, on bringing this Bill before the House. Since 2010, we have seen 2 million fewer bus miles ridden in Hampshire. In Oakley, Chineham, Black Dam and South Ham, I have heard stories of missed appointments, work shifts and social engagements as a result of poor service. Can she confirm that this Bill will give every part of England the opportunity to take back control of its bus services? Can she explain what will happen with the devolution process and whether the powers will pass to the new unitary authorities or mayoral authorities, or has that yet to be decided?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is a fearsome advocate for his constituents, and I know the importance that he places on local bus services. Under the new devolution arrangements, local transport authorities will be the part of local government where the new powers lie. It is for local transport authorities to decide whether franchising or an enhanced partnership is the route for them to deliver the services that their communities need.
Running buses should always be about serving passengers, and I want to say something about safety and what we are doing, through this Bill, to put the needs of passengers first. We want to keep passengers safe at any time of day or night, and at any point in their journey, be it waiting at bus stops or when on board. That is why this Bill includes powers for local transport authorities to crack down on fare dodgers and tackle antisocial behaviour; requirements for drivers of school services to pass enhanced criminal record checks, closing an existing loophole; and mandatory training for bus staff to help tackle crime where it is safe for them to do so.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I want to return briefly to the socially necessary services that the Secretary of State mentioned. Two issues in my constituency are of great importance: the first relates to the fact that school-only buses are often more expensive than regular services; and the second relates to operators, who tell me that the current SEND transport model is unsustainable and that children with special educational needs and disabilities are being left with a poorer service. Will the Bill seek to address those concerns?
Heidi Alexander
There are not specific criteria and provisions in this Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my ministerial colleagues and I are very aware of those issues. Although school-only bus provision is provided in a slightly different way, I would be happy to talk to him about the particular issues in his constituency.
I want to say something about accessibility. For many, buses are a route to a better, more independent life, yet the current patchwork quilt of standards and regulations can further disable passengers, rather than enable them. That will change through this Bill, because local authorities will be required to produce a bus network accessibility plan and to consult disability organisations on changes to services, as I said earlier. New statutory guidance will make stopping places more accessible, including floating bus stops, which came up earlier. However, after listening to concerns, we will press pause on those that are perceived to be poorly designed.
Chris Vince
Part of the issue with bus stops in Harlow has been caused by the redevelopment of sustainable transport corridors, which we absolutely welcome. Bus stops are being forced to move, making them less accessible. Is that something that the Bill takes into account? Even if it is a temporary bus stop or bus station, we need to ensure that it fits the criteria.
Heidi Alexander
The Bill will improve the ability of local transport authorities to deal with precisely that sort of situation.
Heidi Alexander
I will make some progress. I am conscious that a number of Members want to speak, and I would like to allow as many people as possible to make contributions.
I want to say something about our commitment to meeting our net zero targets. This Bill will restrict new non-zero emission buses on most local services in England from no earlier than January 2030, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Transport is already speaking to the industry—not just about securing an orderly transition, but about the opportunity for British bus manufacturers to meet new demand both at home and abroad.
Finally, several non-Government amendments were added to the Bill during its passage in the other place, which is why I was unable to make a statement of compatibility with the European convention on human rights. That was the result of clause 40, which was not tabled by the Government. It requires recording violent behaviour on buses and sharing that data with the local transport authority, and it also requires consulting trade unions on staff safety. The personal data requirements are incompatible with ECHR obligations; as such, the Government will seek to address this matter as the Bill progresses.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Secretary of State mentioned that the Minister for Local Transport is taking responsibility for the net zero side, and I was delighted to welcome him to my constituency to see the work of Wrightbus, which is repurposing diesel buses with its new powertrains. Could she provide reassurance that buses repurposed as net zero buses will also be eligible for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government funding for decarbonisation of the bus fleet in the future?
Heidi Alexander
If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that point, but I understand why he is keen to raise it.
In conclusion, I would say that for too long and in too many places a degraded bus network has been symbolic of wider national decline, with each poor service reinforcing a sense of things not working as they should. That ends now. This Bill represents a brighter future for bus travel. For the first time in 40 years, we are taking back control of our buses, transferring power from operators to local leaders and from Whitehall to the town hall, where it belongs. I truly believe that the transport needs of my constituents in Swindon are different from those of passengers in Scunthorpe or Southend. That is why buses will rightly look and feel different across the country, reflecting the identity and priorities of local areas.
This Bill is just the start of the journey. Throughout its passage and following Royal Assent, we will continue to work with the bus industry, passenger groups and colleagues in both Houses as we set out further regulations on the standards that we and millions of daily passengers expect. Better buses are around the corner, with increased reliability, greater accountability and services that passengers can finally depend on. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Buses are the most popular form of public transport in the country, carrying passengers on twice as many journeys as trains and serving thousands more stops nationwide. As the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, from the centre of London to the remotest areas, they can get teenagers to school, allow pensioners to visit friends and connect people to jobs that they would not otherwise be able to take. They keep town centres alive, connect our communities and ensure that those with mobility issues, as well as the most vulnerable, can get around.
Peter Swallow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was just curious why, if buses are so popular and important, as he rightly says, so few of his Back-Bench colleagues are lining up to speak in this important debate?
Gareth Bacon
It is because there is no Division later. It is not because nobody cares, but because there is not going to be a Division.
The previous Conservative Government recognised just how vital local bus services are to keeping communities connected. From 2020 to when we left office last summer, the previous Government committed £4.5 billion to support and enhance bus services, including more than £2 billion to help local authorities implement their bus service improvement plans. Perhaps most importantly, we also introduced the £2 bus fare cap.
Wendy Morton
Just to be absolutely clear, there are Conservative Members who wanted to ask questions of the Transport Secretary, but she seemed a little unwilling. On the specific point of fares and affordability, can my hon. Friend help to ensure that passengers, whom the Bill should focus on, see value for money from this Bill? In the west midlands, Mayor Parker, under his plan to take back control of our buses, is actually taking money from our pockets and increasing fares by 8.6%?
Gareth Bacon
Yes, indeed. We are very interested in doing that, which is why we inserted a purpose clause in the other place to ensure that the key focus of this Bill is solely on passengers.
By maintaining the £2 bus fare cap, we ensured that bus travel remained affordable and accessible to as many people as possible, while helping families manage the cost of living. We have voiced deep concerns in both this Chamber and the other place about the impact, particularly on the most vulnerable, of Labour’s decision to scrap the £2 cap and raise it to £3. Make no mistake: this is bad for those in work, who will be £3,500 worse off because of this Government’s jobs tax, and bad for pensioners, who have seen their winter fuel payments cut and their energy bills rise, despite repeated promises from Labour to cut their energy costs by £300.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
One of the things that feels so pernicious about scrapping the national “Get around for £2” bus fare cap is that, while certain parts of the country that were given long-term settlements under the last Government—sometimes of up to five years—have been able to maintain the cap, large parts of the country have not been able to do so. Does that not go to show that the last Government were prepared to work with people from all political parties, but this feels particularly pernicious because it is really targeted at areas that have not traditionally been Labour-supporting?
Gareth Bacon
As always, my right hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter, and I have to say that I agree with him.
I would like to make one thing abundantly clear from the outset: we do not oppose franchising in principle. When implemented properly, franchising can be a powerful mechanism for improving services, addressing local transport challenges and delivering the quality services that passengers rightly demand and expect.
Gareth Bacon
I will make a bit of progress.
However, the Bill in its original form does not do that. The Secretary of State has acknowledged, and I agree, that the Bill does not mandate franchising everywhere, and that is a sensible step, but the Bill does not prioritise passengers, and nothing in it guarantees an improvement in service standards. The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era, without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Highbridge bus passenger group in my constituency has raised the issues of Sunday services either not existing or starting so late that people cannot get to work, bus services being put on in the summer during the tourist season but not being available in the winter, and poor connections for rural communities. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, without additional funding, this bus Bill will not solve those problems?
Gareth Bacon
Yes, my hon. Friend is completely correct, and I will come to that a bit later in my speech.
While we do not oppose the franchising of bus services, we do oppose a particular assumption that underlines this legislation, which is that the public sector is the solution to everything. Some local authorities may have the expertise and resources to successfully franchise passenger bus services, but let us be clear that many do not. The very central premise of the Bill—giving every local authority the unchecked power to implement franchising, regardless of its resources or capacity—is not an act of empowerment; it is irresponsible. By removing the need for the Secretary of State to consent to franchising, as required under the previous Conservative Government, this Government are eliminating crucial safeguards.
Gareth Bacon
With respect to my right hon. Friend, I will not, because I am conscious that lots of Members want to speak.
Those safeguards are designed to ensure that franchising serves the passengers who rely on our bus services and the taxpayers who pay for them. The expertise required to design, manage and operate franchised networks is not readily available in most councils. That is why the Bus Services Act 2017 limited franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities, which are bodies with the scale, resources and democratic mandate to take on such responsibilities.
Crucially, the legislation we enacted to pave the way for mayoral combined authorities to issue franchising models also required those authorities to demonstrate that franchising would deliver genuine benefits for passengers. The removal of that requirement by this Bill is concerning, and it betrays the view held by those on the Government side of the House that the public sector is inherently infallible. Members will not be shocked that I do not share that view, but they do not need to take my word for it.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Gareth Bacon
I will make some progress and then give way.
Members should take the word of Centre for Cities, which has made it clear that expanding franchising could expose councils to serious financial risks, because after decades of deregulated services, many transport authorities simply lack the skills and capacity to manage a comprehensive bus network, yet would be financially responsible if an undertaking goes wrong.
These are not just hypothetical concerns. The experience in Greater Manchester illustrates just how easily costs can spiral, leaving the taxpayer out of pocket. The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that initial projections published in Greater Manchester combined authority’s transport revenue budget put the cost of transitioning to a franchised system at £134.5 million for 2024-25. That figure has since ballooned, with ongoing operational costs now forecast to exceed £226 million per year by 2025-26, which is a 68% increase in one year. Over four years, the scheme could cost up to £1 billion—far, far more than anticipated. Moreover, the House will know that the annual level of bus subsidy in London last year amounted to £646 million. Greater London is the most heavily populated and most economically active area in the entire country. It also has the highest level of bus use. Yet even with all those advantages, it requires that level of annual subsidy just to keep the network running.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
When my hon. Friend talks about the increased risk smaller local authorities would face through franchising, he could be talking about my local authority, Isle of Wight council. Does he see anything in the Bill that is appealing to small unitary authorities, or is this really just a Bill for bigger metropolitan areas and large towns?
Gareth Bacon
The risk of the Bill is that it does not come with substantial funding attached. That is the problem. It is mismanaging the public’s expectations. I expect we will hear from a parade of Labour MPs talking about how it will transform services in their local area. Without the required level of funding, it simply will not.
Victoria Collins
It is really important that we stop the vicious cycle. In my area of Harpenden and Berkhamsted, the X5 has been cancelled for commercial reasons. The bus company says it is no longer commercially viable, but that has left people who work in the local hospital saying, “I might have to move house or leave my job.” There are children who now have to wait at school or who cannot get back from school because the bus goes too late. We need to stop the vicious cycle and make sure the funding is there, and this is a good start to help bring buses back to the communities that need them.
Gareth Bacon
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which is that without substantial extra levels of funding from the Government, that simply will not happen. Local authorities may have the powers to do it, but they simply will not have the ability.
The Government have talked about the amount of money they are putting into the Bill and the Secretary of State referred to it in her speech, but it is a mere £1 billion, of which £700 million has been earmarked for bus planning documents, not actual services. Less than 30% is being directed toward the delivery of bus services themselves, which will not touch the sides. Giving local authorities the legal power to do something without the money is mere window dressing. If these challenges can emerge in Greater Manchester and Greater London despite all their resources, planning and political leadership, what should we expect elsewhere? The truth is that we do not know, and that highlights the danger at the heart of the Bill.
On a connected vein, through franchising, we may end up extinguishing a number of highly successful private sector businesses, reducing them to operating for a fee and doing what the state instructs them to do in terms of routes, services and fares. Quite aside from losing the expertise that the private sector brings to the network, the Government risk removing any incentive for the private sector to invest in our bus networks, potentially leaving the taxpayer with ever greater burdens.
Despite my various concerns about this legislation, I would like to recognise that the Bill we see before us was greatly improved during its passage through the other place—improvements driven notably but not exclusively by Conservative peers. The purpose clause, which obligates the Secretary of State to consider service performance, quality and accessibility, was a much-needed addition, as was the amendment requiring an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 fare cap. Successful amendments requiring the Secretary of State to review bus services to villages in England, to develop a programme to eliminate serious injury during bus operations, and to require bus operators to record all data regarding assaults and violent behaviour, were all tabled by peers from other political parties to His Majesty’s Opposition and, collectively, they improve the Bill. The latter amendment was tabled by the noble Lord Woodley, a Labour peer and former joint general secretary of the Unite trade union. It was, bizarrely, opposed by Labour peers, but it succeeded with the support of Conservative peers and those of other parties.
A further successful Conservative amendment was passed, mandating a review of the national insurance burden on special educational needs transport, following the increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that it is deeply regrettable that Labour peers were whipped to vote against a measure designed solely to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society. In opposing the special educational needs transport amendment in the other place, the Government asserted:
“The Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant effect on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment that this amendment suggests.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 1756.]
Leaving aside the breathtaking arrogance of that statement, it is directly contradicted by the very providers tasked with delivering these vital services. The chairman of the 24x7 Group, one of the largest operators of SEND transport in the country, has warned that changes to national insurance contributions could significantly raise employment costs, making some contracts unviable. That has the potential to leave thousands of children without access to the transport they rely on to attend school. To oppose even a review of such consequences is not just shortsighted; it speaks to a worrying indifference about the impact of this legislation on vulnerable passengers.
The Opposition were also disappointed that Labour peers voted against introducing a safeguard against repeated franchising assessments for the same geographical area, which risks wasting public resources and creating instability for operators and passengers alike. Similarly, it was disappointing to see Labour peers not support plans to ensure that floating bus stops do not threaten the safety of those who are blind and partially sighted.
Likewise, if improving passenger services is at the heart of the Bill, I fail to understand why Labour peers were whipped to vote against the amendment that would give the Secretary of State the power to intervene when franchised services fail due to poor local management. Does the Secretary of State really believe that passengers should be left stranded simply because a local authority is unable to deliver? I do not believe that to be the case and I look forward to her amending the Bill as it proceeds through the House.
Why did Labour peers vote against those measures? Once again, it would appear that ideology took precedence over passengers. That is why we will push to reinstate these prudent amendments as the Bill proceeds through the House. The Liberal Democrats supported many of the measures in the other place and I sincerely hope they will do the same in this House, for the benefit of passengers.
In conclusion, franchising may well play an important role in improving the bus networks of the future, but the Bill alone will not get us there. That is because the Bill does not prioritise those who matter most: the people who rely on buses every single day to get to work, attend school, reach appointments and stay connected with their communities. While we welcome the positive changes made by peers in the other place and we will not divide the House on Second Reading, we cannot vote for a Bill that lacks basic safeguards, ignores the risks and prioritises ideology over impact. We will therefore seek to improve the Bill as it proceeds through the House. I urge the House to consider not just the political implications of this legislation, but its real-world consequences for the millions who depend on these services every day.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, it might be helpful to indicate that after the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be a five-minute time limit. I do not propose to drop it any further than that and, given the number of Members here, many may be disappointed.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the first Commons debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which I welcome. The new Transport Committee decided that its first inquiry would be on “Buses connecting communities” to address the rural and non-city services across England outside London. We have completed our evidence gathering and our report will be published before too long. The oral and written evidence we received is tagged to today’s Order Paper and is available via a link on the Committee website.
Poor bus services affect the constituents of almost every constituency in England outside London, judging by the interest in the issue during the election of the Chair of the Committee last September and in the attendance today. Whether Members’ constituencies are rural, mid-sized cities, suburban or in the London commuter belt, the interest in this issue is significant. In England outside London, there has been an overall decline in bus use of 63% since 2002. Car travel is now not only the main form of travel, but in many places it is the only way to get around, particularly early, late and at weekends. For those who are unable to drive or access a car, the lack of decent, or indeed any, bus services means that they are stuck at home or at the mercy of family, neighbours or expensive taxis.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend could be describing my constituency of Mid Derbyshire, many parts of which are poorly served by buses. Does she agree that the way forward is to give local leaders the power to determine routes and support them to work with private companies?
Ruth Cadbury
I will come on to that, but yes. For a Labour Government with a focus on growth, opportunity and clean energy, it is essential to transform bus services across England to make them more reliable, more accessible and better integrated into the fabric of local communities. That is important to ensure that residents of rural areas are not left behind, to support the growth and regeneration aspirations of our towns away from major conurbations, and to make sure that the most vulnerable have equal access and ability to travel.
In its inquiry, the Committee has received valuable evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. When we looked at the impact of declining bus services, we heard evidence that described local bus services in 2025 as a “barrier” to opportunity rather than an “enabler”. We heard that the future of many services remains “precarious”. From a local authority perspective, the situation was described as “challenging”. We also heard about the economic hit to many town centres from fewer buses; if people cannot travel, they do not spend in local shops and businesses. This Bill is not a magic wand, however. For instance, the Local Government Association told us that
“successful implementation will require practical support and local flexibility from central government.”
I will address four key areas, the first of which is improved integration and co-ordination. Passenger groups told us that they need a system that works together as a whole, rather than the patchwork of disconnected services that they see at present. I therefore welcome the focus on enhanced partnerships and franchising powers for local authorities. The franchising model has long been used in London, and it has been seen more recently in Greater Manchester through the Bee Network. Franchising and even enhanced partnerships should make for co-ordinated timetables, simplified fare structures and greater accountability in service delivery so that passengers no longer have to navigate a confusing web of different operators, routes and fare structures.
Ruth Cadbury
I will press on, because I will be frowned at if I take too many interventions.
On community engagement and local needs, our inquiry was told that services should be shaped by the voices of those who rely on them, ensuring that routes are designed to connect communities, not just city centres, and that they connect rural and isolated communities. I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of local bus service improvement plans, which will ensure that local authorities can work with operators to tailor services to the unique needs of the communities they serve. Will the Bill ensure that service user groups are an integral part of both the design and the review of local services?
I move on to sustainability and green transport. The Transport Secretary reiterated just now that buses have a vital role to play in the transition to greener and more sustainable transport, as well as in cutting pollution in busy streets and reducing car dependency. If my constituency experience is anything to go by, getting adequate EV charging capacity to bus depots must be a priority. Although that is perhaps not a feature of the Bill, I use this opportunity to ask whether the Minister will work with bus operators and power networks to address that challenge for bus depots.
On affordability and accessibility, if there is to be transformational change to the bus system in England, buses have to be there for those who cannot drive or cannot afford to own and run a car. A not insignificant proportion of the population are left out, yet they need to get to work, to college, to the shops, to services and to doctors’ appointments, and they have to have a social and family life. Even if a local area is served by reliable bus services, that is no use if people cannot get on or off them, if they do not feel safe or if they cannot afford the fare.
Although I welcome references to affordability and accessibility, I have some questions based on our buses inquiry and the evidence to it, and on our “Access denied” report, the work on which was mainly completed by our predecessor Committee. Clause 14 requires local transport authorities operating in enhanced partnerships to identify socially necessary services. That is welcome, but in their evidence to us, operators and local authorities had questions about how that would play out. Having defined those services, will local authorities be held to ransom for their continuation, regardless of cost?
Accessibility means more than the design of buses and bus stops; it includes the usability of digital information, maps and timetables, without excluding those who do not have a smartphone or cannot get a mobile signal. We were told that guidance on accessibility must encourage rather than discourage innovation. Although clauses relating to staff training in accessibility are welcome, we were told that guidance must set out clearer expectations about the nature of training that is to be provided. It must be of a guaranteed minimum standard and proven effectiveness, not a tick-box exercise that enables people to say that they have done the training.
The Bill does not appear to address the accessibility barriers that prevent most people who use class 3 mobility scooters from travelling on bus services. Furthermore, will it make reference to the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000?
As has been mentioned, it is also unclear whether express coaches and closed-door school services are covered by the Bill.
On amendments passed in the other place, will the Secretary of State have another chance to look at implementing a “Vision Zero” deaths and injuries goal for the bus sector?
The elephant in the room is funding. There is not a country in the world that has a self-funding bus service. We went to Ireland, where Government policy provides that the vast majority in rural Ireland are linked to their nearest town by at least three return bus journeys per day. Even London’s buses survive on cross-subsidy from the tube system. Unless and until we have a robust economy where local authorities have the funding to deliver an Ireland level of bus provision, this Bill is the start and not the magic bullet in delivering the affordable, accessible and comprehensive bus network across England that we all aspire to.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As other Members have noted, buses are the most used form of public transport, and in much of the country they are the only option available. Outside London, however, bus use is in sharp decline, with more than 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. That is not because of insufficient demand, but because of the Conservative policy of deregulation that put profit before people, allowing private operators to cream off the valuable routes with scant regard for the needs of the wider community, resulting in increased fares and reduced or completely abandoned services for many—unless, of course, the local authority, starved of access to the profitable routes, met the costs of the unprofitable ones.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
That is exactly what has happened in Cornwall. The No. 11 and No. 12 bus served lots of rural towns and villages to Derriford hospital, but it has been salami-sliced—I have just got off the phone to Go Cornwall Bus—after years of underfunding. My constituent Mary in Padstow relies on that service to get her breast cancer treatment at Derriford, and she can no longer afford to get to the hospital, which would involve spending hundreds of pounds on taxis. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural areas like mine, we need ringfenced funding to protect those key healthcare routes?
Mr Kohler
Those are exactly the kinds of issues that must be addressed, and this Bill does not do enough to achieve that. I will come back to that in a moment.
In rural areas, the story is often one of total disconnection, with communities cut off and people unable to get to work or hospital appointments, or to visit friends or relations.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural constituencies like mine, bus routes are an absolute lifeline and a route out of poverty? When the 84 and 85 bus route was cut last year, it meant not only that people could not get to medical appointments or to work, but that students had to drop out of the college courses that would have enabled them to escape from poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure that this Bill enables an affordable, joined-up and genuinely useful rural transport network?
Mr Kohler
I completely agree. The point is that this is about not only getting people out of poverty but growing the economy. People need access to bus routes; otherwise they are left with expensive and much more environmentally damaging private transport.
Put simply, a poor or non-existent bus service is not just an inconvenience. It is a barrier to opportunity, a brake on economic growth, and an obstacle to achieving net zero. Given the decline in local bus services under the Conservatives, my party and I warmly welcome the Government’s renewed focus on this issue. The Bill includes measures that are long overdue and that my party will support.
Anna Dixon
Much has been made about the decline in bus usage. The pattern is similar in West Yorkshire, where between 2011 and 2022 there was a reduction of some 60 million journeys. There has been lots of mention of Greater Manchester, but West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin’s bus service improvement plan has already seen a 4% increase in bus usage. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that approaches that devolve responsibility and make it easier for mayors and local authorities to take over public control through franchising are the route to improved usage and, ultimately, the delivery of better buses?
Mr Kohler
I do agree. It is also about funding, which we must explore; but, yes, my party believes in localism—bringing things down to the local level is crucial.
It needs to be stated from the off that the Bill does not go far enough. It falls short of delivering the comprehensive, transformative change that our bus network desperately needs—and thus, I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to be even more ambitious.
I will now outline the measures in the Bill that my party supports. Local government, not Whitehall, know what is best for their area. That is why my party has long championed localism, which is all about providing communities with the necessary tools to realise their potential. The Bill’s provisions to improve, streamline and extend franchising rights to all local transport authorities is consequently long overdue and supported on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the community in north Taunton on getting the first No. 1 bus of the morning—the 6.22 am service—restored? I had the joy of experiencing it this morning, tinged only with the tiredness that results from having got the 6.22. Does he agree that we need specific funding so that bus services can properly connect with hospitals, such as Taunton’s Musgrove Park hospital and many others?
Mr Kohler
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the community on its success, and I agree that we need funding for these critical services.
The placing of socially necessary services on a statutory footing is a beneficial change to the enhanced partnership model, as it ensures that local authorities assess the impact of service changes and consider alternatives. The Bill also rightly lifts the outdated, ideologically-driven ban on municipally-owned bus companies, empowering local authorities who wish to use it, rather than infantilising them. Taken as a whole, the measures create an improved set of options from which local authorities can choose the approach that works best for them.
As the Secretary of State noted, it is important to realise that this is not, and must not become, a one-size-fits-all approach. Not every local authority will wish to pursue franchising, establish a bus company or abandon the partnership model. What works for Greater Manchester or London may not work for Oxfordshire or Cornwall. It must be up to local leaders and, ultimately, local communities to decide what works best for them. I welcome the fact that the Government are not mandating a certain approach.
Therein lies the challenge: empowering local authorities in law is one thing, but enabling them in practice is quite another. Although the Bill hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank. Franchising is complex, resource-intensive and unfamiliar to the vast majority of local authorities. It requires legal expertise, commercial understanding, operational planning and, above all, funding. The Department for Transport has acknowledged those difficulties, yet this legislation provides little to help overcome them.
The Government’s laudable desire to increase their own capacity to advise councils is welcome, but I am not convinced that they are doing enough. The recently established Bus Centre of Excellence, which we will no doubt hear much about during the passage of the Bill, is a positive development, but does it really have the necessary capacity and resources to provide meaningful support to all those who might need it? If we are to see franchising become a viable option beyond a handful of combined authorities, we must take bolder steps to offer councils without either the expertise or the finances more than just a helpline or homilies on best practice.
Every hon. Member in this House knows how overstretched their local authorities are—with the exception of our colleagues from Reform, of course, who are sadly absent from today’s debate, no doubt too busy frantically searching for the untapped resources and savings they confidently promised they would discover in their new fiefdoms. As for the rest of us, we know that most local authorities lack the finances, expertise and bandwidth to use the tools the Bill provides. As a result, only the local authorities that already have the capacity to do so will use them, which will exacerbate regional disparities, not reduce them.
Even if we overcome such problems, that will not remove the continuing role of central Government in securing access and affordability. That is why the Government’s reckless decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3 casts a dark shadow over the Bill. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs for passengers and helped to bring people back on to the bus network. It was precisely the kind of policy of which we need more, not less. Increasing fares by £1 per trip may not sound prohibitive, but for those on low incomes or families making multiple journeys, the change represents a significant cost increase, adding £20 to the cost of a weekly commute to anyone who has to take two buses to work while only saving the Government £150 million.
Let us be clear: this increase is regressive. It will hit the poorest hardest, particularly at a time of a cost of living crisis. Surely the Government should commit to preserving affordability, not undermining it, as raising fares in the absence of service improvements risks entrenching decline, not reversing it. Even more worryingly, rumours are now doing the rounds that the fare cap may be removed altogether. That would be a catastrophic mistake. We must not allow the progress of recent years to unravel in a Treasury-pleasing piece of virtue signalling that will only save the Exchequer a further £150 million.
A thriving, affordable bus network is not a luxury but an essential public service. This Bill must ensure that that is the case. Nowhere is that more true than in our rural areas. As we have seen for years, the current unregulated bus market is failing small villages and remote hamlets, serving them neither efficiently nor sufficiently.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to protect section 22 community bus services such as West Oxfordshire Community Transport, which are now facing a mountain of bureaucracy to re-tender for routes that it built up from scratch against commercial bus operators that have all the abilities to pitch and win, leaving community bus operators high and dry?
Mr Kohler
I do agree. We must do all we can to reduce bureaucracy. The Bill goes some way towards that, but it needs to do more.
The Bill as it stands provides nothing specific for rural areas—no dedicated rural funding stream and no obligation to maintain coverage. It is clear that if we are to be ambitious and achieve the economic growth that rural areas need, we must ensure that local authorities have the ambition and financial means to improve public transport. The Bill is missing an opportunity in failing to do so.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
One of the consequences for my constituents of losing services like the 84/85, the T2 and the 622 is that they are cut off from health services. Does my hon. Friend agree that such access should be a priority for investment, and that a focus on the increase in passenger numbers when judging investment choices disadvantages rural areas?
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I would like to concentrate not just on purely rural areas, but on places like Surrey. In my constituency, the 514 bus connects Esher and Molesey, two important centres of our community, but it runs only twice on weekdays and once on a Saturday. On Sundays it is never to be seen. The service was severely cut back in 2016. To travel a distance of a mile and a half, people have to get a bus more than five miles into London and out again, which takes 40 minutes—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I have made this point before, but interventions really must be shorter than that. There are many hon. Members who wish to get in.
Mr Kohler
I will simply say that I agree with my hon. Friend.
Hon. Members have spoken about rural areas suffering. From 2015 to 2023, Shropshire lost 63% of its bus miles, the largest decline in any part of England. No doubt that was one reason among many that Shropshire voters decided that they had had enough of the Conservatives. In May, they voted a majority Liberal Democrat administration in for the first time.
Although the bus service in Shropshire is one of the worst in the country, it is by no means an isolated case. I have heard from colleagues and residents across the country, just as the House has heard today, that in rural areas such as Norfolk, Somerset and Hampshire, having no buses—or one bus a day, if residents are lucky—has sadly become the norm for many villages. This is not just inconvenient; it is holding back our rural economies and stifling growth. I fear that the measures in the Bill will not be sufficient to reverse that decline.
Lastly, I want to address accessibility, an issue on which my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place and other noble Lords have made good progress and have secured a number of improvements. As originally drafted, the Bill included positive provision on the mandatory training of staff, both in supporting disabled passengers and in tackling antisocial behaviour on board. We support those measures, but the Liberal Democrats believe that true accessibility means more than awareness training; it means fully accessible vehicles, clear signage and announcements, and accessible journey planning tools. Critically, it means accessible infrastructure, from bus stops to ticket machines.
The excellent amendment to ensure accessibility guidance on the provision of floating bus stops, which if badly designed can prove a real hazard to disabled people, was inserted after representations from the Lib Dem transport lead in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon. The inclusion of bus network accessibility plans, after pressure from Baroness Brinton among others, is an important amendment that will go some way towards helping us to understand the barriers that disabled residents face in accessing a vital lifeline. We must not be complacent, however. I anticipate that more work will need to be done in Committee, as the Secretary of State has intimated, to probe the Bill’s provisions and ensure that they are as effective as they can be.
I will conclude where I began. My party and I welcome many aspects of the Bill. After years of Tory neglect, provisions to give local authorities more control of and input into their local bus networks are long overdue and clearly sensible, but we cannot give local authorities tantalising new powers without a practical means of using them. That will require sustained investment and reform of the funding models. I acknowledge that the Government have promised to include longer-term funding settlements in the spring spending review, but noises off suggest that those are unlikely to address the shortfall in local government funding.
The Bill will provide the necessary tools, but if councils are to build something effective with them, they will need not just legislation, but the finance, expertise and flexibility required to give effect to their vision and address their communities’ needs. I urge the Secretary of State to go back to the Treasury and ask for more, because financing a viable bus network is key to growing our economy.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and her team for bringing forward this important Bill. Local bus services are fundamental to the lives of so many people, from providing access to work and leisure opportunities and social inclusion to cleaning up our air, reducing congestion and curtailing transport emissions. For many of our constituents, they make the difference between being able to seize opportunities and being denied them. Put simply, buses are too important to get wrong, so I wholly welcome the Bill and this Government’s ambition to finally put things right after decades of fragmentation and under-investment.
As the MP for Heywood and Middleton North in Greater Manchester, I have seen the far-reaching benefits of bringing local bus services back under local control. I am incredibly proud that Greater Manchester is the only place outside London to have re-regulated its bus network, as part of creating a fully integrated public transport network—the Bee Network—for the people of our city region.
A recent report produced by IPPR North highlights just how much the city region has turned its bus network around. The IPPR says:
“Franchising is already delivering better services for people in Greater Manchester, but it was an uphill battle to get there. It’s time for the government to get on board with better buses and support local leaders on this journey.”
This Bill demonstrates that the Government have got on board. I welcome the steps that it is taking to finally empower local leaders to make the decisions that they are best qualified to make.
When it comes to the Bee Network, the achievements of Greater Manchester are considerable. It makes the world of difference in my constituency and across the city region. Interventions made in partnership with local people meant that there were 17 million more bus journeys across the city region in 2024 than in 2023. The network now carries more than 170 million passengers a year in Greater Manchester.
An example from my area illustrates what the Bill can practically offer. At times, Heywood and Middleton North has failed to benefit from Greater Manchester’s rising prosperity. Because local people have a bigger role in devising transport policy under franchising, however, I am now able to make a strong case for an express bus service from Norden and Bamford down to Heywood and Middleton and ultimately into Manchester city centre. That is something my constituents have gone without for far too long. It is time to finally rebalance the scales in their favour.
After consulting with local people, who are determined to see the express bus service reinstated, and after producing a report setting out our case, I have been engaging consistently with Transport for Greater Manchester to see what can be done. I put on record my thanks to the mayor and his team for taking seriously the calls from my constituents, including the parents and teachers who understand the value of the route to Edgar Wood school. I look forward to conversations about the service being reinstated. At its core, that is what the Bill is all about. It will put buses back at the heart of communities, identify gaps in provision, set about addressing them, enhance connections and fundamentally shape routes to fit around people’s lives.
I would also like to raise the issue of accessibility. Our buses should be for everyone, but we know that many blind and deafblind people, and disabled people more broadly, encounter numerous serious challenges when using public transport. One issue that comes up time and again—it has already come up in this debate—is floating bus stops. I know that some organisations assess the risk of harm around such stops to be very low, based on the total number of incidents, but I would argue that one incident is one too many. We must consider that the figures may be so low because disabled people, as a result of the expansion of floating bus stops, are sometimes being deterred from travelling altogether, and many collisions undoubtedly go unreported.
The issue has been raised in the other place, as the Secretary of State says, but I ask her what engagement, to learn from the lived experiences of blind and partially sighted people and the organisations that represent them, has been carried out by the Department in devising clauses 30 and 31. We must continuously seek to build public transport systems for all, not just when it is convenient to do so.
Finally, I wish to raise the issue of safety on public transport. I commend the measures in the Bill to enable workers across the sector to develop their skills, including by supporting them to respond effectively to violence and abuse on the network. What engagement has been carried out with trade union officials regarding those measures? What further steps could be taken to ensure that bus drivers, interchange staff and others are themselves safe from harassment and abuse?
I thank the Secretary of State once again for developing this legislation and ensuring that buses are at the heart of our communities and that they serve and reflect the needs of our constituents.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have campaigned politically in North Norfolk for nearly a decade; all the while, people have been sharing with me their frustrations with our local public transport network. Since the age of 11, I have been watching different operators’ buses leapfrog each other along radial routes and trying to work out a better way of doing things for everyone.
Too many people find that the current system is not enough of a network to get from where they are to where they want to be at the times they need. One young person in Briston in my constituency is studying to work in childcare. She is eager to secure an apprenticeship at a local nursery, but she cannot get to the nursery in question until 9 o’clock—far too late for the 8 am start time. That has caused her to miss out on a promising opportunity, and her transport options mean that she continues to struggle to break into the sector. Another constituent told me how she had moved to her village because it had a bus service and she hoped that it would give her disabled son the opportunity for greater independence. But the village has since lost that service—and with it, the independence of the residents who relied on it.
Our local buses are so much more than just vehicles for ferrying people from A to B. They are the key to training and employment for those entering the world of work. They are an antidote to loneliness, allowing people to see their friends and family and to take part in community groups and activities. They also have to get our older people to their vital medical appointments. For example, to get to the main hospital in Norwich, someone has to go all the way into the city centre and change buses. That means that bus users in most of my constituency can attend a clinic only in the middle of a whole-day trip.
If only the local authority had the power to design the routes and times that work for the needs of the population—putting on direct services between busy hubs, for instance. This is the problem: for far too long, the importance of bus networks in our area has not been reflected in how they have been treated by those in power.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, Reform-led Warwickshire county council has still not appointed a transport portfolio, a month on from the elections. While it dithers and delays, a rural community suffers: bus timetables are being reduced and routes are being cut. Those who rely on public transport most are obviously being punished. Does my hon. Friend agree that bus transport in rural areas deserves urgent and serious attention?
Steff Aquarone
I certainly agree. Much as I will slag off Norfolk county council at times, at least it has someone driving a bus, in contrast to her council.
The problem is how the issue is being treated by those in power. It is not the fault of bus operators; I have been grateful for the time and engagement that they have provided me on this issue and they are a valuable source of counsel as we look to the exciting future for rural services.
I am also a huge fan of demand-responsive transport, which could be opened up to serve a much wider range of needs with some common-sense simplification of the rules. No, it is politics that has prevented a bright connected future, not bus operators. The last Government’s funding mechanism for local transport was completely unsustainable, making councils compete for pots of funding rather than supporting long-term strategy. That made for a perfect storm in the Conservative-led council in Norfolk, which could trumpet quick wins from the grants, all the while lacking a comprehensive and overarching vision or strategy for how we create a proper rural public transport network.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I really recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. Under the Conservatives, Bracknell Forest council saw bus miles per head fall from 10.9 to 6.3 miles—a reduction of 42 %. Only under a Labour council have routes now been expanded. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we work closely with bus companies through enhanced partnership models—if that is right for the local area, as it is in Bracknell Forest—to improve local services for our residents?
Steff Aquarone
The hon. Gentleman has helped me make progress because the issue is all about attitude and mindset. In Norfolk, a former leader even eagerly told the council that Norfolk is a car county. If only the council had realised earlier that its pipe dream of a quarter of a billion pound link road through a site of special scientific interest was never going to happen, it could have spent the £50 million it has poured down the drain in the past five years while pursuing its fantasy on buses instead.
I hope that the powers promised in today’s Bill are seized on in Norfolk. Bus franchising can be an important first step to what we need in my constituency of North Norfolk. At present, our buses do not link up well with our one train line. There is no opportunity for integrated ticketing and no meaningful link between how the profit generated by the most popular routes can be used to provide those that are socially necessary. A radical rethink of how we deliver these services is needed. I hope that whoever gets control of these powers after the reorganisation of our local government is willing to do it. If those powers were to fall into our hands at Norfolk Liberal Democrats, we would be ready to show what a successful model for rural public transport looks like, just as we have seen happen in our cities.
The Government need to come clean on how bus franchising will be funded. I hope that through the Transport Committee’s inquiry on connected communities, my colleagues and I will help unlock a public transport revolution in every corner of the country.
The ask from the people in North Norfolk who are concerned really is not difficult: they want to be able to catch a bus to the places they want to go at the times they want to travel. This can be our chance to move away from outdated thinking. It is time to create the transport network that would really revolutionise the experience of local passengers. Let’s make North Norfolk’s buses great again!
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Bill because it finally lets local communities take back control. Communities in Birmingham Edgbaston and the Bartley Green, Harborne, Quinton and North Edgbaston wards that I represent will welcome its measures. I speak as the daughter of a bus driver—that time-worn political cliché—who was born and raised in her constituency and today still relies on the same No. 11 bus route.
Those who, like me, have lived in Birmingham and the west midlands for decades have seen the decline of our bus services at first hand. Thanks to a failed Tory ideology, Britain has become one of the few places in the developed world to hand power to operators to slash bus services and to hike fares, with little say for the communities who depend on them. In Birmingham, our bus services are mostly run by private providers with an enhanced partnership with Transport for West Midlands.
Over the years, I have exchanged many letters and had many meetings with one of the providers: National Express. I have campaigned to extend the X21 bus in Bartley Green, improving connectivity in our area. I surveyed Bartley Green residents on changes to the 23 and 24 buses, and have continued to fight to restore the iconic 48 bus route on which my constituents relied before it was rerouted.
The problem remains that in a privately run bus network, communities have no democratic control over routes and feel shut out of the process. But the new powers in the Bill mean that that system is coming to an end. The Bill matters because buses are more than just a mode of transport; in some wards in my constituency, over 40% of households do not have access to a car. Buses services are a lifeline to thousands of people who need to get around for work or to go into town, see friends or visit their doctor—I would know, because I am a non-driver too.
Poor services leave our communities feeling isolated and disconnected. The average life expectancy of a man can drop by seven years within nine bus stops in some parts of Birmingham. Opportunities within a city should be felt by everyone. But connecting people to those life chances needs a strong public transport network. That is what this Bill is about.
My constituents’ complaints are too familiar: our buses are unreliable and frequently late. It is no wonder that 50% of Brummies choose to use their cars compared with 15% of people in London. In January, National Express put up our fares in Birmingham by 40%; last week, it put up them up again to the maximum £3 fare. The current system lets private operators set the terms.
Finally, a Labour Mayor working with a Labour Government will franchise our buses, giving communities new powers to set routes, fares and services. Mayor Andy Street refused to take buses back under his control, but Richard Parker is changing that. Instead of subsidising the deregulated model with £50 million a year to ensure that services are not axed, he will take back control of fares and routes. Under his leadership, the franchising process will begin this year.
Clauses 13, 23, 27 and 28 of the Bill will be pivotal to the combined authority plan. From 2010 until 2023, the miles clocked by buses across the west midlands dropped by a third. The promised upgrade failed to materialise, and in 2014 the last Government’s promise of a rapid transit scheme along Hagley Road in my constituency delivered only 300 metres of tramline in 10 years. Under this Government, we are already on the road to fixing our broken bus system.
The new franchising powers are just the next step. The truth is that deregulation has meant little more than a race to the bottom for places such as Birmingham. Brummies have seen what forward-thinking leaders such as Andy Burnham have been able to do with the Bee Network in Manchester, and we want that too. We need this legislation and continued central Government funding to make that a reality. This Bill will help my community of Birmingham Edgbaston realise our ambitions. That is why I will be supporting it on Second Reading.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the granddaughter of a London bus driver. Bus services have been reduced to a dire state in my North Shropshire constituency in recent years—most drastically under the watch of the previous Conservative Government. We are one of the worst-served constituencies in England for public transport, having seen a staggering 63% reduction of our bus miles since 2015; that compares with an English average reduction of just 19%. A person in Market Drayton who wants to get to the Princess Royal hospital in Telford, which is a 20-minute car journey, is looking at something like a five-hour round trip on the bus. Only one service operates on Sundays in the whole county, between the market towns of Oswestry and Chester. In short, the current situation is unacceptable.
Just before recess, I met students from Lakelands academy in Ellesmere at Parliament’s education centre and answered their questions. One young woman asked me what we were doing to make bus services better, because she could not go with her friends to any after-school clubs due to her bus not running back to St Martin’s past 3.30 pm. I recently met members of the Oswestry Youth Forum, and they raised similar concerns. Young people in rural communities are now presented with a childhood confined to the small village or town they live in, and they are left with a lack of choice over their education, a lack of opportunity for socialising and taking part in activities outside school, and shrinking horizons. Ultimately, their options for employment can be significantly curtailed—unless, of course, their parents can afford to give them a car.
Meanwhile, older or disabled constituents who are no longer able to drive, or simply cannot afford to, are fully dependent on family members and friends to get them to where they need to be. I think everybody in this House would agree that this is driving deep and fundamental inequality, as well as holding back the economy in rural areas. That is why I am broadly supportive of this Bill.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is painting a picture that will be very familiar to my constituents in Dartford. In my case, we have deteriorating services under Kent county council, with 30 years of Conservative rule meaning that buses have got worse pretty much every year. I have written to the new Reform-led administration in Kent county council asking them to undertake to use the powers in the Bill to improve bus services in Dartford and across Kent. Would she agree that the new Bill offers huge opportunities for local authorities to improve bus services and transport networks for the benefit of residents in my constituency and hers?
Helen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was about to say that I am broadly supportive of this Bill and the empowerment of local authorities to franchise bus services for those reasons. That should enhance accessibility and safety and allow local authorities to establish new bus companies, which they have not been able to do before. It is critical that local authorities can protect and establish routes that ensure access to employment, healthcare and town centres, which is one of the main aims that my own bus services Bill—Bus Services Bill No. 1, if I may be so cheeky—seeks to address, but with these new powers rightly being given to local government, I have real concerns about the ability of rural local authorities to find the funding to drive the meaningful change we so need.
In November, the Government allocated £1 billion of funding for buses, and the then Secretary of State for Transport said that the funding for rural areas would be “unprecedented”, but Shropshire council received just £1.4 million in capital funding and £2.5 million in revenue funding for this financial year. That was the 53rd lowest of 73 allocations for one of the worst-served counties in the country. That funding allocation is a tiny fraction of Shropshire council’s bus service improvement plan, which outlined the need for £73.5 million of bus funding across three years to transform the county’s bus network to an acceptable standard. The cost of franchising is also likely to be prohibitive to local authorities such as mine. The Government who promised a new formula based on need, deprivation and bus mileage to end the postcode lottery have so far made it abundantly clear that living in a rural area means less money, less public services and less opportunity.
There is a clear need for better transport in Shropshire. A third of North Shropshire’s children are growing up in poverty. Our deprivation may be hidden by our beautiful leafy setting, but it certainly exists, and by limiting the opportunities of these children, it is being perpetuated. The council spends around 80% of its budget on care, a percentage that is forecast to rise, and its costs for delivering services are high. At more than 1,200 square miles, Shropshire covers an area 27 times the size of Greater Manchester. The roughly 325,000 people who live there are relatively evenly distributed across the area, adding to the cost of delivery of those services.
I support the principles of the Bill, but there must be recognition of the desperate situation that local council finances are in, particularly in large rural areas such as mine. The looming rise of the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 is especially concerning, forcing people to fork out a significant amount every week for return travel to their job. In rural communities such as North Shropshire, alternatives to bus travel are few and far between. For the financially vulnerable who rely on buses to access services, the impact of the hike to £3 is going to be devastating.
I support the Bill’s aims, and I can see its success in cities such as London and Greater Manchester, but it is essential that rural areas are not left behind and crippled by the cost of delivering social care over a large geographical area, as they have been by previous Administrations. Buses are the best way to reduce inequality for people in rural areas and, critically, to unlock the economic growth they can offer. I hope the Minister will listen and work with his colleagues in the Treasury to help transform the opportunities for people in rural areas.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
It is an honour to be called to speak in this debate on an issue that I know many of us care so deeply about. I congratulate the Secretary of State and her team on producing the Bill and, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for bus and coach and a bus nerd, I am very excited to support it. Growing up in a village, I knew that our local bus service was not just a “nice to have”; it was a lifeline. For those of us too young to drive or for families without a car, it meant everything. It connected us to school, our work, our family and our friends. Without it, we were cut off.
In recent weeks, I fear I have become one of those people in this place who often talks about the good old days. Only a couple of weeks ago, I found myself reminiscing about the youth services we used to have in Worcestershire, particularly in Redditch, but the truth is that even the bus service I grew up with and depended on was frankly not that great. I was forced to leave my home, like many of my constituents are now, to get to a job or to go on to the next level of education. And let’s be honest, things have only got worse as public transport subsidies became an easy target for local government cuts during austerity. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), is not in his place any more, but of all the numbers he listed in his response to the Secretary of State, he failed to mention that the number of bus routes in England fell by half during the last Government—something that people who relied on buses were deeply frustrated about.
In 1986, the Thatcher Government promised that deregulation and privatisation would lead to lower fares, more services and more passengers, but for towns such as mine in Redditch and the surrounding villages, the opposite happened. We lost services, fares went up, passengers disappeared and communities were left behind. Many of the routes I once used as a teenager simply no longer exist. That story is not unique. It is echoed in towns and villages right across this country. Why are we surprised that services struggle to retain numbers when those services are unreliable, expensive and fragmented? How many times must our constituents explain to their boss why they are again late for work because the bus did not turn up, or apologise to a lecturer after missing the first part of a class because the timetable changed at the last minute?
Only last week, I was speaking with local businesses who told me they are desperate to recruit but cannot find staff who can actually get to them. Are we surprised? Are we surprised that our night-time economies—our bars, restaurants and live venues—are struggling, when people cannot rely on a bus to get them home safely? Dare to have a drink after 7 o’clock? Nope. Dare to have a night out past 10 o’clock? Nope. And at a time when patients are asked to go further for treatment as specialised services are centralised, we do not have the level of bus services required to ensure that the sick and the most vulnerable arrive on time, so many people simply pay for taxis they cannot afford.
In Worcestershire, the local bus system has become so complex, with different operators, inconsistent timetables and confusing routes, that you need a PhD in public transport to figure it out. Luckily I have a constituent, Jack Fardoe, a local student expert, who I swear could be dropped in any corner of the constituency and still find a route home, but most people simply give up. That is why I strongly welcome the opportunity this Bill presents.
Removing the ban on local authority-owned bus companies and expanding the power to franchise services is long overdue. It will give local authorities like mine in Worcestershire the chance to take back control—it feels weird saying that—and design bus services around people’s needs rather than a centrally governed timetable. It will mean that services can be planned properly with routes that serve communities, not shareholders, that are both urban and rural, and that match people’s lives and needs. It means that residents in Harvington, Dodderhill, Inkberrow and Astwood Bank could have a fit-for-purpose service that meets their actual needs, so they do not have to waste four hours on a 10-minute trip to the post office. People might once again rely on bus services to get where they need to be without the stress, without the guesswork and without the fear of being stranded.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech in defence of buses and the importance of the Bill. Does he share my disappointment that just like they missed the statement earlier on the strategic defence review, not a single Reform MP is here for this important debate? Does he take it in the same way that I do: that, just like defence, they just do not care about buses?
Chris Bloore
I do not want to second-guess the motivations of those on the Opposition Benches, which are quite sparse for a couple of different parties, but perhaps it shows their priorities rather than anything else.
Finally, many people talk to me about wanting to play their role in reducing car journeys—how wonderful would it be if they could do so by relying on their local bus network? I wholeheartedly support the passage of the Bill. My constituents and our local businesses support it because this is our chance to build a bus network that genuinely works for everyone. Will it be easy? No. But surely we can replicate the success of our international partners in building an affordable and comprehensive bus network that is fit for the 21st century.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
This Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, so some might wonder why I would bother to speak in the debate. The reason is very simple: the ramifications could be positive for the whole of the United Kingdom because of the Government’s vision within the Bill for decarbonising bus travel.
There are presently 36,000 fossil fuel buses on our roads in the United Kingdom. If the vision of the Government and of this Bill is secured, there is a lot of conversion and replacement to be done. If that is to happen, then I represent in my constituency the primary company that can help the Government towards that goal. I have the privilege of representing North Antrim, which of course has Wrightbus at its very heart. Not only is it involved in electric buses; it is a leader in hydrogen buses and can still produce diesel buses when needed.
I say to the Government that we have had many experiences in this United Kingdom of missed opportunities for our own industries, not least in the bus sector and the electric sector where we have seen Chinese supply. If the Government are serious about this, let us build in a prioritisation for British built buses as a prerequisite to the refurbishment of the industry.
The second thing I want to say to the Government is that with so many diesel buses across this nation, and with the expense of replacing old with new, the middle option of refurbishing diesel buses as electric buses needs to be grasped and explored. Again, Wrightbus is a leader in reimaging and resupplying electric into diesel, and that is a necessary step forward.
Given that in England, so many of these matters are devolved to mayoral areas or local councils, I ask the Government whether they are prepared to embrace metro mayors being able to pursue joint procurement not just for their own area, but working with others so that they can have the delivery that comes from larger orders. That would benefit all concerned.
I say to the Government that they have an opportunity not just to help the regions that the Bill will directly affect, but to bring benefit to the whole United Kingdom. Of course, it is not just Northern Ireland that is the primary bus manufacturer; there are also large suppliers in Scotland. There is an opportunity, and I trust that the opportunity will be grasped and that it will be underscored by the need to prioritise local United Kingdom build when replenishing our bus services and our buses across the United Kingdom.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Bill will restore, for the first time in decades, the power of local authorities across the country to create new, publicly owned municipal bus companies. When bus services are run in the public interest, they work better and they work for everyone.
In Warrington South, we already know the difference that that can make. Warrington’s Own Buses is a fantastic example of what a publicly owned bus company operated under a Labour-run administration can achieve. It is rolling out a fully electric fleet and continues to offer a flat fare of £2 for adults and £1 for under-22s. It provides free travel for care leavers and maintains essential services that the private sector would walk away from. It is a bus company run for the public good, not for private profit. It is locally managed and accountable to the people it serves. It delivers social value, environmental gains and a surplus back to the local authority.
We must protect municipal bus companies that already serve their communities and give local authorities the freedom to use them as part of new franchising arrangements. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Bill and its guidance reflect the principle that where public ownership works, as it does in Warrington, we back it and build on it, because that is how we will reverse the long decline in our bus services under successive Conservative Governments and start to deliver the modern, affordable, low-carbon transport system that our communities deserve.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is great to see this Bill come to the Commons. I applaud its desire to improve the quality and availability of bus services. Buses are at the core of our public transport system and are often wrongly neglected in favour of what some—although definitely not me—would describe as sexier and more alluring methods of transport, such as trams and trains.
As we have heard, there is much that is good in the Bill—particularly the empowerment of local authorities to operate their own services and the provisions to implement services for socially necessary routes—but it could do more to address the needs of rural areas, including through VAT exemptions for small public transport vehicles to encourage demand-responsive and community transport schemes. It could do more to help local authorities to transition to net zero vehicles. As has been said, we should look again at restoring the £3 bus fare cap to a £2 cap.
In Oxfordshire, the county council feels that its bus partnerships with operators are delivering improvements, particularly when it comes to Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel, which serve my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage. Franchising has the potential to bring further improvements, although it is good that the Government have acknowledged that we do not necessarily need a one-size-fits-all approach. Franchising will be viable only if local authorities are given long-term funding certainty and support to acquire the expertise and capacity in their passenger transport teams.
We Liberal Democrats consider access to primary healthcare facilities to be socially necessary routes. In my constituency, the decision was made in the past few years to change the route of a bus going through the village of Harwell and into Didcot town centre. The change meant that people who live in Harwell can no longer catch one bus to the GP surgery in Didcot, despite it being only 2 miles away. That is the sort of thing we need to consider.
Much about the current bus provision in my constituency is good. The integrated rail and bus terminal at Didcot Parkway enables a convenient interchange. There are decent bus frequencies and journey times during the daytime between Didcot and Wantage, Grove, Oxford and Wallingford, and between Wallingford and Oxford. There are good examples of partnership working between the major employment centres at Harwell campus and Milton Park and the Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel. For example, Milton Park’s £20-a-year bus pass offer for people who work there is leading to measurable achievements in encouraging modal shift. There is generally decent daytime village provision.
But there is also much that needs to improve. Many villages have no evening or Sunday service, particularly Stanford in the Vale, which has seen significant housing growth. The buses that serve Culham campus, which the Government have proposed as an AI growth zone, are meagre, with no evening or Sunday service. In the evening, service frequencies drop on all routes, meaning that the integration between train and bus at Didcot works less well. Reliability can also be patchy, particularly on routes that involve Oxford, although that is mostly due to road congestion.
I am delighted to be a member of the Transport Committee. In April, we visited Ireland to understand the reasons for a significant increase in rural bus patronage, which increased fivefold between 2022 and 2024. That was achieved through increased public funding and by engaging communities—particularly the local equivalents of town and parish councils—in the design of routes. The core principle is, as a bare minimum, to have the restoration of morning, early afternoon and early evening services—there are also late evening services in many instances to address the issue that was mentioned earlier in respect of pubs—to create a viable alternative to driving.
Ireland has set itself extremely ambitious targets to grow its public transport youth share, from 8% today to 19% in 2030. That would nearly match Swiss levels, which are the highest in Europe. To achieve that, Ireland is investing large amounts in high quality continuous bus corridor infrastructure in urban areas, particularly in Dublin, and there are longer-term plans for significant journey time reductions for inter-city train routes to improve integration between bus and rail. As well as all that, people told us that they are concerned about the social, environmental and economic objectives that they are trying to hit, rather than looking simply at the cost in isolation.
There are good examples in the UK of the Ireland approach. I was on holiday in North Yorkshire in April, and North Yorkshire council had taken over a route abandoned by a private operator, using its own minibuses—route 11 between Clitheroe and Settle. It offers a two-hourly service, and connects well with hourly train services between Clitheroe and Manchester.
Integration is critical to making public transport more accessible and attractive, as Switzerland has shown. For those reasons, the Government’s integrated transport strategy is eagerly awaited, and will be an essential component in achieving better use of our public transport system, to the benefit of the economy, the environment, and reducing social exclusion. Although the Bill goes a long way towards improving bus services, there are a lot of things that the Liberal Democrats would like the Government to go further on, so that we can achieve our ambition for our transport system and ensure that it fulfils our social, economic and environmental needs.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Building better buses is in my blood. Growing up, my dad was chair of Barnsley passenger transport; South Yorkshire had a world-class bus service, thanks to our Labour county council. Labour knew then, as we know now, that buses are for the people. The Conservatives and Reform just don’t get it, as is demonstrated right now by those empty Opposition Benches.
When they were in government, the Conservatives promised South Yorkshire a London-style transport system. Instead, after 14 years of their neglect, our constituency has lost 53% of its bus services, including the vital SL1 Supertram service link connecting Stocksbridge and Oughtibridge to Sheffield. The crucial number 57 and 57A was left frequently running late, or failed to turn up at all, and the cuts to the number 43 and 44 buses seriously affected my Dodworth constituents. The reality for our rural neighbourhoods is even more stark, as constituents at my community event on transport told me—villages such as Bolsterstone are entirely cut off, Ingbirchworth loses bus connectivity after certain hours of the day, and the number 21 from Penistone to Barnsley is a route crying out for urgent improvements.
Our Labour Government know that buses are a lifeline that connects our families and communities across Penistone and Stocksbridge. That is why I am proud that through our better buses Bill, we are empowering communities by ensuring that buses serve local people rather than distant corporate interests. The Bill will remove barriers to public control and franchising, placing decisions over bus routes, times and fares back into the hands of communities. Our Labour South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, has been driving change locally. His franchising consultation involved nearly 8,000 people, with 75% strongly supporting it. The plans allow profits to be reinvested directly into better, more reliable services. That is why I am proud that our Transport Secretary has announced a landmark £1 billion fund to transform England’s bus services, including £17 million specifically for South Yorkshire.
This issue matters deeply to local people in my constituency. Older and disabled constituents often tell me that they are left stranded, enduring painfully long waiting times due to unreliable services, and facing distressing situations including toileting issues and missed NHS appointments because buses simply fail to appear. That is unacceptable. That is why it is right that the Bill will deliver a more accessible and inclusive bus network, as well as introducing a £3 maximum cap on bus fares until 2026, to encourage more people to use public transport.
After years of broken promises, our Labour Government are taking urgent action to rebuild Britain’s bus services, ending the postcode lottery and delivering a public transport system that is affordable, accessible and dependable, enabling South Yorkshire to bring back lost bus routes. I am committed to working with our Labour mayor and the leader of Sheffield city council to secure the return of the quick, reliable SL1 supertram link and our local hopper bus. We need bold bus solutions now, while we await the long-term infrastructure improvements I am advocating for, like the tram-train extension to Stocksbridge via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar.
Every single one of us has the right to use buses to travel to work and to see our families and friends. Public transport is fundamental to achieving social justice, so that young and old, in our rural areas—our towns and villages from Gilroyd to Grenoside, High Green to Hoylandswaine and Chapeltown to Ecclesfield—can depend on public transport for work, education and access to healthcare. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
In Tunbridge Wells, buses are not a luxury: they connect schoolchildren to their classrooms, the elderly to their communities, carers to patients, and people unable to drive to jobs, shops and healthcare. When those links are weakened, lives are disrupted and communities start to fracture. If lockdown taught us anything, it is that social isolation is not just lonely, but incredibly damaging to mental health, and that has knock-on effects throughout our whole society. Without a reliable bus service, people are stuck at home. Dependable public transport is not just a convenience; it is an economic, social and health imperative.
In my constituency, schoolchildren take the 267 from Horsmonden—a route cobbled together by merging disconnected services. It winds slowly through villages and regularly arrives late, meaning that children often miss the start of school. This is a failure to support our children’s educations. Worse, the price of a child’s annual bus pass in Kent is extortionate: parents pay £550 per child for them to arrive late or not at all. Now, with the £2 fare cap rising to £3, a commuter making two journeys a day, five days a week, will pay an extra £500 extra each year, on top of the cost of living crisis, with soaring bills, rent and food prices. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the fare cap to be reinstated at £2.
It is not just schoolchildren and commuters; many elderly and low-income residents rely on buses to maintain independence and reduce social isolation, yet services are still being cut. In Tunbridge Wells, the 289 no longer runs on weekends, isolating residents from Southborough to Showfields. People can commute to work, they might be able to squeeze in a shop on a Tuesday and perhaps they could meet some friends for a drink on a Friday, but if they want to go out on Saturday, they are stuck. There is no bus and no connection—nowhere to go. For those who do not have time to shop or socialise during the week, it is tough luck.
In Paddock Wood, a town of 7,500 people, there is no direct service to Pembury hospital on a Sunday. What message does that send to NHS workers and patients without cars? The lack of weekend service is a constituency-wide issue that disproportionately affects the elderly, disabled people and low-income families. It is not just inconvenient—it is unfair.
Rural villages have seen services slashed. The 255 once connected Hawkhurst to Lamberhurst to Tunbridge Wells, but its removal now cuts communities off from rail, shops, pharmacies, GPs and each other. There is no bus at all to Ashurst, a village five miles from Tunbridge Wells, the nearest shopping and rail centre. Parents drop children to neighbouring villages to catch the bus to school, but still pay £500 for the privilege.
My constituents are waiting for buses that never come, or watching their routes disappear. Over 25% of passengers in Kent are dissatisfied with their bus service and 27% of buses are either late or cancelled. That is why I welcome the provisions in the Bill to empower local authorities to protect socially necessary routes—those that get people to school, healthcare or work. Such measures are absolutely essential, but we must go further; we need to restore and expand services to tackle frustration and isolation.
I welcome the £23 million pledged by the Government to Kent county council for bus service improvement, but that was under the Conservatives. Reform is now running Kent county council, but frankly I would not trust it to run a bath. Its priorities are not public services. Last night we saw the announcement of a DOGE—a department of government efficiency—starting at Kent county council. That is a bit of a joke when we consider that the new Reform administration decided to cancel the first iteration of the audit and governance committee; one assumes that would fulfil the same function as a DOGE.
We must have proper local consultation to ensure that the £23 million is spent appropriately and responsibly by the Reform administration in Kent. With the right investment and priorities, focused on children, the elderly and healthcare, we can bring in a network that brings people together and does not leave them behind.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With a birthday contribution, I call Alex Mayer.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think buses are brilliant, so I am delighted that this Bill is coming forward on 2 June, because, as you said, it is my birthday. I thought it was the Minister’s way of wishing me many happy returns—and singles also!
For too long, buses have been in decline. It is great that the Minister has been clear for months that he wants to fix that and that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. December’s guidance on varied franchising approaches was excellent, and I welcome how the Bill simplifies franchising, as well as the Government’s review of enhanced partnerships and the plans in the Bill to strengthen them. We need—and I believe that this Bill will help to deliver—tailored, practical options that can work for people in every kind of town, village and city.
We can already see some EPs delivering that change, with real, substantive control over network design. From 24/7 routes in Portsmouth and a 50% zero-emission fleet in Leicester to profit-sharing arrangements and repainted buses that build identity and loyalty and encourage interchanges, EPs already encourage innovation and partnership. In the west of England, “birthday buses” offer residents free travel across 500 square miles throughout the whole of their birthday month. That is a great gift and, more importantly, a successful scheme that targets non-bus users in order to embed long-term behavioural change. That happened without the need for new legislation, but with the need for vision.
I will always call for greater public investment in buses, but I am realistic about the economic pickle that we have been left in by the Conservatives. If we want sustainable networks, we have to grow farebox revenue. The Department’s bus service improvement plan guidance is absolutely spot on here, correctly making the vital point, in line with the national bus strategy, that:
“Almost all social, economic and environmental objectives for the role of the bus…can be boiled down to the simple, practical and measurable objective to grow bus patronage.”
With that in mind, might I suggest the odd tweak to the Bill to better reflect that spirit?
We have talked about clause 1 and the purpose of improving “performance, accessibility and quality”. That is good, but my constituents certainly want quantity as well as quality. Perhaps “availability” could be added to focus minds on growing patronage. Clause 11 has some fantastic language about consulting disabled “users or prospective users” of buses. I think the term “prospective users” could be deployed elsewhere—for instance, the Transport Act 2000 requires consultation ahead of franchising with only
“those representative of users of local services”,
not prospective users.
Clause 30 gives the Minister powers to set standards for bus stops to improve safety and accessibility. That is great, but why stop there? Would the Minister not also like to have some standards aimed at increasing ridership? According to the Campaign for Better Transport, poorly maintained bus stops and bus shelters put off 23% of people from using buses.
I have looked at clause 23, on grants. I wonder whether local transport authorities could be incentivised to design grants to increase passenger numbers? It is clear that we need a virtuous circle of more passengers and more fare income, not the spiral of decline that we have seen previously.
That brings me briefly to socially necessary routes, which are important but mainly unprofitable. I absolutely agree with the Minister that the new list he is introducing will bring some certainty, but I wonder whether alongside that list, LTAs could also be required to produce a transparent and ranked formula for how they calculate whether a service is socially necessary, which they could use in turn to allocate funding. That would rightly give local leaders flexibility, but would also allow residents to see what is being prioritised and why, and where the cut-off for taxpayer support lies. If we also included the number of journeys in that formula—if that was made a criterion—it could allow residents to save a bus by using it. It would prevent lists from becoming fossilised and reduce the risk that those who shout loudest get the better services, with funding determined by data, not decibels. Fundamentally, LTAs should not be pigeonholed as a place of sticking-plaster solutions; success will lie in a network-wide approach.
Finally, I know that the Minister does not plan to create any new passenger transport executives, but I believe that—just as we are bringing track and train together—there is a real case for bringing bus and bus lane together, particularly as more strategic transport authorities are created. This is a really good Bill, and I think it is a great birthday present.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I declare an interest as a long-time passenger on Eastbourne’s 1, 1A, LOOP, Dotto train and 12 bus routes, the latter of which—with its views of Birling Gap—was voted one of the UK’s top 10 most beautiful bus routes by passengers. As the birthplace of the world’s oldest municipal bus service in 1903, we in Eastbourne expect the very best local bus services, and in the light of all these bus-based assets and traditions, us Eastbournians are ambitious for this Bill to go even further in supporting operators to improve the reliability of our services. Our local drivers and staff, such as Gary Womble Bartlett and Loreleye, are legends, but operational issues that are out of their control and poor regulation are leaving many residents waiting some time for delayed buses and, indeed, buses that do not show up at all. Only recently, Valerie Lee got in touch to tell me that she has been forced to scale steep hills back home because her No. 4 bus was a no-show.
I want to highlight the especially profound impact that unreliable bus services can have on those who are neurodiverse. This is what Ann, whose son is autistic, said to me via email: “My son has recently contacted me to say that the 14.54 bus his school have agreed for him to catch each day did not turn up at all. The bus after that was also late. He is extremely stressed and is melting down with the lateness of getting home and frustrated by the protracted wait for his bus home. I’ve had to leave him to cry it out, as interventions will just exacerbate how he feels. He is shouting, swearing and banging his head against the wall—it’s really not a great situation. He is so overwhelmed and so stressed, Josh; it’s really dreadful here right now. He sat an English Language GCSE this morning and all he wanted was to be back home as soon as possible. For a now-hourly service, these extensive delays are totally unacceptable and I must again highlight the impact this has on our vulnerable community, especially SEN children such as my son.” I hope the Government and operators hear that loud and clear.
Poor bus services and connectivity hit another vulnerable group in our society: patients. Eastbourne district general hospital, where I was born, has lost core services to the Conquest hospital in Hastings over the years. That hospital is 20 miles away, requiring at least two buses and the best part of a day to get there and back around an appointment. A hospital trust in nearby Kent has collaborated with operators to create a direct bus route between two of its hospitals, and although ultimately I want—and our hospital deserves—core services reinstated, in the meantime we deserve a Kent-style hospital bus at the very least. I urge the Government to upgrade their Bill to make such routes a reality.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about collaboration across borders and county councils. I have an issue in my constituency because of a proposal to close the GP practice in Westbourne, but there is no bus service for all the patients in Westbourne to get to Emsworth, which is over the border into Hampshire county council. Does he agree that there should be provision in the Bill to ensure that local authorities work together? People do not see the local authority borders.
Josh Babarinde
Indeed, what is happening in Westbourne sounds very similar to what is happening in Eastbourne. I implore the Government and local operators to ensure that people’s health needs are baked into the Bill.
We owe it to all our constituents, particularly the most vulnerable, to improve bus services for local people. I stand ready to work with the Government, our local authority, our NHS trust, local operators and, of course, passengers to make that happen.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill that the Secretary of State introduced this evening. It has the potential to transform public transport for communities across the country, especially in South Dorset. In towns and villages across my constituency, passengers—or indeed, would-be passengers—rely on buses to go about their daily lives. For many, they are the only affordable way to get to work, school, hospital, the train station or the town centre, or to see family and friends.
Growing up, I took the bus 10 miles up the road from my home in Wyke to sixth form most days. It was a reliable service, which meant that I could get to class, so I know that reliable buses matter in South Dorset. Yet in recent years, we have seen routes cut, services reduced and the reliability of services deteriorate, leaving many people feeling isolated and unable to access essential amenities and services. Far too often, as has been mentioned, private bus operators seem to have put profit before passengers.
Constituents in Winfrith Newburgh, Lulworth and the surrounding villages say that they face poorly connected bus services to Wareham and Wool train stations, making it difficult to access the national rail network. Even more troubling, there is no direct bus link to hospitals in Poole or Dorchester, leaving many constituents without transport to essential healthcare.
In Crossways in my constituency, although some services exist, there is growing concern that the current bus network will not meet the demands of new housing developments. We cannot build homes without building the bus infrastructure that is needed to connect those new homes with nearby towns and services. Across the Grove on Portland, there is no longer a bus service at all. The Grove community have repeatedly told me that they feel left behind and cut off from the rest of Portland and nearby Weymouth. That has been hugely isolating and has a huge impact on the ground.
Finally, in Southill, cuts to bus services have had a devastating effect, especially on elderly constituents who now face real isolation. For some there, it has become almost impossible to get to Weymouth town centre or to see a GP. In each of those communities, we need a change of direction. The Bill gives us the tools to do that and to end the postcode lottery of Britain’s broken buses.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned his elderly constituents, and I have similar issues in my constituency. People are telling me that they cannot even do their shopping anymore because of bus cuts in Shildon. One person feels that she will have to leave the village that she has lived in for decades because she is losing her eyesight. Does my hon. Friend agree that as local authorities get that control, it is important that they use it to look at people’s needs and to put on bespoke services, such as to shops and hospitals?
Lloyd Hatton
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s overview. The new bus services that councils look to put in place must link people with services such as GP appointments.
With that in mind, I hope that the new powers granted to local authorities such as Dorset council under the Bill will enable them to franchise their bus services, and crack down on antisocial behaviour and fare evasion. I also hope that the council can make buses and bus stops much more accessible, particularly to passengers living with disabilities. From now on, I want the future of bus services in Winfrith, Lulworth, Crossways, the Grove and Southill to be defined by local need and local passengers rather than profit. The Bill will enable Dorset council to work with passengers in each of those communities to deliver bus services that are finally fit for purpose. Fundamentally, the Government’s reforms will support integrated travel, helping to link rural areas with larger towns and essential services such as hospitals and, in particular, our national rail networks.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I have been campaigning for a reliable, affordable bus route to Bournemouth airport. As a fellow Dorset MP, does my hon. Friend recognise the need for a dedicated service to the airport every 30 minutes, especially as it increases the number of flights that it will be handling?
Lloyd Hatton
I am happy to support my hon. Friend’s campaign, and I will be meeting him shortly to discuss how I can best do so. Given that Bournemouth is the airport nearest to my constituency, my constituents would certainly benefit from that bus connection.
I am desperate for the Bill’s reforms to be introduced as rapidly as possible across South Dorset, which is why I plan to write to the leader of Dorset council to encourage the council to take advantage of the new powers as soon as possible. I look forward to sitting down with its officials to finally improve bus services for the communities in Winfrith, Lulworth, Crossways, the Grove and Southill. I know that other bus passengers and communities throughout my constituency will be looking to the council to use its new powers to improve bus services in their neighbourhood. We cannot keep treating public transport, especially our buses, as an afterthought. For communities across South Dorset, Labour’s bus services Bill provides a chance to finally reconnect and to deliver good-quality bus services to many more passengers. It is time to crack on.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Buses are often seen as a service for the elderly, and they are vital for older residents, especially in rural areas where isolation poses a serious threat to health. Buses can be a social lifeline, but in those rural communities they are also a vital connection to education, healthcare and work. The number of bus journeys in Devon has fallen by 40% since 2015, and in my large rural constituency many communities have been left behind by unreliable, infrequent or inadequate bus services. Many villages have no bus service at all, while others feel lucky to get one a day.
The Stagecoach Gold bus runs between Paignton and Plymouth. Stagecoach withdrew the early morning service last year following consultation with local transport authorities, because low passenger numbers meant that the service was no longer commercially viable. It may not have been “standing room only”, but cutting that service is just not good enough for those who start their shifts before sunrise and keep our communities running. One bus driver was left with no choice but to buy a car to get to work, as he would have lost his job if he could not get to Totnes by 7 am. Another constituent said:
“These changes disproportionately affect key workers, particularly those in sectors such as healthcare, retail and hospitality, who depend on early or late bus services to commute. Many of these workers have few if any alternative transport options. These individuals, likely among the lowest paid in our community, will face increased financial and logistical challenges as a result of these cuts.”
When Stagecoach relocated the Dartmouth bus depot to Plymouth, the early-morning 92 route was cut. Students could not get to college, and local drivers lost their jobs. Stagecoach also cut the 17 route in Brixham, so no visitor, holidaymaker or hospitality worker can get home after 6.30 pm. That is hardly a late night out.
I welcome the principles behind the Bill. It is right to give more powers to local authorities, and it is right to acknowledge that socially necessary routes must be protected. However, the Bill must go further if it is truly to deliver the “bus revolution” that the Government claim. Local authorities must have the power and the funding to keep services running, and a duty to implement socially necessary services. This is not just about commuting to work; young people in South Devon depend on buses to get to college, but also to access that crucial first Saturday job—to build independence, to gain skills, and to put something real on their CVs. How are those who live in a small village with no shop, no café and no reliable bus service meant to get any experience if they cannot travel? This is vital to the Government’s skills agenda.
A well-funded and reliable rural bus network does not just support today’s economy; it builds tomorrow’s workforce. We have seen in Ireland what is possible: rural bus use has increased fivefold since 2018, because the Irish Government invested in rural transport and created new services where they were needed. That is the kind of ambition we need. Let us grow our economy by revolutionising rural transport with regular, clean, green buses. I wholeheartedly support giving real franchising powers to all local authorities, with simple, integrated funding and a focus on net zero buses, but let us not pretend that those powers alone are enough. Councils need the funding, the staff and the backing to use them.
Raising the fare cap from £2 to £3 is a false economy. For a student or someone on minimum wage, it is a real barrier to access. The cap must be restored and made permanent if we are serious about affordability, ridership and ironing out inequalities. I would also like to see local authorities, such as Devon county council, have the power to introduce integrated transport passes like the ones we use in London, so that people in rural areas can get the bus to a station, and then take a train, in a joined-up, cost-effective and user-friendly way.
This Bill has potential, but it must be backed with the ambition and investment that rural communities like mine desperately need. Buses are for everyone—young or old, and in cities, in villages or even on Dartmoor—and this House must deliver an ambitious, modern system that reflects that.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I will say at the outset that I will not use my full five minutes. I will not take interventions, so hopefully more people can give their speeches, too.
Buses are a vital route to connecting people with each other and with opportunity, which is why this Bill, which will improve bus services, is so important. In the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency, our story is very mixed. For those who live near a route served by a Metrobus, a Y bus or a T1, it is usually pretty quick to get into Bristol city centre, but problems arise when trying to get across our towns and villages on the outskirts of the city, where many of our places of work and study are based, as are many of our loved ones.
For many people, including those unable to drive, getting to Southmead hospital, which is just next door in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), is all but impossible using public transport, because, like our communities, it is outside the city centre. It is not uncommon for what should be a 10-minute drive to take around an hour on a bus, either because of the route or because one needs to change buses at the University of the West of England or Bristol Parkway. Often these stops are in the wrong direction and the travel times are simply not realistic, so people do not feel that they can leave their car at home, even when they want to. As a frequent bus user, I know how frustrating all this can be when, through no fault of our own, we are made late because of a ghost bus that did not show up, and we are left figuring out what to do at the side of the road. We have also had route changes, including to the No. 73. Instead of taking people to the mall at Cribbs Causeway, where many people work and shop, the bus now stops partway there—and these are the parts of our community that have regular access to a bus.
We now have the bizarre scenario in which residents in Winterbourne are finally being served by a bus, but only because buses are being redirected through the village while the motorway bridge is being rebuilt. I am glad that our new Labour West of England Mayor joined my long-standing calls, and those of the community, for a proper solution for people in Winterbourne. I am also incredibly glad that our new Labour Government are giving local leaders and communities the opportunity to take back control of local buses through this Bill, and I was proud to campaign for that ahead of the election.
I encourage fellow residents to fill in my latest survey about their experiences of local buses. After years of Tory under-investment nationally and a real lack of understanding of how important buses are, vital routes have been lost, but I am optimistic that if other regions can do this—just look at Manchester, Liverpool, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, which are all at different points in their journeys but taking great strides forward—so can we. We must, because people in our community deserve the same opportunities as anyone else, anywhere else.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
For many years, rural bus services have been dying a slow death by a thousand cuts. In my constituency of Horsham, we have lost about a third of our services since 2010, and funding has fallen by as much as 43% in some areas. This is how it works: we cut the timetable, which means fewer people use the service, so we cut the timetable again—rinse and repeat. In many villages, it is simply impossible to live without a car. Even if we did put a bus service back into those villages, no one would use it because the only people who live there are car users. It is no wonder that economic inactivity in rural communities is nearly 2.5% higher than in urban centres. Good jobs and an education are literally out of reach. How can we reverse this downward spiral?
It is clear that if local authorities step back and rely on commercial operators to decide routes by themselves, it is not going to work, but that is exactly what we are seeing in West Sussex. Commercial operators have to keep to their timetables or face a fine, but to achieve punctuality on the No. 17 route meant that the village of Partridge Green had to be dropped altogether at certain times of day. Pensioners now have to walk over a mile to the nearest stop or pay for expensive taxis. Residents were not consulted about the cuts, and they found out only a few weeks in advance, with no time to make other arrangements. Half the village turned out to a church meeting to protest, and if only we could have harnessed that enthusiasm in time, we might have saved the service, but of course it was too late. Now the same thing is happening all over again, with cuts to the No. 63 bus through another village, Slinfold, which will make it impossible for local commuters to link to Horsham station. Again the excuse was punctuality, again there was no consultation and again residents had just a few weeks’ notice.
This gets to the heart of why our rural bus services have been in terminal decline. County councils, the bodies we would expect to have residents’ interests at heart, can all too easily hide behind a commercial bus operator and say that it is all out of their control. No one wants to admit responsibility. We all keep saying that we want to take traffic off the roads and cut pollution, but in reality, local councils such as West Sussex have been presiding over a policy of managed decline. Will the new Bill do enough to reverse it? The Bill certainly moves in the right direction by empowering local authorities to franchise routes, run their own bus companies and trial demand-responsive transport schemes, which are good building blocks for a more flexible, responsive system.
However, when I look at West Sussex, it is clear that these freedoms by themselves will not be enough, even if there was more dynamic leadership in the council. Setting up its own bus service is a high-risk, high-investment strategy for a council. I can see how big urban centres may have the wherewithal to take advantage of these new rights, but more rural authorities such as my own are already on budgetary life support and there is no way they can take on such a gamble. This is going to take something more from the Government, and that something is more funding to kick-start a revolution. So let us fund bus services properly, empower local councils to make the right decisions and ensure that affordable, accessible transport remains a lifeline for all our communities.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
If I had £1 for every time someone mentioned to me that buses were not going to where they needed to go or when they needed to go there, I could probably afford to restore most of the bus services we have lost in High Peak over the last decade. Under the Conservatives, thousands of vital bus services disappeared and local communities have been left powerless, with no tools to hold the operators to account. In High Peak, we have lost—wait for it—the 202, 236, 239, X18, X57, 61A and, recently, the 271, leaving many students and commuters where I live in Hope valley unable to get to work or college in Sheffield.
This trend has continued throughout Derbyshire, where there was a reduction of over 5 million miles—do not check my maths—in the distance driven by buses between 2010 and 2023. To put that in context, it is the same number of miles as travelling to the moon and back 10 times. However, this problem is more than statistics; it is lives ruined. I think of the elderly lady in Whaley Bridge who was able to get to her monthly hospital appointments only thanks to the kindness of her neighbour, the assistant manager in Glossop who could not take a promotion to be a manager in Buxton because the 61 bus did not run late enough for them to be able to get home, and the lady in Buxton who loves the theatre but often has to leave shows in Sheffield early because she cannot get home any other way.
The first campaign I ran as a newly selected, significantly less grey, candidate was for students in High Peak to be able to get free bus travel to colleges in Greater Manchester like their classmates over the border. Working with Claire Ward, Labour’s East Midlands Mayor, we were able to save High Peak families hundreds of pounds a year and ensure that cost was not a consideration for young people when deciding what courses to do at college and what careers they dreamed of doing.
These challenges also present themselves with tourism in High Peak. In part thanks to a TikTok craze to photograph sunset and sunrise over Mam Tor, communities where I live in High Peak have been plagued by illegal parking. I am co-ordinating a response to these issues with local stakeholders, such as the Peak park, police, and councils. A key tranche of what we need to do is deliver better bus services that are integrated with local train services.
The Bill will transfer powers away from Westminster and empower local communities to take the decisions necessary for our commuters to get to work, our students to get to college, our vulnerable to access the healthcare they need, and our honeypot villages to manage tourism sustainably. For too long, people in High Peak and Derbyshire have been let down by a Tory Government and a Tory council who only delivered cuts and isolation. This better bus Bill does exactly what it says on the tin. I look forward to better bus services delivered by our local transport authorities using these powers across High Peak.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
For my Cramlington and Killingworth constituency, like for so many others as we have heard today, buses are vital. They are often the only source of public transport. They are essential for accessing work, health appointments or seeing family and friends. That is why I launched my big bus survey earlier this year, hearing from hundreds of residents. The response was clear: too many people feel let down due to unreliable and inaccessible transport. That is especially true for people with disabilities, families and older people.
Under the previous Government, far too many routes were withdrawn, reduced or made less direct. I thought I would share just a few experiences from my residents. In Holywell and Seaton Delaval, they spoke of the withdrawal of the No. 19, which they relied on to reach local shops, healthcare and social activities. In Cramlington, local people described long waits for buses and no services at all on Sundays. Many shared concerns that while services into city centres exist, there is a lack of connectivity between local areas. One constituent told me that while her workplace is a mere 10-minute drive away, taking the bus requires travelling in the opposite direction first, doubling the journey time. Some told me they work from home instead of the office more often, because they just do not want to face the buses. Another, when their car broke down, took a week’s leave rather than have to face the bus.
Residents in East Hartford told me that replacement services sometimes skip stops entirely without warning. In Shiremoor, another resident told me that to travel just 2.5 miles they have to take a metro and then a bus because no direct route exists, massively increasing costs. In Wideopen—where I am from and grew up—and Seaton Burn, residents shared how few services come through the villages compared with a decade ago. In another case, a resident told me that rather than face the delay of the bus, they ran two miles to the nearest metro to avoid being late for jury service. In Backworth, people described frustration at the lack of regular services, while others expressed a desire to switch from car use for environmental reasons, but they simply cannot without reliable information, real-time updates and dependable timetables.
The Bill could not be more timely. For too long, too many people in my area have been let down by bus operators favouring profits for commercial companies over delivering the public transport local people need and deserve. I share these stories because they are important. Every time the bus does not turn up, every time the route is cut back, every time it does not stop, it chips away at people’s independence, with every act stripping local people of their dignity bit by bit, forcing them to either rely on others or to do without. I glad that this Government will now to shift that balance, giving local people a greater say in their transport.
People across the towns and villages of my constituency have told me that the system is not working and has to change. Buses in my area are a lifeline, not a luxury. I am pleased, on behalf of those constituents, that we are taking action to ensure they get the services they deserve. Frankly, they cannot come soon enough.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is highly unusual for major legislation on buses to be introduced so early in the life of a Government; in fact, I think it may be unprecedented. Buses are by far the most used means of public transport, but they have traditionally received less political attention than other modes, and Ministers deserve great credit for securing this legislation so early in this Parliament.
It is difficult today to capture the extent of the hostility to bus regulation that existed in Government a little more than a decade ago, when the spirit that animated the Transport Act 1985 was still a moving force in transport debates. Although franchising could boast a successful record in London, there was visceral and ideological opposition to extending it. The coalition Government were actively hostile. Ministers even sought to exclude areas that pursued franchising schemes, then known as quality contracts, from receiving funding—an echo of the bad old days when the Thatcher Government threatened to strip the west midlands passenger transport authority of metro development funding unless its municipal bus operations were sold off.
That lingering attitude changed when George Osborne struck a devolution deal with Richard Leese and the late Howard Bernstein that included franchising in Greater Manchester. That was less a turning point than a complete reversal. In fact, it was widely rumoured at the time that the Department for Transport did not know what the Treasury had agreed. That welcome revolution in thought, which found expression in the Bus Services Act 2017, was, however, imperfect and incomplete. Franchising powers were made available only to mayoral authorities that were picked and chosen in Westminster.
The Act contained a delayed and vindictive sting: clause 22, which sought to bar new municipal operations, despite the great success of surviving municipal operators in places such as Nottingham and Reading. Reputedly, the clause was a very late addition to the drafting of the 2017 Act—so late that it had not been quality assured by Government lawyers. Indeed, Conservative Ministers were forced to concede that the clause would not prevent an authority from
“acquiring shares in existing bus companies”,
nor would it prevent the repurposing of an existing company that was unconnected to bus services. Despite the flaws in its drafting, clause 22, which was born out of spitefulness and political posturing, has had a chilling effect on authorities that might have otherwise pursued a municipal operation. This Bill remedies both failings, and we will have better bus services and better law as a result of its passing.
There are other welcome provisions in the Bill. It will make it easier for operators and authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour and misogyny. It will make services more accessible for disabled passengers and accelerate the transition to cleaner, low-emission vehicles. All these measures will make a positive difference in my constituency, which sits at the intersection of Birmingham and the county of Worcestershire. It is a place where there are relatively low levels of car ownership, where a lack of audiovisual announcements makes it harder for some people to use the bus and where connections between our neighbourhoods are the poor relation to routes into the city centre.
In May, under the leadership of the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, the combined authority made the welcome decision to bring bus services back under public accountability and direction. That will enable better timetables, integrated ticketing and services that better connect the areas of highest unemployment with the business parks where new jobs are being created. It will also mean new powers over fares.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Laurence Turner
I will not; I am sorry. I do not wish to deny another Member time to speak.
A few days ago, under the version of the nBus scheme agreed by the previous Conservative mayor, Andy Street, operators exercised their legal right to hike seasonal fares, which they did by 8.6%. Low-paid bus commuters deserve better, and that is why we need the new powers that Labour is introducing in this Bill to better protect passengers from such increases in the cost of living.
One of the great pleasures of following other members of the Transport Committee is that they have made points about the forthcoming inquiry report much more eloquently than I can. I hope that that report is published in time to shape the final drafting and implementation of this important Bill, which I look forward to supporting through its later stages.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Shrewsbury has waited 10 years for a Labour Government to bring forward this Bill. Over the course of the last Government, our county of Shropshire lost over 63% of our bus routes, meaning that two out of three buses have been withdrawn. That was due to the savage privatisation that forced bus companies to pursue profits over passengers. For my residents, this meant that bus routes were stripped away from villages and they are now cut off from vital health and education services, work and leisure. It means that we have no buses after 6.30 pm anywhere in my constituency. It also means that we have no buses anywhere on a Sunday. In fact, in Shrewsbury we have not seen a Sunday bus for 10 years.
I do not know how familiar Members are with my wonderful, beautiful constituency, but Shrewsbury is a market town of 65,000 residents. It is the county town of Shropshire and hosts health, public and cultural services for 19 market towns and 400 villages, yet we are the only county town in this country not to have a Sunday bus service. It is a disgrace, and it is a painful symptom of the impact that the last Government had on public services in towns like mine up and down the country.
The lack of evening services puts severe constraints on our night-time economy and the potential for residents to get home safely after work, travel or an evening out. Not everyone can afford to run a car or is medically able to drive. The population in Shropshire is nine years older than the national average, so many older residents have given up their vehicles and find themselves stranded in the evenings and at weekends. In some villages, they are left completely socially isolated.
One of my constituents, Christine Hart, is in her 70s, lives in a residential suburb of Shrewsbury, and is a very active volunteer in her local community. Following her knee replacement operation last month, she became reliant on buses. She could not be happier with our new on-demand electric minibuses in her area funded via the Government’s bus service improvement plan. She is such a convert that she plans to keep using them even after her recovery. However, she explained to me that although she could get to a 5 pm doctor’s appointment, she has no way of getting home because there are no evening buses in Shrewsbury.
I am regularly contacted by employees who tell me that by the time they finish work at 6 pm, they cannot get across to the bus station to catch the last bus home. We are preventing residents getting to and from employment, putting a real block on economic growth. This is corroborated by my local chamber of commerce, which runs a quarterly business survey with its businesses. We receive regular feedback every single quarter that the primary barrier to recruitment is the lack of bus services that run early enough and late enough to support people—young people in particular—to access employment opportunities. My sorry tale from Shrewsbury is of a beautiful place that is very often cut off from the communities and individuals without a car, and the last thing we want to encourage is even more congestion in our historic town centre.
We must try to rebuild our public transport system, which was dismantled by the Conservatives during their time in office. They should hang their heads in shame for every one of the 5,000 miles in bus routes that they cancelled in towns like mine, for every youngster who cannot access a job opportunity, for every pensioner who cannot visit their family on a Sunday, and for every village cut off from public services.
Ten years is a long time to wait to be reconnected to the outside world, but the good people of Shrewsbury will today be celebrating as we debate this Bill, which will give back to local authorities the power to run services for passengers, not just for profit. The Bill has a clause that allows for socially necessary routes to link up medical, educational or public services to the local community at stops and times that empower them, not just the operator.
By changing the law to move away from exclusive privatisation, we can move forward to a responsive, community-led model for our public transport authorities. The Bill will not just improve lives in Shrewsbury, but transform lives, aspirations and the wellbeing of my residents, who have waited a decade for a Labour Government to give us back our Sunday service.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill. As a public transport user, I know that our buses do not always work for the people and communities that they purport to serve. For many of us, a privatised system with only a handful of companies running routes and setting fares has led to rising ticket prices, without the reliability to go with them.
London’s relatively well-run and highly regulated system has been an outlier in Britain until recent years—that is, until we have had some Labour metro mayors, who have made changes. Despite Huddersfield having had the busiest bus station in West Yorkshire before the pandemic, its bus services declined by more than a fifth between 2010 and 2023. This decline is not just a local issue; it reflects a wider pattern of regional under-investment.
The historical disparities between London and the north on transport spending are stark. In 2017, London received £944 per person on transport spending, while Yorkshire and the Humber received just £335. If the north had received the same amount per person as London between 2008 and 2018, it would have had £66 billion more spent on it. The Bill is long overdue as a starting point to turn things around.
A few weeks ago, at a coffee morning with local residents in Netherton, the key issue raised was buses. Inconsistent timetables, unreliable services and the withdrawal of the local village route have made it harder for people to get to work or appointments or to see family and friends. I therefore welcome the Government’s investment in transport in our region, including £36 million for West Yorkshire’s buses. As part of that investment, I was glad to see the recent launch of the fully integrated Weaver transport network—a nod to our textiles heritage—by our West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin.
We know that funding alone is not enough, however. We need a system that gives local areas the power to design services around local need. The Bill will take us in the right direction: in West Yorkshire, we will see the first buses going under public control from 2027. It will allow more flexible and locally responsive integrated mass transport networks and we will finally get a tram in West Yorkshire, which is fantastic.
It is worth recognising local employers such as Camira in Huddersfield. When you sit on a bus, Madam Deputy Speaker, the fabrics on it are likely to have come from a textile firm in Huddersfield. Camira’s fabrics are used on buses, trams, trains and the London tube, which shows how transport investment supports not just passengers, but skilled jobs in towns like mine.
I want to mention a couple more things, including safety. For many people, accessing bus stations, bus stops or buses at night is very difficult, so ensuring that we have CCTV and safe travel officers will be really important. We also know that there has been inequity in bus service cuts, which have been deeper in low-income areas than in more affluent areas. That is not just unfair, but bad for growth, bad for health and bad for quality.
The Bill is a foundation for getting the implementation right. With strong local powers, fair funding and a focus on equity, we can rebuild trust in our bus network and create a system that truly works for everyone.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
This has been a really enjoyable debate. One of the great benefits of winding up is that we are forced to sit and listen to absolutely everything. Most speeches I enjoyed, but there were one or two that I did not. It is up to hon. Members to work out whether I am talking about them.
The contributions to this debate have been enlightening, because they have exposed some clear differences of economic and political philosophy among the parties. The Liberal Democrats, one after another, argued for improved services, particularly rural services, but were less clear about how to fund them. On the Labour Benches, there was huge optimism and enthusiasm under the perhaps mistaken belief that the Bill, in itself, will improve passenger services for their constituents. The truth is that when we look at the terms of the Bill, it is clear that the focus of its reforms is not primarily on improving bus services for passengers—quite the contrary.
In the other place, Labour whipped its peers to vote against what is now clause 1, which makes the improvement of the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain the purpose of the Bill. I send birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and make a plea on her behalf for her Whips not to be too harsh on her for her support of clause 1. Perhaps she was unaware that it was opposed by her own party in the other place.
Why do the Government not want to put performance improvement at the heart of the Bill? Because that is not the Bill’s primary intention. Labour’s true focus was set out in its background briefing to the King’s Speech. It is about
“accelerating the bus franchising process…building on the success of…public bus services still in operation.”
No mention there of passengers, performance, improvements or cost control; it is the structure of the bus providers that has excited the Government. They intend to increase the number of municipal bus companies, presumably because they think that civil servants are better equipped to run efficient bus companies than private sector operators. I can see that, in some examples, that is possible. I spoke to the managing director of the Warrington bus company last week and I was impressed by the performance figures, although they are very unusual.
However, the Government’s faith does not translate into confidence that the new municipal bus companies could win a competitive tender, as the Bill, perhaps inadvertently, allows local authorities to do away with competition. Extraordinarily, as currently drafted, it would allow any local authority to first create a new municipal bus company and then grant itself a franchise, without any competitive process. If that is deliberate, it really would be the triumph of socialist political ideology: that the state is somehow better.
Franchising is an alternative solution, potentially allowing greater co-ordination of transport provision, but it comes at a cost. It takes commercial risk away from the bus operators and puts it in the hands of local authorities. It requires dynamic contract, design and management skills. It is necessarily complex and, if done badly, risks the removal of the innovative power of the private sector, replacing it with state direction.
Let me say again what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made abundantly clear at the opening of this debate: we do not oppose bus franchising in principle. We support it, in fact, when it delivers value for money and, above all, when it improves services for passengers. But what we have seen from the Government today is a refusal to engage with the very real risks embedded in the Bill. The existing 2017 legislation has been referred to more than once during the debate. It recognises that mayoral combined authorities have the scale and resources needed to manage the development of franchise model. However, even here, political ineptitude and mayoral hubris can make a mess of things.
Andy Burnham’s Bee Network has been touted as the socialist example to follow—[Interruption.] I hear it from the Government Front Bench right now, but let us have a look at what has actually happened in Manchester. Buses that cost the private sector £180,000 cost Andy Burnham £220,000. Bus depots that cost the private sector less than £4 million cost Andy Burnham more than £12 million—in fact, nearly £13 million. Private sector bus companies train sufficient staff for their needs while Andy’s team, having failed to secure enough trained drivers, is in the absurd position of having to pay more than 400 agency staff to drive their buses at inflated hourly rates and with accommodation costs on top. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated at £17.4 million a year and rising.
Who is focusing on cost reductions in Manchester? Well, it is not the bus companies—it is not their job to reduce costs any more. In fact, the bigger the overall contract cost, the more profit they make. Require them to give above-inflation pay rises to unionised staff, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. It goes on the bill, and they get a profit percentage on top. Require them to donate to charity, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. Just add it to the bill, and get a profit percentage on top. Profits go up as the size of the contract increases. While Labour claims to have increased value for money because of the much-touted reduced profit percentage, the taxpayer is quietly fleeced. This is the doublespeak of Labour’s “value for money”.
What is the real cost of Labour’s return to “On the Buses”? Had Andy Burnham stuck to his own business plan, the Bee Network should have been profitable after the transition period, but because of his self-aggrandising hubris and statist ineptitude, the loss for this year alone is forecast to be £226 million and it is likely to rise further in the years ahead—that is £1 billion in under four years. And that is in a mayoral combined authority, although admittedly a Labour one.
Has this worked to increase traveller numbers? Between 2022 and 2024, Greater Manchester has experienced a 34.34% increase in ridership, according to Government figures, but let’s look at my county of Norfolk, which has a Conservative county council: its enhanced partnership has increased ridership over the same period by 43%. Let’s look at Essex—again, a Conservative-run council with an enhanced partnership, which has increased ridership by 52.3%. In the wider context, Greater Manchester has in fact underperformed.
Why does the Bill remove the crucial safeguards that ensured franchising was rolled out by authorities with at least a notional capacity to deliver? Why has Labour walked away from giving the Secretary of State the power to intervene if the worst happens and services fail? Why does the Bill not require a competitive tender process when local authorities decide to run their own bus companies? Labour appears content to let any council, regardless of size, experience, expertise or cash reserves, take on these huge financial and organisational risks. That is not empowering local government; that is setting it up to fail. And that is before we talk about money.
These franchising powers are meaningless without the money to implement them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington made clear, just £243 million of the £1 billion promised by Labour is destined for actual bus services. That does not even satisfy Andy Burnham’s bus habit for a year. What about the rest of the country? Without billions—literally billions—of pounds to back up this Bill, it is just posturing. So where is the money? The answer is that there isn’t any. The Government have scrapped the Conservatives’ £2 bus fare, which was genuine financial support focused 100% on passengers, and now it is rumoured that even the £3 bus fare is due for the chop. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. The Government tell us they have a plan for passengers, but it seems that their plan for passengers is to make them pay more.
The Bill needs to have the improvement of passenger services at its heart. It needs to encourage the innovation and efficiency of the private sector. It needs to consider vulnerable SEND children and their educational needs. It needs to recognise the huge financial risks of franchising and municipal bus ownership, and to provide appropriate oversight and support. Most importantly, it needs a Government who are prepared to think again in Committee and be open to improvements to the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Minister, can I just remind Members—I appreciate that I am largely preaching to the choir here—that they are expected to attend for the wind-ups when they have spoken in a debate. Today, many Members have not had the opportunity to be called, but have sat here throughout; perhaps they will point that out to their colleagues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I thank all Members for their participation in today’s lively debate, spanning across the House. I do not intend to take interventions due to time, and out of courtesy to Members who have spoken already, I intend to respond as best as I can. I would like, first of all, to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) a very happy birthday. This Bill was indeed a birthday surprise just for her!
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out why the Government have introduced this important Bill. Buses are the country’s most popular form of public transport, making up to 58% of all public transport trips in England in 2023. They connect people to opportunities and to jobs they would not otherwise be able to take, and they give freedom to those otherwise facing isolation. Yet despite all this, many communities have experienced the familiar pattern of bus services being cut and fares going up, with the deregulation of buses in the 1980s leaving local areas with few options. We understand that local leaders are best placed to make decisions about how to improve bus services in their areas, and through this Bill we are giving them the tools to do so. We have engaged with stakeholders in developing these measures, and implementation will give us a further opportunity to engage on the detail of implementation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) and the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) spoke about franchising. To make decisions effectively, local leaders need all possible options on the table, and that includes bus franchising. Franchising allows local transport authorities to take control of bus services by determining the routes, service specification and performance targets for operators.
Greater Manchester, the first area in England outside of London to franchise, has seen notable successes so far with punctuality and patronage up across the network, but I recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to franchising. Different models, such as the Jersey model, may suit rural areas better. The Government are determined to put power over local services back in the hands of local leaders across England. That is why the Department recently allocated over £700 million of bus grants to local transport authorities in 2025-26.
I want to address the comments made about the cost of franchising for Greater Manchester. According to data from Transport for Greater Manchester, franchising was delivered on time and to the agreed budget of £134.5 million. That included the whole process, including the acquisition of assets like bus depots. Let us be clear: without the changes made in Greater Manchester under franchising, the bus network would be smaller, less attractive to passengers and more expensive to run and use.
A number of hon. Members referred to socially necessary local services and rural services. Transport authorities that provide their services under an enhanced partnership agreement will need to identify socially necessary local services in their area and include them in their enhanced partnership. Local transport authorities will need to consider the alternative options that are available to mitigate the negative impact on bus users, including demand responsive bus services and community transport, which may work better for rural areas. By increasing the level of transparency around decision making on route changes and requiring consideration of alternative arrangements, the impact of any changes to bus networks will be fully assessed.
The issue of rural services is an important one. As I mentioned before, no one-size-fits-all solution exists. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, and it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their area.
The hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Orpington and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) referred to the fare cap. The Secretary of State set out that the Government have confirmed over £1 billion of funding to support and improve bus services in England and to keep fares affordable. We also took the first step towards consolidating bus funding by bringing together funding for bus service improvements and supporting services under one authority bus grant for the first time. My officials will work with stakeholders to develop and implement a new bus grant allocation for future funding. I ultimately want to create a fairer and simpler formula for bus funding that takes into account local needs.
A number of hon. Members raised important points about accessibility and floating bus stops. The Government are committed to safe and accessible bus transport. The matter was debated in great detail in the other place, and the Government fully appreciate the concerns raised about the accessibility of floating bus stops. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and that design features will be incorporated that promote their personal safety. We know more needs to be done to make these installations accessible for all. The Department is working with Active Travel England and Transport for London to provide further guidance and undertake research to address gaps in the evidence base.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) mentioned the innovative zero emission buses being produced here in the UK. This Government are supportive of the efforts and innovation of UK manufacturers, from which about 60% of zero emission bus regional area—ZEBRA—funded buses are typically procured.
In March, I chaired the first UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which brings together industry experts and local leaders to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus manufacturing. Moreover, the Government are supportive of bus repowering as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses. I commit to write to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock on the eligibility of those buses for the MHCLG funding that he mentioned.
This Bill is about choice—choice for local leaders to decide how their bus networks can best serve local people. It is a passenger-first approach. I think a picture paints 1,000 words, and the picture of the Conservatives tells me that they do not really care about buses. The Bill is a critical part of the Government’s bus reform agenda. I thank all those who contributed to today’s debate, which has been wide-ranging and a useful opportunity to discuss the important issues. I look forward to continuing the discussion in Committee—perhaps with a few more Opposition Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 8 July 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to aconclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—( Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.