Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing clause stand part.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I have concluded my remarks on this group.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Before I came to this place, I sat on the highways and transport scrutiny committee at Leicestershire county council, so I have spent a lot of my professional life talking about buses. As is not out of the ordinary for someone living in a rural or semi-rural constituency, however, I have also spent a lot of my personal life talking about them, as cuts and broader threats to our services are often the subject of conversation around the dinner table.

We all have residents such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke about in our previous sitting. For example, my constituent, Jacky, fought hard to reinstate the bus service in Whitwick in my constituency, and won, ensuring that people can get to the local doctor and pharmacy. That is a socially critical service. A few years ago, the service between Coalville in my constituency and Hinckley in the neighbouring constituency was withdrawn at short notice in the middle of an academic term. North west Leicestershire and Hinckley both have further education colleges, and that essential link between the two was withdrawn in the middle of people’s courses. If the local authority had responded to campaigners then, it would have realised that the bus route between those two urban parts of Leicestershire was a socially necessary service.

In big cities, cutting one service leaves a dent, but in rural areas such as mine, it leaves a crater—and craters have been appearing all over my constituency. Bus services were cut by 62% under the previous Government. What bus providers and councils see as cutting costs, we see as cutting lifelines to education, jobs and healthcare—cutting connections with our communities. Members can imagine my constituents’ frustration when they heard a few weeks ago that notice had been served on a route between Ashby and Loughborough. The local authority has found an alternative to protect the service, but the timings are such that students now have to catch their bus even earlier to get to college.

Bus services are not just about transport; they are about opportunity, inclusion and dignity. When a young person in Measham cannot reach their college in Loughborough, or an elderly resident of Ibstock cannot get to their medical appointment, that is not an inconvenience but an erosion of their independence. We cannot afford to keep asking our communities to do more with less. That is why I welcome the Bill’s ambition. Finally, we have committed the resources that are needed to protect socially necessary services in my community and many others.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank hon. Members for their further comments on socially necessary local services. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke at the last sitting about devolution and local decision making. Of course I support the principle of good decision making at the local level, and that is what the Bill is seeking to achieve by empowering local leaders.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked how local transport authorities’ decisions on socially necessary local services could be challenged. My Department included clause 14 to deliver greater protection for socially necessary local services and transparency for passengers. Members of the Committee have remarked that the definition given in the clause provides scope to reflect local passenger needs and the specific circumstances of different local areas. It will be for an enhanced partnership to make decisions based on those needs. Mandating an arbitrary level of service takes power away from communities and local leaders and could harm the overall long-term financial sustainability of local bus services.

Local transport authorities will need to vary their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to include a list of socially necessary local services. They must comply with the requirements of their EP schemes to avoid the risk of legal action, such as a judicial review, for not properly implementing the measure. If someone did wish to challenge a decision taken by a local authority, judicial review would be the most appropriate route. Guidance will be published in due course as part of the Government’s enhanced partnership review.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked specifically about proposed new subsection (9A), inserted by the Bill into section 138C of the Transport Act 2000. This is necessary, as it requires an enhanced partnership to set out a process that would be followed if an operator proposed to cancel a socially necessary bus service, or vary one in a way that was likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access the goods, services, opportunities or activities mentioned in the clause.

The hon. Member mentioned the £2 fare cap. The previous Government funded this fare cap until the end of 2024, with some fares likely to revert to more than £10 on the most expensive routes unless a new scheme was introduced to replace it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will make some progress, but I can probably paraphrase what the hon. Member was going to say: “It was in the manifesto.” Well, you must excuse me, Dame Siobhain, if I do not take the word of the Conservative manifesto; we heard numerous uncosted spending promises from the previous Government, and now that has all seen the light of day, we can see it was not worth the paper it was written on.

The monitoring and evaluation report for the first 10 months of the £2 national fare cap was published in February 2025, and, as I have mentioned already, it was considered to offer low value for money. Maintaining the cap at £2 for the entirety of 2025 would have cost an estimated £444 million, so the £3 bus fare cap represents a £293 million saving. At the spending review, the Government announced an extension of the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027. The ability of local authorities to influence bus fares is tied to the bus operating model that they choose; in areas with enhanced partnerships, fares are set by the bus operators.

Regarding school services, the Government do not expect the recent national insurance increase to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is extraordinary to hear the Minister say that, given the entire sector is shouting from the rooftops that it will be an existential crisis for the provision of SEND travel. I simply do not understand what data the Minister or his officials are relying on to support his bold statement that it will not have an impact. If he is going against the reasoned objections of the sector as a whole, he needs to come forward with the data that he is relying on.

[Simon Lightwood]

I would simply say that it is expected that the private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes in their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I will start by addressing clauses 15 to 17.

Clause 15 will broaden the scope and increase the flexibility of measures that may be included in an enhanced partnership scheme, by amending the Transport Act 2000 to replace references to specific routes with broader wording that covers local services in their entirety, thereby expanding the scope from measures that apply to individual routes to those that can apply across all local services in an enhanced partnership area. It means that local transport authorities and bus operators will be able to include in an enhanced partnership scheme measures that are more general in nature, rather than being limited by route. For instance, an enhanced partnership scheme will be able to introduce consistent fares and consistent reliability or punctuality targets across the entire area.

Clause 16 was developed in response to concerns from local transport authorities about their ability to require financial reinvestment in local services under the current statutory arrangements for an enhanced partnership. It will provide local transport authorities with a power to specify requirements in enhanced partnership schemes to create financial reinvestment schemes, which may require operators to reinvest any additional profit received as a result of interventions from local transport authorities, the Government or others.

The measure is intended to help to increase the level of operator commitment to the schemes and encourage operators to reinvest in the bus market. It will also help to ensure a greater return on central Government investment through the reinvestment of some operational savings back into the local bus market. Following the enhanced partnership review, which is currently under way, the Department will update guidance to assist local transport authorities and operators in understanding how the power can be used.

Most enhanced partnerships have developed a bespoke variation process through which they can make changes to a scheme, rather than relying on the variation process in the 2000 Act. However, there may be circumstances in which the bespoke mechanism does not work for everyone. Clause 17 provides that, in very limited circumstances, local transport authorities can make changes to their scheme by using the statutory variation provisions instead of the bespoke variation mechanism in the enhanced partnership scheme.

The purpose of the measure is to allow the local transport authority to make an application to the Secretary of State if an operator is acting unreasonably and has objected to a proposed variation that would have been made under an existing bespoke variation mechanism in an EP scheme. If, on application by the local transport authority, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the variation cannot be made because of the unreasonable or obstructive behaviour of one or more operators, or that the variation would benefit the people using the services, the Secretary of State can direct the local transport authority to follow the statutory variation process instead.

Additionally, the clause provides that a variation may be made using the statutory process if it is one that the local transport authority is required to make in relation to socially necessary local services. The measure is designed to provide some protection to local transport authorities to deal with deadlocks in partnership negotiations and to enable changes to local services that are in the best interest of the people who use them.

New clause 37, which was tabled by the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Wimbledon, would broaden the reasons for varying enhanced partnership schemes under Section 138K of the Transport Act 2000. However, existing legislation allows for enhanced partnership schemes to be varied if that brings benefits to the people who use local services in the whole or any part of the area to which the scheme relates. The legislation thereby already covers the improved integration of different modes of transport, as this will have benefits for the people who use local services.

Under the 2000 Act there is also an existing duty on local transport authorities to develop and implement policies that promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport in their area. As the Committee may be aware, the Government are developing an integrated national transport strategy to set a long-term vision for transport, which will help to inform how transport is designed, built and operated, with passengers right at the centre. I hope that the reasons I have outlined, alongside the existing duties of local transport authorities, have convinced the hon. Members that the new clause is not necessary. On that basis, I ask that it be withdrawn.

I appreciate why my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) tabled new clause 50, and the potential benefits of union representation and input when an enhanced partnership scheme or plan is introduced. I direct my hon. Friend to section 138F of the 2000 Act, which the new clause would amend: subsection (6)(h) states that the authority or authorities must consult

“such other persons as the authority or authorities think fit.”

It can therefore be considered that trade unions already come under the interpretation if an authority feels that would make sense. I appreciate that this would be down to the interpretation of each authority, but my Department believes that the decision on who to include, beyond the required stakeholders originally set out, should lie with the enhanced partnership itself.

My hon. Friend may be aware that the Department for Transport will update the enhanced partnership guidance later in the year. In the updated guidance the Department will make recommendations for best practice and will recommend that unions are considered as consultees where a plan or scheme is introduced or updated. It will also be recommended that unions are also considered as attendees for EP forums if appropriate. I therefore do not consider the new clause to be necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.

I thank Committee members for their further comments on the partnerships. Clauses 15, 16 and 17 were introduced in the other place as Government new clauses to strengthen enhanced partnership provisions in order to widen the measures that can be taken by local transport authorities under an enhanced partnership scheme, to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers on measures that will reduce operating costs, and to ensure that variation or revocation will benefit service users.

As I have said, clause 15 broadens the scope and increases the flexibility of EPs and broadens the wording to cover local services in their entirety. This is important to passengers because routes will not be viewed in isolation and local transport authorities will not be limited by route. That can help with the consistency and reliability of services.

The Government have listened to concerns from local transport authorities, and clause 16 provides them with a power to specify requirements in enhanced partnership schemes to create financial reinvestment schemes, which may require operators to reinvest any additional profit as a result of interventions. This is important because it encourages a commitment from operators to reinvest into the bus market, which I know has been a concern. I reiterate that the Department will use analysis from the previously mentioned EP review to update guidance to assist local transport authorities and operators in respect of how the power can be used.

Clause 17 was introduced because it was found that there were times when a bespoke variation mechanism was not working for everyone. The clause provides local transport authorities with very limited circumstances in which they can utilise the statutory variation provisions, instead of the bespoke variation, to make changes to the scheme. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Committee members will be pleased to hear that I will whip through the clauses quite quickly. Clause 15 amends the Transport Act 2000 to widen the measures that can be taken by a local transport authority under an enhanced partnership scheme so that they can relate to any local services in the area concerned. That is very sensible; we need not trouble the Committee any longer with consideration of that clause.

Clause 16, which deals with the passenger benefit requirement, replaces section 138C(9) of the 2000 Act. It sets out requirements in respect of local services to allow an enhanced partnership scheme to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers in return for public expenditure on facilities or measures that will reduce operating costs. It is a simple and practical balancing act between the commercial operations that pay for themselves and the socially necessary additions that a local transport authority may wish to negotiate as part of the enhanced partnership. It is about the quid pro quo of how those can be funded other than by direct subsidy.

Clause 16(9)(a) provides that local transport authorities may include requirements that relate to operators establishing and operating arrangements that facilitate an EP scheme, and subsection (9)(b) may require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers if they benefit from action taken by the LTA or other public authorities, including the Secretary of State. Again, this is a sensible adoption of a quid pro quo process rather than having route extension with direct subsidy. For the Conservatives, the provisions seem to sensibly widen the options for trade-offs, and we are supportive of them.

Clause 17 inserts into the 2000 Act proposed new section 138(KA), so that where an EP scheme can be varied in accordance with the scheme, a variation can be made under section 138(K) only when the Secretary of State is satisfied of two things: first, that operators have behaved unreasonably or obstructively, and secondly, that the variation or revocation will benefit the users of local services. Again, this is a sensible approach for the Secretary of State to take and we will not object to clause 17.

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 37 would deal with the variation of EP schemes to improve the integration of public transport. It would mean that a variation to an EP could take place only if it had the effect of improving integration across different modes of transport. Although I understand and applaud the rationale behind the drafting of the new clause, one has to be careful of the unintended consequences, because it would prohibit any change to an EP that did not also improve integration across different modes of transport. Many variations to an enhanced partnership might have multiple benefits for passengers, but might not have the benefit of improving integration across different modes of transport. Under a strict reading of the new clause, such improvements would be prohibited. I know that is not the Liberal Democrats’ intention, but as the new clause is worded that would unfortunately be the effect.

I will not make any comments on new clause 50, other than that, unusually, I support the words of the Minister in that the trade unions already come under the wording of the Bill.

[Mr Kohler]

New clause 37 is sensible and constructive. It would ensure that when enhanced partnership schemes are amended, improved integration across modes of public transport is explicitly recognised as a legitimate and desirable reason for doing so.

We have seen time and again, both here in the UK and internationally, that when public transport is properly integrated, it works. It becomes more convenient, reliable and attractive to passengers. People choose to use it and when that happens, buses flourish. Whether it is better co-ordination between bus and rail timetables, joined-up ticketing or clear and consistent information across modes, the benefits of integration are obvious. Without a clear statutory basis for prioritising integration, too often such opportunities are missed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

The clause amends various sections of the Transport Act 2000 to help authorities to better reflect the needs of disabled passengers in the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. It provides that an enhanced partnership scheme can specify requirements to enable disabled people to travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort, including—but not limited to—requirements for the provision of a taxi guarantee scheme.

The clause also requires local transport authorities to consider whether any of the requirements proposed to be included in a new enhanced partnership scheme, or when varying an existing one, will enable disabled people to be able to travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort. It requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people or organisations that represent them before making an enhanced partnership scheme, to ensure that it is as informed as possible by an understanding of the priorities and needs of disabled people.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We are getting to some of the more interesting parts of the Bill now. The clause amends relevant sections of the Transport Act 2000 on enhanced partnerships and plans to help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled users of local bus services and the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. Subsection (2) inserts proposed new section 138CA into the Transport Act 2000, which provides that:

“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify…requirements about enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services”—

and then we get the good phrase—

“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”,

including for taxi guarantee schemes. It also states:

“Before making an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services”,

and it includes definitions for the purpose of the clause.

Subsection (3) pops proposed new paragraph (ba) into section 138F(6), on consultation. It includes disabled users or prospective users of local services, or organisations representing disabled users, among the list of people or entities that authorities must consult before making an enhanced partnership scheme—so, good progress there.

Subsection (4) inserts proposed new subsections (9) and (10) into section 138K of the Transport Act. It states:

“Before varying an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme as varied will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services…to which the scheme as proposed to be varied relates.”

It is important that the schemes are designed to be widely accessible, including to those with disabilities. Consultation with affected groups in the design of services, as anticipated by subsection (3), is the right approach, and the clause makes clear the importance of designing services with the needs of persons with disabilities in mind. I ask the Minister: what consultation with groups representing persons with disabilities was undertaken prior to the drafting of the Bill? Although I welcome the clause, did the consultation include reference to floating bus stops, as anticipated in clause 30? If so, did the Government take account of that input?

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is great to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dame Siobhain. I want to follow up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said and ask a few additional questions, particularly about the provision in clause 18 for persons with disabilities.

I obviously welcome the inclusion of this clause in the Bill—we clearly want to ensure that public transport is as accessible for all as possible—but I am slightly concerned that, in a way, it provides false hope. Subsection (2) states:

“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify”,

so it is a “may”, rather than a “must”. It is nice to have that consultation, but there is an opportunity for the local authority or whoever is providing the bus service not to do it. The clause allows for a consultation, but there are no guarantees that what disabled people want will happen.

I am also slightly concerned about the taxi guarantee scheme. I do not know whether hon. Members have experienced the same thing as me, but my constituency of South West Devon is an interesting mix of urban and rural. It might be thought that large chunks of Plymouth are technically easily accessible, but the Access Plymouth minibus system does not even work across the city, let alone go into the rural parts of the constituency. Out in the South Hams and West Devon, which is a different local authority, the bus services are typical rural bus services: they are not very reliable or frequent.

It is also worth saying that taxis are not reliable either. Just this weekend, a local taxi service that runs out of the village put a post on social media saying, “We’re fully booked this evening.” Even able-bodied people, let alone people with disabilities who are trying to benefit from a taxi guarantee scheme, need to book in advance, so I question the feasibility of delivering on this clause.

We are not only saying that bus services will be reliable for persons with disability; we are offering them a taxi guarantee scheme. Yet we do not know—I assume the Minister will be able to explain this—what assessment has been made of the wider public transport picture or whether the taxis exist to provide the scheme, particularly in our rural communities. I know the Bill seeks to address those places. Ultimately, we need to ensure that we manage the expectations of those we are trying to help with the Bill.

I ask the Minister, what consultation has been held on, and what thought has been given to, the provision of rural services for people with disabilities? The taxi guarantee scheme is a great idea, but is it deliverable? What analysis has been made of that? Secondly, what might stop a local authority from delivering on this, and what assessment has been made of potential obstacles? Apart from the supply of buses and taxis, are there other reasons why a local transport authority might not be able to deliver this?

If it is that important to ensure that persons with disability can access public transport, which is something that I think we all agree we want, then the obvious question is: why does the legislation not say that an enhanced partnership scheme “must” do it? Why does the Bill say just that it “may”? It seems that there is a conflicting ambition here. Perhaps I have answered my own question in saying that there might not be the supply, but if we want to ensure a better world for persons with disability, I am intrigued as to why it does not say that a scheme must do this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

This clause is sensible. The Minister is right that it will streamline the objection process, so that instead of having to wait for a month to see whether anyone has objected, the affected parties will be able to notify the local transport authority in writing that they have no intention of objecting. The timetable will be shortened as a result.

The approach is multi-layered. The measure relates to the preparation, notice and consultation stage, which is section 138F of the Transport Act; the making of plans and schemes, section 138G; the preparation, notice and consultation for variations, section 138L; and the making of variations, section 138M. This is a common-sense approach to preventing unrequired notice periods from delaying the ability of LTAs to take action.

Clause 19(6)(a) will have the effect that where an LTA issues a notice of an intention to revoke an enhanced partnership plan or scheme, it is no longer required to state the date on which the revocation takes effect under the notice. That will allow the LTA to proceed with the revocation where the relevant operators have also indicated that they do not intend to object under the new arrangements. Again, that is sensible streamlining. I applaud the Government on a good tidying-up exercise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Advance notice of requirement to provide information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Simon Lightwood]

The clause will amend provisions in the Transport Act relating to powers of local transport authorities to obtain information about local bus services in connection with any relevant function, including preparing or varying an EP scheme or plan. Existing powers are set out under section 143B of the Act. They mean that operators may be required to provide information requested by local transport authorities within a “reasonable” timeframe specified by the local transport authority and in a specified format.

If it appears to a local transport authority that a bus operator has failed to take all reasonable steps to provide the information, it must inform the traffic commissioner. There have been occasions when operators have not met the timeframes set by local transport authorities.

To support the Government’s intention to strengthen EPs between local transport authorities and bus operators, the clause will amend section 143B to require LTAs to provide a 14 day-notice period before issuing an official request for information under that section. It clarifies that

“When imposing the requirement the authority or authorities must have regard to any representations made by the operator in response to the notice”.

The clause creates a mechanism through which operators can work with local transport authorities before a statutory request for information is issued under section 143B.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will be brief. I agree with the explanation given by the Minister. This is a sensible clarification and we have no objections.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Bus network accessibility plans

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—

“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.

(2) In this section, ‘relevant authority’ includes—

(a) a county council in England;

(b) a district council in England;

(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;

(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.

(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

(4) The report must also include—

(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;

(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;

(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;

(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;

(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.

(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”

This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

[Simon Lightwood]

Clause 21 requires local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, describing what provision is made in the authority’s area to enable disabled people to use local services. Those plans will also assess how effectively the provision enables disabled people to use local services

“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”

and describe any further action that the authority plans to take to enable disabled people to travel on local services.

The clause specifies that the bus network accessibility plan must be published within one year of the clause coming into force, and subsequently it specifies that it must be reviewed at least every three years, or sooner if substantial changes are made to the local bus network. As it stands, there are no specific obligations for authorities to obtain an understanding of how well local transport networks in their area work for disabled people, or to highlight publicly their approach to network accessibility.

The clause requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people or organisations representing them, as well as operators of local services within their area, when preparing and reviewing bus network accessibility plans. That will help to ensure that authorities review the accessibility of their bus network regularly, including setting out any changes they propose to make, and that disabled people or the organisations representing them will be given a voice when future accessibility interventions are planned.

New clause 23 tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) would

“require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.”

The Government are clear that we need to improve accessibility of our transport network, and I support the spirit of the new clause, which is designed to incentivise local authorities to take responsibility for driving up accessibility standards in their areas. However, clause 21 already places a requirement on local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, which must include details of the accessibility provision that already exists in their area and an assessment of the extent to which the current provision enables disabled people to travel independently, in safety and reasonable comfort, and must set out future plans to improve accessibility. I therefore believe that the proposed measure is unnecessary and urge the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister did a good job of précising the contents of the clause, so I will not repeat that—I know everybody will breathe a big sigh of relief. However, there are some issues; essentially, clause 21 requires a bus network accessibility plan to be created, but it does not then tell us what to do with it. My questions are around the theme of: “So what?” It is all very well to create a plan that just describes the status quo, but there is no requirement to improve. The current effect is to create cost and bureaucratic process with no outcome for passengers.

This is a real problem with both this legislation and legislation more widely: we think process is very important—because we are policy people—so we focus on all the hoops that organisations need to jump through. Too often, however, we forget to take the next step and understand the practical impact of the process on our constituents, in particular those who use buses. There appears to be no positive benefit from the clause as drafted, other than having another document collecting dust on a shelf somewhere.

What is the point of the requirement? It identifies need and describes what the LTA is planning to do about it, but that is it. It feels a bit like virtue signalling without funding, since improvements are expensive, particularly provisions for those with additional needs and disabilities, and do not add significantly to the fare box. What is the practical application of the clause? It applies a significant additional burden on local transport authorities, which have to jump through the hoops that we are creating, but what is the benefit?

New clause 23 in the name of the Liberal Democrats is a different version of the same thing, but I look forward to the explanation and advocacy of it by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The only difference is that the plan would be annual rather than triennial, which would triple the amount of bureaucracy and cost associated with the provision. The new clause would include proposals to improve bus route accessibility but, again, with no requirement actually to change anything. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Member, but both the clause and the new clause are entirely useless without funding attached. Since no reference to such funding appears anywhere in the Bill, that does beg the question, what is the point of the clause and the new clause?

[Mr Kohler]

In answer to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, our new clause 23 addresses the weaknesses in the existing clause 21. According to research by the National Centre for Accessible Transport, 90% of disabled bus users report facing barriers to using the bus network. Those include space constraints, poorly designed bus stops, the lack of step-free access when boarding or alighting, and the continuing absence of induction loops. Buses are not a luxury for many disabled people; they are a vital connection to work, services, friends and family. Putting accessibility front and centre is not optional; it is essential.

The clause is therefore a step in the right direction. It rightly requires authorities to consider how to make bus services more accessible. However, if we are serious about delivering meaningful progress, we must go further. That is why we have tabled new clause 23, to build on the work started in clause 21 by introducing a requirement for annual reporting on accessibility progress.

The existing clause requires the accessibility plan to be reviewed only every three years. We believe that is too long; three years is a long time in which to do nothing. I draw Members’ attention to subsection (4) of our new clause 23, which lists practical things that the report would have to report on to draw attention to the public, the Government and voters exactly where there are shortfalls in, problems with and obstacles to addressing the need.

We need to go further than simply having the requirement. Under the Conservatives, the Access for All programme was left to wither and die on the vine. Unless we actually do something more practical, as we are suggesting, that is what will happen again. I agree that none, or not much, of the Bill will work without adequate funding—that is a given—but we have already made that point, and the new clause would give the oxygen of publicity to what is happening. We think that is important.

We do not think that new clause 23 would impose a significant new burden. It would simply require local transport authorities to produce a short annual update, setting out how they are progressing against the goals in their accessibility plan, to allow for regular scrutiny, course correction where needed and, above all, accountability. If we want a bus system that works for everyone, we must ensure that local authorities do not just create plans, but deliver on them, transparently and consistently. For that reason, we support the clause standing part of the Bill, and we urge the Government to adopt new clause 23.

[Simon Lightwood]

The driving force here is transparency. It is about having the data and about how local areas ensure, for a whole range of reasons—social, economic and moral—that everyone in their community can access our bus services. I remind Members that the clause 21 was inserted following debate in the other place.

The Government believe that all passengers should be able to travel across the country easily, safely and with dignity. We listened carefully to concerns in the other place and brought forward an amendment to support the Government’s ambition for bus services to become more accessible and inclusive for passengers, and particularly for disabled people.

I will address some of the points raised. First, I have already mentioned that clause 21 places consultation requirements on local transport authorities when developing bus network accessibility plans. It also specifies that these plans must be published within one year of the clause coming into force and reviewed following substantial changes to local bus services, or every three years. For example, if a local transport authority decides to adopt a franchising scheme, my Department would expect it to review the plan.

The clause requires a local authority to describe what action it intends to take to enable persons with disabilities to travel on such services independently and in safety and reasonable comfort—not just to identify the issues. Bus network accessibility plans will enable local authorities to be held to account for appropriately understanding the accessibility of networks and for having a plan to resolve and mitigate those issues.

New clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would place requirements on a wider range of authorities, including those not responsible for bus services. It would be burdensome and duplicative, and likely to result in areas being captured in multiple reports. I confirm that my Department will provide guidance to help local transport authorities to produce proportionate and effective bus network accessibility plans for the benefit of the authority and disabled passengers alike.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Local government bus companies

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 22, page 16, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.

(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.

(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”

This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 17.

Clause stand part.

New clause 39—Assessment of service potential from publicly owned bus operators—

“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the ability of publicly owned operators to deliver more cost efficient and reliable bus services than commercial operators.

(2) Within a month of the Secretary of State concluding the assessment specified in subsection (1), a copy of the assessment must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will speak to amendment 51 in my name and set it in the context of clause 22. Subsection (1) repeals section 22 of the Bus Services Act 2017, which stated that the relevant authorities listed in that section could not

“in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service”

in England. Its repeal allows the wide-scale creation of municipal bus companies. That was in the Labour party manifesto, from memory, so I understand why the Government are doing that, and there was also reference in the King’s Speech to encouraging the expansion of the municipal bus company sector. There are currently eight such companies in England and Wales.

It is clearly the Labour party’s ideological position—we should be clear about it—that the state is better placed to run the commercial operations of bus companies than the private sector. That is not about provision, routes, capacity or approach to additional needs; it is the nuts and bolts of how to run a commercial operation—purchasing or leasing, maintaining, training and operating a bus company. Why would a local authority be better at the things that I have just mentioned than a specialist business, the main operation of which is exactly that?

It is a truism that local authorities are not traditionally renowned for their efficiency, and the same could be said of national Government. It is not impossible for them to do a good job—in previous sittings, I have made positive reference to one or two of the existing municipal bus companies that do—and I will not be ideological in the opposite direction, but running commercial operations of this kind is not a natural strength of local authorities. Cost management, customer relations and maintenance and renewal are all natural strengths of the private sector. From my perspective, therefore, this policy change is a very odd decision.

Clause 22 exposes the political approach of Labour, which is more interested in creating the supplier than supporting the passenger. We have seen that theme in clause after clause throughout the Bill. Subsections (2) to (5) create new requirements that mirror existing subsections (1), (2) and (13) of section 74 of the Transport Act 1985, which disqualify directors of existing public transport companies from being members of the local authority that owns the company.

The new requirements will ensure that directors of the new local authority-owned bus companies formed after the repeal of section 22 of the 2017 Act, which I have already referred to, are subject to the same governance requirements. If we are going to do this, that is a sensible safeguard. Subsection (2) provides that a director of a local government bus company who is paid to act in that capacity or is an employee of the company or of a subsidiary is disqualified from being elected or being a member of a relevant authority that controls the company, so there is a degree of separation.

Subsection (6)(b)(ii) disapplies section 73(3)(b) of the 1985 Act, which relates to money borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with a public transport company’s provision of local services. That removes the restriction on existing LABCos in England accessing private borrowing where the money is borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with providing local bus services. I can see why private businesses that have good control of their costs would do that, but allowing additional public sector borrowing by municipal bus companies as well as the very significant commercial risks associated with franchising is another concerning element of the clause.

This is franchising with knobs on. Not only is the local transport authority taking direct commercial responsibility for the provision of services, which has not happened before, it is then, instead of contracting out those services for a fee—which is what franchising is in the majority of cases—going the extra step and being the other side of the charterparty in operating the company to which it is franchising. That is a doubling up of the commercial risk and bets taken by local authorities, and on top of that, they are being allowed to raise debt as part of the operating company. I fear that there may be some trouble ahead as a result of this approach.

What control will be applied to that debt? Who is responsible for the debt on the failure of a LABCo? That is an important question. Does the debt fall with the LABCo or revert to the local authority as the only shareholder? Will it come back to the local transport authority as the ultimate owner? What provisions are in place to protect the public purse? My concern is that this bit has not been properly thought through.

LABCos have an obvious potential conflict of interest. They are owned by the local transport authority, which is the contracting body for the bus services that they supply. Whether true or not, there is a risk of an impression of impropriety if there is not a proper arm’s length approach, so we have to go the extra mile. If we as a Committee decide to support this clause, it is incumbent on us, where we recognise that people will likely think that there is an overly close relationship, to put the safeguards in place now to prevent any indication that that might be the case.

The local authority, as an emanation of the state, should bend over backwards to ensure fair play in the tender process and to ensure that that process is obviously fair—that justice is not just being done, but being seen to be done. It is equally obvious that any contract award process from the local transport authority to a LABCo must be fair.

Coming on to amendment 51, the Procurement Act 2023 sets out a fair process to ensure that no underhand tender activities are being undertaken by a local authority—that is its rationale. Yet although clause 22 takes steps to ensure that directors are at arm’s length from local transport authorities, and cannot be elected members either, it currently does not prevent an exclusion under the Procurement Act for the award of contracts to new—as opposed to existing—LABCo operators. That is a clear lacuna and mistake in the drafting of the clause.

The clause is trying to take account of the transitional processes where there is an existing LABCo—there are eight that we have discussed previously. As it is currently worded, however, it does not prevent local transport authorities from setting up new municipal bus companies. In fact, Labour is encouraging them to do that—or going further than that, as the King’s Speech expressed the desire that there should be many more. Despite that, the clause allows the exclusion of the provisions in the Procurement Act. That cannot be the Government’s intention, or if it is, the Minister needs to tell the Committee that that is the case. That is my first question: is it the Government’s intention to allow the exclusion of the provisions of the Procurement Act in such circumstances—yes or no? If it is, why should those provisions be excluded?

Amendment 51 in my name would fix that oversight. It would ensure that any contract awarded after a franchising scheme by a franchising authority cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a LABCo that meets the specific criteria that it was already providing services on 17 December 2024. In other words, we accept the transitional need for LABCos that have been operating over the last years, or that are currently operating, to be excluded.

However, any new LABCo should be properly compliant with the Procurement Act 2023. That protects the ability to roll over a transitional contract where the previous provider was a legacy LABCo, and stops the creation of a new loophole that would allow a local transport authority to misuse roll-over clauses to bypass the proper tender process and award to its own bus company.

It cannot be the Government’s intention to allow such an abuse of tendering, so if they will not adopt my amendment, what other effective steps will they take? How will they stand up for fair competition, the taxpayer and the passenger—or is their focus, again, on the supplier?

[Simon Lightwood]

In my time as a Minister, I have visited a number of municipal bus companies and they have all been absolutely outstanding. That is not just my view; look at the awards they have received in competition with private providers. They are deeply embedded in the local community, and indeed they are seen with some civic pride by the people who effectively own the company—the people of the local area. This is far from being an ideological move by the Labour party; we are removing the ideological ban. We are enabling local areas with the tools that they need to deliver better bus services, whether those services are municipal, through franchising or through enhanced partnership schemes. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.

--- Later in debate ---

I will now move on to the amendments.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I asked the Minister a couple of specific questions about debt management, so I would be grateful if he would answer them before moving on. He will, of course, remember that I asked about the provision of debt, the ability of a LABCo to raise debt, and what happens to that debt if the LABCo should fail. Does it return to the local transport authority, as the ultimate owner? Have the Government thought this through?

[Simon Lightwood]

As I said, any decisions should be underpinned by a rigorous and prudential approach to financing and resources. All local authorities have a duty to manage public money well. Local authorities cannot take on any borrowing unless it is affordable. That is a statutory requirement, and any local authority-owned bus company should be self-financing, as a minimum. Repealing the ban on establishing new local authority bus companies will give local leaders the freedom and flexibility to scale a bus company to match the needs of their passengers, the aims and ambitions they have for the network, and the available funding.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister was looking at his officials. I do not want to put him on the spot—obviously, I do, but not really—if this is a question to which he does not immediately know the answer. If he will write to me, through his officials, with that answer, or clarify it later in the sitting, I would be grateful.

[Simon Lightwood]

I will absolutely ensure that the hon. Member receives a full response and gets the reassurances that he seeks.

Amendment 51, moved by the hon. Member, seeks to prevent new LABCos from being able to directly award franchising contracts under what is known as the Teckal exemption in the Procurement Act 2023. Clause 22 will help to support public ownership, where desired, by repealing the ban on establishing new LABCos. Local authorities can consider a range of options for structuring a new bus company. One such option could be the establishment of a new LABCo as a Teckal company.

I understand hon. Members’ concerns about Teckal, and it is important to address them, but to do so we must understand what the exemption is and how it is likely to work in practice. Teckel is part of a much wider landscape of public procurement law, and it has been available to local authorities for the provision of services for some time. Use of the Teckal exemption is a complex undertaking that needs to be followed with care, given that it allows contracts outside the usual controls imposed by the public procurement regime.

Specific and rigorous tests are required to use the Teckal exemption. In addition, the development of any franchising scheme, including for a Teckal LABCo, is subject to checks and balances, as set out in legislation. That includes a thorough assessment of the plan, independent assurance and public consultation. Local authorities must be careful to ensure that companies are within the Teckal parameters if they pursue this option. Any local authority looking at Teckal would need to consider very carefully whether it was appropriate for their local context.

Existing precedent for Teckal LABCos in the UK, although limited, suggests that Teckal is largely used in scenarios where private operators are not interested in operating a service, or where they fail—for example, a Teckal award to an operator of last resort. Teckal is open to all public bodies that own any type of commercial company. Removing it as an option only for new LABCos would be an unusual departure from the status quo for existing procurement legislation. As it stands, there does not appear to be any compelling reason to single out new LABCos as the only type of public company that cannot use Teckal. My officials will publish guidance on LABCos once the Bill has come into force, and that will cover use of the Teckal exemption. We will work very closely with stakeholders when developing and drafting the guidance. That will help to ensure that the exemption is used only where the local transport authority believes it will genuinely improve bus services for local passengers in the area.

I turn now to Government amendment 17, which makes changes to clause 22. It will remove Wales from the scope of subsection (6)(b)(i), which inserts new subsection (5)(c) into section 73 of the Transport Act 1985. The amendment has been tabled to ensure that the public transport companies in Cardiff and Newport are not captured by the clause. Subsection (6)(b)(i) clarifies that there are no geographical restrictions on the operations of existing local authority bus companies in England. The amendment ensures that the subsection will only apply in England. It has been agreed with the Welsh Government and is intended to ensure consistency with the Welsh Government’s policy objectives to promote bus franchising. Clause 22 repeals the ban on the creation of new local authority bus companies, formerly referred to as municipals. The clause also clarifies that there are no geographical restrictions, as I mentioned, and I already touched on it being a local decision.

New clause 39, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, to conduct an assessment of the potential and efficacy of LABCo service provision compared to private sector operators. I feel it is necessary to reiterate a key point about many of the measures in the Bill: it gives local authorities the choice to decide how best to operate local bus services for their communities. It does not mandate that they establish a particular bus operating model. The number and type of LABCos set up will therefore depend on local decision making and the available resources in each context. Local authorities already set out their objectives in bus service improvement plans and wider local transport policies in local transport plans. For those considering establishing a LABCo, the enhanced partnership variance process or franchising scheme assessment provides a robust way to assess the evidence for choosing one operating model over another.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments, valiant though they were. I therefore intend to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Government amendments 18 and 19 will have the effect of removing services operating in Wales from the scope of clause 24(4). Amendment 18 will mean that only services that have stopping places in England will be captured. Amendment 19 will mean that, in relation to a cross-border bus service, no information will be captured about any part of that service operating outside England. The changes are necessary because bus registration is a devolved matter.

Clause 24 will give the Secretary of State new powers in respect of the provision of information on the registration, variation and cancellation of bus services from operators and local transport authorities. It will enable information about local bus services to flow to, and be shared between, the traffic commissioner and the Secretary of State. The traffic commissioner will retain overall responsibility for registering local bus services and the Secretary of State will host and administer the new database, which will bring all the information streams together.

Useful information will be available online, including on who operates the route, where services go and any changes or cancellations to services. By bringing that all online, we will modernise the information provision and make it more transparent for passengers. The technical detail will be set out in regulations made under the new powers in the Bill.

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendment 28, which would add

“accessibility and the provision of wheelchair spaces”

as a specific category of data that the Secretary of State may require from bus operators. I agree that open, transparent information about the accessibility specifications of buses should be available to the public, which is why I am pleased to confirm that we were already intending to use the powers in the clause to request the very same information.

Clause 25 works with clause 24 to enhance oversight, promote data-driven decision making and ensure greater transparency of local bus services. It paves the way to require franchising authorities, which do not have to register services with the traffic commissioners, to provide data about their services to the Secretary of State in order to enable the functioning of the aforementioned database. The clause also adds new categories of data that the Secretary of State may collect about local services and the vehicles used to operate them, and will assist with the monitoring and performance of local services and operators.

Clause 26 works in tandem with clauses 24 and 25 to support greater public transparency and thus accountability over local bus services. It will enable the Department to publish historical data down to the operator level by removing some of the existing restrictions on doing so. That will provide passengers with a baseline from which they can assess the performance of current bus services.

Although the existing data provides a good overview of bus services on the whole, having visibility of the business and operations of a specific identifiable operator will ensure that passengers have trust in their local service and confidence that, if they choose to take the bus, it will meet their needs. Clause 26 achieves that by amending the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 to enable the publication of existing operator-level bus data. It states that the Secretary of State must give notice to the industry prior to the publication of such data.

Section 9 of the 1947 Act sets out rules governing the disclosure and publication of information collected under the Act. In particular, it requires the consent of individual undertakings before information identifying them can be published. Disapplying the requirements in section 9 will allow the Department to publish operator-level information collected during the qualifying period, even in cases where written consent cannot reasonably be obtained from a large number of the individual operators concerned. These provisions will enable the timely and transparent publication of operator-level bus data, improving access to information while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have struggled with some clauses in the Bill, but clause 24 is perhaps the most opaque of all the clauses we have been asked to consider. It takes quite a while to go through all the references to work out what the clause actually means, but once that is done, it becomes clear that it is in fact a tidy-up exercise of the requirement for the registration of local services to the traffic commissioner. It maintains equivalent obligations in Wales as apply to England and ensures that the Transport Act 1985 is read through the lens of subsequent data protections.

The clause also retains the existing power of a traffic commissioner to refuse registration of a scheme if they believe that the applicant has not given them such information as they may reasonably require in connection with the application. The manner and type of such communication will be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations—okay.

The one area that I have some concerns about is clause 24(4), which deals with powers conferred on the Secretary of State, as it appears to go much further than the reasons given in the explanatory notes for why subsection (4) is necessary. I will read a short paragraph from the explanatory notes:

“Subsection (4) enables Traffic Commissioners to share existing registration information with the Secretary of State. It also ensures Traffic Commissioners can provide information about ongoing applications for the registration, variation or cancellation of services received before this clause comes into force”.

That is the rationale behind subsection (4), but its wording gives unfettered power to the Secretary of State to use any information, provided for any purpose, without restriction. The subsection states:

“in which case the information is provided without restrictions on its disclosure or use”.

Why do I care about this, and why is it potentially important? It is simply because the information about a scheme could be deeply commercially sensitive. Not every bus company is a LABCo; there are private sector operators in competition with one another. The commissioner can reasonably require full details of how an operation will be undertaken, including its financial elements. The current drafting of subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to disclose that deeply commercially sensitive information. Operators are required to give that information to the traffic commissioner—without it, the commissioner could refuse to grant an application—and the Secretary of State then gets their hands on it and can do whatever they want with it, without restriction on its disclosure or use. I highlight that point to Minister and, through him, to officials. Why should the Secretary of State have such a wide-ranging power? It is not necessary for the purposes of the Bill, as set out in the explanatory notes, and it just seems to have slipped through the gap. Can the Minister please explain why?

Government amendment 18 makes a technical correction and I have no objection to it. I will also skip over Government amendment 19, in the interest of speed, for the benefit of the Government Whip.

Clause 25 amends section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that require franchising authorities to provide data about services, akin to registration information, which we have just talked about. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the collection and publication of additional categories of information.

The intention of clause 25 is to obtain a better understanding of the nature of the services that are currently being provided, who is providing them and how they are doing so, including an understanding of the vehicles used, the number of staff engaged and the cost. I am developing a bit of theme here, but so what? What will the Government do with this information? Why is it useful? In itself, it does not change behaviour. I am not against the collation of the information, so long as it used to good effect, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of how he intends to use it.

Clause 26 deals with information obtained under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, which gives powers to competent authorities to require organisations to provide data, for economic forecasting, in essence—the kind of data that is used by the Government Statistical Service. Section 9 of the 1947 Act prevents the disclosure of such information that identifies an individual undertaking without the prior written consent of the provider of the information.

That is obviously very sensible. The Government want to find out what is happening in the economy to inform their policies, so under the 1947 Act they gave themselves power to require businesses to provide interesting information about their operations. As an aside, I used to run a business, which was asked for information by the Bank of England on a quarterly or perhaps six-monthly basis so that it could get a feeling for what was happening in the economy. It did not want the Westminster bubble or the square mile bubble; it looked at the real, lived experience of businesses. Those businesses provide useful data, which informs interest rate decisions and Government policy. But the last thing a businessman wants is for that information to be sent out into the public realm with their name attached to it. If they said, “Oh, isn’t it terrible? Orders have gone through the floor and we’re planning to lay a whole load of people off,” they would not want that information to be in the public domain; they provide it in confidence.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Lightwood]

I am going to try and make some progress. We have spent a significant amount of time on this.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham once again raised Manchester’s experience with bus franchising. He again quoted figures on the cost of franchising in Manchester. On the first day of the Committee I explained that the figures referred to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network. The adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester has resulted in little additional cost, and evidence to date shows that the model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.

Another franchising model in Jersey encourages both operators and local transport authorities to reinvest into the bus network. The operator keeps fare revenue, and profits that go over a certain set limit are shared between the LTA and the operator. Money is then reinvested by the LTA to improve services. The model adds flexibility and actually supports innovation and draws on the experience of the operator. This model has been tested in other areas through our franchising pilot programme.

The Bill makes some limited changes to the role of traffic commissioners in England, including changing the default position for the registration of services operating under the service permits within a franchised area. The traffic commissioner will also have powers to act against operators who breach the Bill’s mandatory training requirements; we will come on to that later in the Committee’s debates.

The presence of traffic commissioners across the regions and countries of Great Britain means that they are well placed to make decisions about the operation of bus services in different places. The responsibility of traffic commissioners extends beyond buses. To mention just a couple, it includes the licensing of operators of heavy goods vehicles and other service vehicles, and the granting of vocational licences. These responsibilities clearly extend beyond the Bill’s purpose; this Bill is not the place for a wider debate on the role of traffic commissioners.

I reiterate that passengers are at the very centre of this Government’s bus reform agenda. This is about delivering better buses, and people taking the bus more because they offer better connections and are reliable, safe, affordable and integrated into the transport network. Given that, I would ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to press his amendments.

Government amendments 4 and 5, tabled in my name, are intended to provide clarity on the type of services considered “cross-boundary” under clause 7. This means that any service that has at least one stop in an area with a franchising scheme, and at least one stop outside of the franchised area, will be considered a cross-boundary service. This change is logical, simplifies matters for franchising authorities and operators, and will ensure that the benefits of cross-boundary services to multiple communities can be considered, regardless of where the service starts and ends.

Clause 7 gives local authorities greater flexibility in how they access service permit applications from operators. These permits allow bus operators to run services into, or within, a franchised area on a commercial basis, rather than as a franchised service. The Bill introduces new tests that local authorities can use when deciding whether to approve a service permit. These tests allow them to consider a wider range of factors, such as whether the proposed service would benefit passengers outside the franchised area in the case of cross-boundary services.

It is important that franchising authorities are able to benefit from the opportunities that the commercial sector can provide in franchising areas, including for cross-border services, which are those serving a franchising area and nearby areas. These services are important, as the bus journeys that passengers want to make are not necessarily defined by scheme boundaries. This measure aims to give franchising authorities greater flexibility to provide better overall outcomes for passengers.

Clause 8 reapplies the requirement for bus services operating under a service permit in a franchised area to register their routes and timetables with the traffic commissioner. For cross-boundary services, the section of the route outside the franchised area already needs to be registered. The Bill clarifies that the part inside the franchised area also needs to be registered. This keeps the requirements consistent and easier for bus operators to follow.

In addition to the registration requirements, cross-boundary services and any services operated, under permit, wholly within the franchised area, such as sightseeing tours, must also still comply with the conditions of their service permit. This lets franchising authorities maintain control through existing regulations. However, the Bill also gives franchising authorities the power to exempt certain services from registration inside the franchised area if they would prefer to manage them solely through the service permit. Overall, these changes provide clearer rules for operators and authorities, and greater flexibility for authorities, helping to improve service delivery for passengers.

Clause 9 automatically exempts temporary rail and tram replacement services from the requirement to obtain a service permit when operating within a franchised area. As I am sure Members will understand, these services often need to be introduced quickly and to adapt to changing circumstances, so flexibility is essential. By removing the permit requirement, this measure reduces administrative burdens and saves both operators and franchising authorities the time and costs associated with applying for and issuing permits.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is jolly nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. As I spoke to the amendment before lunch, it falls to me now only to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his astute point. I would be glad to include ferries. After all, the new clause proposes better-integrated transport across all modes and modalities. We do not have any ferries other than river-crossing ferries in my constituency.

My constituents have found the issue of lack of co-ordination so frustrating that they have carried out research into it themselves; I thank David and James for furnishing me with the statistics. The first bus to arrive misses the first train of the day from Sheringham by a mere six minutes. For those who are not familiar with the Bittern line, it does not quite have central London regularity, which means that it is roughly an hour until the next possible train arrives. At other points during the day, there is either a 45-minute wait or hoping for a delay so that the bus arrives before the train departs.

A more joined-up approach would benefit both bus operators and train companies, allowing seamless integration of travel and reducing the miles in the journey to be carried out by car. My new clause would add to the franchising assessment the ability to see how franchising could make that transport integration a reality.

I do not think that franchising is a silver bullet to create integrated transport, which is why we will later consider an amendment that I have tabled that would add the enhanced partnership model. However, while we are expanding how franchising works, it would be remiss of us not to add common-sense thinking about integrated transport for those who are embarking on franchising for the first time.

I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said about amendment 57. We have got to fund it, too.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will start with clause 10, to which explicit reference has not yet been made, and under which section 123D of the Transport Act 2000, which refers to auditing, is to be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8). Subsection (2) sets out that a franchising authority may not proceed with a proposed franchising scheme unless it has obtained a report from an “approved person” on the assessment of the proposed scheme.

The approved person—this is important—will replace the requirement to obtain a report from an auditor. We read, under the new drafting, that the approved person must be independent, but based on that drafting we have no idea what other qualities the approved person may or may not have.

Subsection (3)(c) requires the report to state whether the information relied on in the authority’s or authorities’ assessment is of sufficient quality for the purposes of the subsections, which I will not go into. Subsection (4) will replace section 123D(3); it states that the Secretary of State must issue guidance as to when it is appropriate to appoint an approved person and what the franchising authority needs to take into account when selecting an approved person, including in relation to whether a person is independent. Subsection (7) sets out that an approved person means a person specified in regulations by the Secretary of State.

That raises the question whether the local transport authorities have the technical know-how and/or financial competence to create and then run these franchises. That is the big question that we have been debating backwards and forwards over the past few days. We know that they are expensive; we know that they are complex. I will not rehash arguments that I have made already, which we can take as read. We know that it is crucial that any plans be fully developed, properly costed, stress-tested for viability and generally fit for purpose before we press go on an entirely new system.

The requirements of clause 10 are important in facilitating that stress testing. On the face of it, the clause appears to water down the independent oversight, particularly on financial management. One of the core risks of franchising, as we have discussed, is the transfer of commercial risk from the operator to the local authority. That is a very significant change—one of the most significant changes.

Here we are, having a report on the plans: we no longer need an auditor who is financially qualified. Instead, we have an approved person. It could be an auditor, but we just do not know. The only qualification that we are told the approved person will have is their independence. That is a good thing, but subsection (7) writes a blank cheque to Ministers:

“‘approved person’ means a person specified…in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

We have not seen those regulations; I assume that they have not yet even been drafted. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the point. What specifications will he seek to put into the regulations?

If the Government want the Committee to vote in favour of substituting an approved person for an auditor, it behoves the Minister to tell us the kind of people who would qualify as an approved person, beyond their mere independence. I look forward to his detailed response, so that members of the Committee can feel satisfied that we are discharging their duty properly by understanding at least the direction of travel of the regulations.

I want to know what qualities, qualifications or expertise will be required. I question why the term is not defined in the Bill, but instead left to future regulations. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to sit down now and decide what kind of person we wish an approved person to be. It is not dependent on future information becoming available. It seems to be slightly sloppy drafting to define a term in reference to a future regulation—that is no definition at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Clause 12, alongside the schedule to the Bill, sets out new, bespoke variation procedures for authorities to follow when they wish to make changes to a franchising scheme. The procedures are clear and simple, to address the difficulties that franchising authorities have faced in interpreting existing legislation. They are also streamlined to enable franchising authorities to make minor changes in a more nimble way, balancing appropriate levels of consultation and transparency. This measure will reduce costs and timescales for franchising authorities in meeting the needs of local bus users.

Government amendments 7 to 10 to the schedule relate to the procedure for varying franchising schemes. Amendments 7 to 9 would have the effect of confirming that the requirements to consider the local transport plans of neighbouring authorities apply only where an authority is required to have such a plan. Scottish authorities are not required to have local transport plans. The amendments, however, clarify that a franchising authority must consider whether expanding the area of their franchising scheme would support the implementation of any other bus-related plans and policies adopted by Scottish councils. Amendment 10 will ensure that franchising authorities consider Scottish transport partnerships’ transport policies when assessing a variation to a franchising scheme, where relevant.

Government amendments 11 to 16 also amend the schedule and will require franchising authorities to consult with Welsh Ministers and Scottish transport partnerships before varying a franchising scheme that would affect them. In the case of Wales, that is in addition to the requirement already in the Bill for Welsh local transport authorities to be consulted, where relevant. It is also appropriate to consult Welsh Ministers in the light of the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill, which is before the Senedd. The amendments future-proof the Bill, given the Welsh Government’s ambitions to franchise their entire bus network.

The schedule sets out the detailed procedures for varying an existing franchising scheme. There are separate procedures for variations to extend the geographical area of a scheme, reduce the area of a scheme, and other types of variation. There are three parts to the schedule, setting out the specifics of the different procedures, depending on whether a variation is expanding or reducing a scheme.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 12 amends the Transport Act 2000 to set out the new process for varying a franchise scheme. In particular, subsection (2)(b) removes the minimum notice period of six months before a variation can come into effect. I will not seek to divide the Committee on this, but what assessment has been undertaken of the impact of a reduced notification period on service providers? What confidence can the Minister give current service providers that the impact will be minimised? What was the original rationale for the six-month delay, and what has changed to remove the need?

Government amendments 7 to 10 are sensible clarifications to ensure that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act applies only where such policies are mandatory. I fully agree with them. Government amendments 11 to 16 tidy up the requirement for consultation with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, where a proposed franchising scheme under amendments 11 and 12, or a variation of an existing scheme under amendments 13 to 16, would affect the devolved area. Again, that is a sensible clarification that needs no further elaboration.

[Simon Lightwood]

I have nothing to add.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

No answer to the questions?

[Simon Lightwood]

I have already explained our position.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Procedure for varying franchising scheme

Amendments made: 7, in the schedule, page 44, line 29, leave out

“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 8 and Amendment 9, ensures that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 applies only where authorities are required to have such policies.

Amendment 8, in the schedule, page 44, line 30, before “those” insert

“by neighbouring local transport authorities of”.

See the statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 9, in the schedule, page 44, line 31, before “other” insert

“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.

See the statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 10, in the schedule, page 45, line 14, at end insert—

“(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.

This amendment requires a franchising authority to consider the policies of a neighbouring Scottish Transport Partnership when assessing a proposed variation of a franchising scheme.

Amendment 11, in the schedule, page 46, line 39, at end insert—

“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.

This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.

Amendment 12, in the schedule, page 47, line 13, at end insert—

“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.

This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.

Amendment 13, in the schedule, page 49, line 22, at end insert—

“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.

This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.

Amendment 14, in the schedule, page 49, line 38, at end insert—

“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.

This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme area where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.

Amendment 15, in the schedule, page 51, line 11, at end insert—

“(ai) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation;”.

This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.

Amendment 16, in the schedule, page 51, line 39, at end insert—

“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13

Direct award of contracts to incumbent operators

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 13 amends the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 to allow franchising authorities to make a direct award for the first local service contract under a franchising scheme to the “incumbent operator”—that is the important phrasing. The intention, as I read it, is to allow for a smooth transfer of operations to the new scheme, where the qualifying conditions are met. Proposed new regulations 16A(1)(a) and (b) specify that the award must be of a local service contract within the franchising scheme and where no local services are currently provided. Proposed new regulation 16A(1)(c) sets out that the operator must have provided the same or similar services for at least three months prior to the new contract.

I acknowledge the objectives of the clause, but I am concerned that it raises more issue than it addresses. The approach could look like a cosy agreement, which is a theme that I have addressed a couple of times today. Where we are awarding a further contract to an existing contractor, without going to market or tendering more widely, there is a perception, if not a reality, of a cosy agreement. It cuts out competition and favours one operator over the others, and it is not just for a short period; it is for a period of up to five years, as set out in clause 13(3).

The likelihood of a challenge from other bus operators in the area, who are angry about being excluded, may well be quite high, yet proposed new regulation 16A(2) requires the local transport authority to publish information relating to the contract only within six months of granting the direct award. We therefore have a transfer that may look like a sweetheart deal between the local transport authority and the existing service provider, which may be the municipal bus company but could equally be a private provider, while the judicial review, which is the mechanism by which an external aggrieved party can challenge that decision, has an application deadline of three months—12 weeks. Under the clause, the requirement to publish the information on which that judicial review could be based falls fully three months after the judicial review deadline, so there is a problem with the timings set out in the Bill.

What is the point of publishing the information in subsection (3) six months after the date of the award? Other operators cannot go to judicial review, because the deadline has already passed, so what use is it and to whom? I have a simple question for the Minister. What process should operators follow to challenge a sweetheart deal, as they obviously should be able to do? If the information is six months’ old, it cannot be through judicial review, because they will not have been provided with the information before the three-month deadline.

What process do the Government recommend that operators should follow, and what information will be available to them? What is the reason for such a long delay in providing information? The information is there from day one, because the local authority and the existing provider will have signed a contract, so all that needs to be done is publish it. What governance provisions will be in place to guard against improper preference, because it may well feel like that has been involved to excluded competitors looking in from the outside? They need to have extra special confidence that there is sufficient governance in place to guard against that, especially if the provider is a municipal bus company, for the obvious reason that they have skin in the game—I will not rehearse that argument.

Amendment 72, tabled by the Green party, would have an effect similar to amendments 34 to 37 by removing the ability to grant a contract to a private operator working outside a franchising scheme—for example, in an enhanced partnership.

[Siân Berry]

To clarify, amendment 72 is not my amendment.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am so sorry—it is in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald).

I will therefore address amendments 34 to 37, which would allow for a direct award to local government bus companies. I fully understand the rationale behind the Bill, but looking at clause 13, I do not think that that award is excluded by the current drafting, because the term of art is “operator”, and a public bus company could be an operator.

[Siân Berry]

For clarity, the intention behind my amendments is not to allow for incumbent operators that are local government bus companies to be added to the Bill; it is to ensure, completely separately, that any local bus company at any time, or an incumbent operator, can be given a direct award.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

That was absolutely not clear from the drafting, and I do not feel able to support such opaque drafting. It would not be right to slip in five words and change the whole meaning of the clause. Perhaps it would be better to draft a new clause; I suspect the hon. Lady has time to do so before the end of the Bill’s consideration.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 34 to 37, but the Bill already enables the direct award of franchising contracts to local authority bus companies.

Clause 13 allows for the direct award of franchising contracts to incumbent operators under specific conditions that are set out in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. It would reduce transitional risks for local government authorities and operators when moving to a franchised network. It applies equally to private operators and LABCos. If a LABCo is an incumbent operator, it could absolutely be directly awarded a franchised contract under the clause, as could a private operator, if that was desired by the franchising authority. Clause 13, therefore, already allows franchising authorities to direct awards to LABCos.

Amendment 35 would allow a franchising authority to direct awards to a LABCo that is not an incumbent operator. For good reasons, clause 13 includes a restriction on direct awards to incumbent operators—that is, that any operator providing local services in an area immediately before a franchising scheme is made has been doing so for at least the three months prior. Those reasons include providing a stable and controlled contractual environment for staff and assets during a transition, while providing continuity of services to passengers. It also means that operators are established in, and familiar with, the area. That greater operational knowledge will help to drive more effective long-term procurement of competitive franchise contracts through data collection and sharing.

Those benefits are most likely to be achieved by franchising authorities working in areas with operators that have an established and reliable presence in the network and with whom they have established effective working relationships. I therefore hope the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will withdraw her amendment. Clause 13 already provides most of the powers she seeks, and keeping the incumbent element is an important part of ensuring some of the core benefits of the measure.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister may say that “essential services” is a wide, catch-all term that will cover this issue, but I am increasingly concerned that we are using imprecise and wide-ranging terms to avoid making any specifications that ensure important protections. It is irresponsible for us to leave the Bill in that state, and wait for a group of residents to have to challenge a service withdrawal in the courts as they fight for their definition of an essential service. As drafted, I do not believe that the Bill provides an adequate level of protection for access to medical appointments and health services, but we can avoid all that hassle if the Government accept the amendment.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I rise to speak briefly in support of Liberal Democrat amendment 66, which inserts a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of the existing network of local services—through proposed new subsection (4B)(a)—and the requirement to identify any gaps in provision, through proposed new subsection (4B)(b). Proposed new subsection (4B)(c) states that what further action the local transport authority intends to take to address the gaps identified must be set out.

Proposed new subsection (4C) would require the authority to publish both the assessment and the resulting plan after the relevant consultation. It is clearly a good idea to identify the scale of opportunity in the local area as well as what is already available. Such good information would inform good future decisions, so I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

Amendment 64, which was also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a statement every six months with information on socially necessary services across a county and the number of whole routes cancelled, as well as frequency and days of the week. I am not supportive of it. Although I understand the rationale behind the amendment, and it would be interesting to have that information on a regular basis, it would be truly onerous to require the Secretary of State to provide that every six months for services right across the country. As with all things, when we are trying to design effective government, we have to balance benefit and cost. In my respectful view, such a requirement tips into being simply too onerous.

Assessments are, by their nature, local or regional, and I do not understand the practical utility of national reporting when the people who really need to know the information are in the local transport authority that would be providing the information in the first place. I therefore confirm my support for amendment 66 and my opposition to amendment 64.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for tabling a series of amendments to the clause. Amendment 66 would ensure that local transport authorities review their current local bus network to identify any gaps. I agree with hon. Members that it is important for local transport authorities to understand and know their networks. However, the desired effect of the amendment is already covered by the Transport Act 2000, which places a requirement on an authority to meet the needs of people living or working in their area. The local transport plan, which must be prepared by a local transport authority, is an important document that establishes the transport needs of local communities. Indeed, the existing measures in the Bill go even further than the 2000 Act by ensuring that members of the enhanced partnership work together to identify key socially necessary services, and to develop a robust plan in case any changes are proposed to them.

I turn to amendment 64. The Department already publishes large amounts of bus data through both the Bus Open Data Service and bus statistics on gov.uk. The Bill provides for even more data collection under clause 24, which specifically ensures that data collected by the traffic commissioner is shared with the Secretary of State. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We already deliver a large amount of information to the public that can help them to understand all services operating in their area—not just socially necessary services—and may include many of the details listed in the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I am pleased to move an amendment that both I and Liberal Democrat colleagues had the idea of. The Liberal Democrats have withdrawn their version of the amendment, but we are essentially aiming at the same thing: to be specific in proposed new section 138A of the 2000 Act by specifically naming healthcare services, schools and other educational institutions as activities that we as a Parliament consider to be essential. I believe that that would really help transport planners to focus their efforts on those particularly essential services. It would strengthen the clause considerably.

In the past, I have worked with many young people who value bus services and feel undervalued when those services are not helping them to get back and forth to school. When they are not able to take part in after-school activities in the same way as their peers at the school whose parents can drive them back and forth, there is a social justice issue that deserves its own bullet point, as part of the clause.

I do not need to tell Members about the importance of public transport access to hospitals and other healthcare services. Later, we will discuss amendments pressing for the timing of older and disabled people’s bus passes to be extended so that they can access healthcare services with their free cards. The actual provision of the services is the absolute bottom line here, and they should be named. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose my amendment.

Amendment 38 was originally proposed by my Green party colleague, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, in the other place. It aims to include clearly in the definition services that have been cancelled. If this aspect of the Bill is to work effectively, it is essential that it works to undo the damage caused by cuts made in bus services, particularly local authority-supported ones since the start of the enormous austerity squeeze on local councils.

The proposed time period of 15 years in amendment 38 is no accident—it goes back to the start of austerity. Many figures show the loss of bus services around the country since the beginning of that period. For example, a Campaign for Better Transport figure shows that from 2012 to the second year of the pandemic, 2021, more than a quarter of all bus services across England, measured in vehicle kilometres, were lost. For the number of regulated services, which is a different measure of service capacity, the loss was 29%.

It will come as no surprise to my colleagues from the east of England that one of the regions with the biggest losses was the eastern region, alongside the north-west of England. The services lost were socially necessary, and they ought to be able to be defined as currently socially necessary, even if they do not exist. I commend both amendments to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Amendment 39 would add healthcare services, schools and educational facilities to the list of socially necessary local services. The hon. Lady is, of course, right that those are important destinations for bus services—so important that they would without doubt come under the services side of the definition. Since the clause as drafted refers to enabling

“passengers to access…essential goods and services”,

the amendment is otiose.

I understand the political point that the hon. Lady is seeking to make through amendment 38 but, as drafted, nothing could be done with that information under the clause. In fact, the amendment would have a negative effect, because it would simply muddy the waters with historical data without being helpful in establishing the future direction of travel for local transport authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

Amendments 54 and 74 would establish a real safety net for socially necessary routes. Amendment 54 would place a duty on local authorities to step in to deliver a service when no commercial operator will do so, while placing a reciprocal duty on the Government to provide financial support to enable it. Amendment 74 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State to create a formal funding mechanism for such services. The mechanism would include clear eligibility criteria, ensuring that local authorities could not designate routes as socially necessary arbitrarily, but must demonstrate clear social need. Together, the amendments would ensure that essential routes do not disappear due to market failure. They offer a practical, balanced solution to a growing problem, and I urge the Committee to support them. If we believe that these routes are socially necessary, we must find a mechanism to ensure that they are provided.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 54 would place a duty on local transport authorities to identify and then satisfy the need for all—and I stress “all”—socially necessary services, irrespective of supply, under an enhanced partnership. The amendment does not explain how the services would be supplied by the local authority—presumably, there would be a tender process—but it would require the authority to produce a report within six months. That report would identify the need, estimate the costs of provision and associated funding gaps, estimate the impact of a new service

“on local accessibility and transport needs”,

provide

“a timeline for the operation of the service”,

and specify local funding shortfalls. That measure, if adopted, would be a truly revolutionary departure for the identification of local need and subsequent funding, because it would hand demand assessment to the local authority, but the cost of provision to the Secretary of State. What could possibly go wrong? I genuinely look forward to the Minister supporting the amendment and explaining how he will fund that.

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74 would require the Secretary of State to advance proposals within 12 months to

“guarantee a service for socially necessary services”,

where that service has been absent for six months and

“the local transport authority is unable to run the service.”

That is a second extraordinary proposal, because it would again place identification of need—according to the highly subjective definition of social necessity—in the hands of the local authority, but would give the Secretary of State a legal duty to supply that assessed need. It envisages the Department for Transport directly running individual routes that have escaped the design of the franchise network or the enhanced partnerships. Presumably, since the Department for Transport has to supply for that need, it will be liable for procuring, right across the country, individual routes that are not part of a wider contractual arrangement. There we have it: the Department of Transport directly running individual routes, spread across the country, independent of wider bus provision. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.

[Steff Aquarone]

Amendment 54 is a really important protection for the safe and necessary services that I described. The shadow Minister’s points perhaps highlight the issue of funding more generally in bus franchising and enhanced partnerships.

The amendment would ensure that steps are taken within six months of identifying a route as socially necessary to ensure that the route actually runs. It would also enable the Government to provide them with support and funding to ensure that the route is available, if the financial burden on the local authority is deemed too great. This is another useful protection for the socially necessary services to ensure that they are not another victim of the funding crisis in local government. I have already made clear how important these services are and why we have to ensure that they are protected.

Looking at the perilous financial position of our county council in Norfolk, I fear that there could come a point where that spectacular fiscal mismanagement means that they cannot afford to keep these services going. In that instance, I do not think that my constituents should be the ones who are punished. The Government should step in to protect their access to all the services and opportunities that a socially necessary service provides.

To conclude, I am pleased that the importance of bus services has been truly recognised in law. I am supportive of the sentiment and much of the drafting of the clause. However, if we accept the importance of these routes, we should not make a half-baked attempt to protect them. We should ensure that all important services are considered when deciding on socially necessary routes, and that there are strong protections for both these services and our communities that they serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I support clause 14 and the Government’s proposed measures. Good decisions depend on good information, and in the East Cleveland part of my constituency we have seen far too many decisions made in a black hole of information, which has seen many routes disappear over many years. I now have many villages left in isolation.

It has fallen to local campaigners to step up and make the case that such routes are socially necessary, including through protests, rallies and so on, to try to save them. That is exactly what happened in the case of the Stagecoach 1 and 2 in my constituency, which was created as a result of a sustained campaign. However, that route is not sufficient, because it misses out certain villages and does not go down the high street in Brotton, for example. It also misses out several residents, of which one example is a lady called Norma Templeman who I promised I would mention in the House. She lives in North Skelton and is 87 years old. She said a few months ago:

“You have no idea how isolated this makes us golden oldies feel.”

I would never use such language to refer to her, because I think she is full of energy, even if she is 87. It should not fall to an 87-year-old lady to campaign to save and extend routes like the Stagecoach 1 and 2, or the demand-responsive transport service that she benefits from, which, again, runs out of money every few months, and there has to be a sustained campaign to try to save it. The entire model is inefficient.

I hope that the mayor in our region will seek to use the powers in the Bill and introduce a franchising model. So far, he is resistant to do that, so I ask for some clarity from the Minister on devolution—which we covered in the previous debate—with reference to clause 14. The principles set out in the various pieces of legislation on combined authorities, particularly the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, set out that the role of a combined authority is to act as it says on the tin: to be a combination of the local constituent member councils and their leaders. We have an odd situation in Teesside wherein the councils and their leaders want to have a franchising system but the mayor is resistant to doing so.

In the House on 14 May, I asked a Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government whether the Government accept the principle of subsidiarity, wherein power should sit in the lowest possible tier of government and local communities should have the strongest say. The Minister accepted that principle in his response. He said that devolution should not just be

“a shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to a regional or sub-regional body that is far away from communities and the local authority.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 135WH.]

He said the transfer of power is a good, but it is not the “whole job”, and communities should be able to “take control for themselves”. I hope that that is also the case when it comes to these powers. We should not have a mayor sitting above the community—above even the local authorities, which make up the LTA—and not using the powers and the funding that this Government are giving him to act.

For Norma’s sake, and the many Normas in all my communities and communities across the country, I support the clause and the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will deal with this in a slightly different order from that in which the Minister addressed it. I will deal with clause 14 in toto, and then look at Government amendment 6, which removes two subsections from the clause.

Clause 14 amends the Transport Act 2000 by requiring local transport authorities to identify and list services in the enhanced partnership area that are “socially necessary local services”—we have already discussed this at some length this afternoon—and then to specify requirements that must be followed if a bus operator of those services wishes to vary or cancel them. Subsection (2) amends section 138A of the Transport Act 2000, which talks about enhanced partnership plans and schemes, and it requires local transport authorities to identify and list socially necessary local services within their enhanced partnership plans—so far, so sensible.

The term is defined in subsection (2)(c), which inserts proposed new subsection (15) into section 138A and provides a definition of “socially necessary local service” as,

“a local service which—

(a) enables passengers to access—

(i) essential goods and services,

(ii) economic opportunities (including employment), or

(iii) social activities, and

(b) if cancelled, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access those goods, services, opportunities or activities.”

That is not necessarily a problem, but it is worth noting that this definition is quite subjective in its application. It is not easily measurable what such a service is, nor is it standardised between local authorities. The Minister will say, “Devolution will allow a thousand blossoms to bloom,” and I conceptually agree. However, I wonder whether, if we have different interpretations of the same term—“essential goods and services”—in different parts of the country, that raises a question about how the provisions will be applied across the board.

I understand the desire to devolve assessments to local need, but the determination does, after all, have commercial consequences for operators. As ever, where commercial opportunities are challenged or threatened, that brings with it a risk of legal challenge. That is why I raise the flag with the Minister—I am not going to do anything about it—that this is a potential future pitfall, where different local transport authorities apply the same definition differently.

If the Minister recognises that the definition is subjective, is he concerned about the risk of challenge? The route to formal challenge within an enhanced partnership structure would typically be by judicial review. Is there another form of challenge that the Minister would recognise as part of this process? What guidance will be given to local transport authorities in the assessment process? He referred to some guidance in his earlier responses; I saw him glance towards his officials. I would be grateful for more detail.

I think the issue can be dealt with through guidance, so it would be helpful to understand what form it will take for local transport authorities. Has that already been formulated? Either way, do we have an indication of when the guidance will be published? It is clearly an important document when looking to turn these concepts into practical policies.

Clause 14(2)(a) inserts new paragraph (ba) into section 138A(3) of the Transport Act 2000, requiring local transport authorities to identify which local services in their area are socially necessary services and to list those services in the enhanced partnership plan. Clause 14(2)(b) inserts new paragraph (4A) into section 138A of the 2000 Act, requiring local transport authorities to keep the list of socially necessary services under review and amend it as necessary. The idea here is presumably to ensure that the list of socially necessary local services reflects any sudden network changes in an enhanced partnership area. So far, so good.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Is the hon. Gentleman straying from the Bill? I am struggling.

[Jerome Mayhew]

No, I am pleased to say that I am not, Sir Desmond. Clause 14(6) makes specific reference to this. It was a requirement that was inserted into the Bill by the other place. I will read it to you:

“The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the impact of the level of employers’ National Insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities…and lay it before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”

As such, this is fairly and squarely in the scope of not just the Bill, but this clause. Government new clause 6 would specifically remove that subsection, so I am setting the scene as to why that is a very bad idea.

We understand the effect, which will be a 15.2% increase in employment costs. If an employee works 780 hours on the minimum wage, they earn around £8,923, which is currently below the minimum threshold. In that instance, following the increase, the employer’s national insurance contribution will go from £0 to £678. That is the additional cost of that employment. Who will pay for that in a SEND contract?

[The Chair]

We are talking about the impact on the provision of necessary bus services, but you have strayed into taxis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Thank you for that indication, Sir Desmond, but exactly the same arguments that apply to the providers of bus services for a fee also apply to taxis. You can insert the word “bus” whenever I have said “taxis”; exactly the same argument applies for both providers.

The additional cost of employing a part-time worker, such as a bus driver, in a bus company would be £1,303 per employee per annum, so we have a real problem. Bus providers—and others—are being swept up in the net of increased employer national insurance contributions. It is simply a fact that a large number of the school contracts will become unsustainable under the current format, yet no payments have been offered, either as part of this Bill or elsewhere, to compensate local transport authorities, county councils or whichever authorities are responsible for the provision of bus contracts for education and special education needs, even though the actions of this Government are making these contracts unsustainable.

Thousands of these contracts around the country will need to be handed back to local education authorities. Staff will be made redundant, causing a further shortage of drivers for passengers, and thousands more schoolchildren will be left without transport unless there is movement on this. There needs to be movement of one form or another. In an ideal world, bus SEND provision would be excluded from employer national insurance contributions. However, in the absence of that, an alternative form of funding must be provided, if it is still the Government’s desire that provision be made by local authorities for bus services for SEND children.

For this reason, subsection (6), which mandates a review of how the increase in national insurance contributions from 6 April will affect socially necessary bus services, including SEND transport services for children, is so important. The provision would mandate that the review be laid before Parliament within three months of Royal Assent. This is urgent. The negative impact has already started. We need movement from the Government, or there will be real problems that affect real people. Again, these are the most vulnerable in our society. I therefore oppose Government amendment 6, which inexplicably seeks to remove this necessary assessment from the Bill.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Lightwood]

The clause is about mobilisation periods for franchising areas. Existing law states that there must be a period of at least six months between the franchising contracts being made and those services first being delivered on the ground. The clause will enable franchising authorities to set shorter mobilisation periods that work for them and their stakeholders, if they wish. That will speed up the franchising process and ensure that bus passengers do not have to wait for an arbitrary period before experiencing the benefits.

Clause 6 amends references to local services by inserting the words

“which have one or more stopping places”

in certain sections of the Transport Act 2000. That is intended to clarify that the relevant reference to local services includes cross-border services where appropriate. These technical changes support the Bill’s focus on giving franchising authorities more scope to facilitate the provision of cross-border services.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Allin-Khan.

Clause 5 deals with the minimum period before provision of services can be changed. It is not a difficult clause, but it is worth going into some of the subsections in a bit more detail. Subsection (1) omits section 123H(4) of the 2000 Act, which set out that a franchising scheme

“may not specify under subsection (2)(d) or (3)(c) a period of less than six months.”

That meant that at least six months had to expire between the authority making a local service contract and the provision of the local service under that contract.

Clause 5(2) sets out that the transition arrangements in subsection (3) apply where, before the clause comes into force, the franchising authority or authorities have published under section 123E(2) of the 2000 Act a consultation document relating to a scheme or variation of a scheme, but have not yet made the scheme or varied it. Clause 5(3) provides that when making or varying the franchising scheme pursuant to the consultation document, the franchising authority or authorities may specify a minimum period, under sections 123H(2)(d) or 123H(3)(c) of the 2000 Act, that is less than six months.

Although I understand that the Minister and his Department want to smooth out some of the hindrances and streamline the system, and in principle I am supportive of that, the question that begs to be asked is: is there no de minimis period? It may be considered that a six-month period is too long, but what about a one-week period? Is that too short? As drafted, the clause does not provide a de minimis period. What would be the impact on franchise operators if there were an instantaneous change? That is a significant issue that needs to be considered, because we are dealing with operators that are commercial beasts. They have infrastructure, and drivers and staff that have to accommodate changes to these schemes, and yet the Government’s proposed changes would in theory allow there to be no notice at all.

I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Department’s, or the Government’s, thinking on this matter. I accept that six months is itself an arbitrary time limit. Why is it not seven, or five? I accept the rationale, which is that we wish to streamline the provisions in order to make it easier for local transport authorities to undertake these changes and take advantage of some of the opportunities that the Bill provides, but it is important for it to be practical and not to have unintended consequences for bus operators and their commercial activities.

Clause 6 amends sections 123E(4)(a), 123N(2)(a), 123Q(5)(a) and 123R(5)(a) of the 2000 Act. Before I go any further, it is worth reflecting that the reason why the clause is so complicated in its nomenclature is that there have been multiple amendments to the Transport Act. Although I have not researched it, some of that presumably came about through the deliberations of this House when the legislation was drafted, but there have subsequently been multiple alterations.

It begs the question of our approach to legislation in this place when an Act is so often amended. It makes it very difficult, one imagines, for people and organisations—local transport authorities, in particular—to understand what their duties and legal responsibilities are. In many instances, these are not recommendations; they are mandatory requirements, with which failure to comply could lead to judicial review and the kind of lawfare that we as a society often rail against, because we feel that the Government—and by that, I also mean local transport authorities in this instance—cannot get anything done because they are being tripped up by incredibly complex legislation with poor drafting that requires multiple amendments. That is how we get to a “section 123Q(5)(a)”—but that was a slight aside.

Clause 6 further amends the Transport Act by adding to all those subsections the words

“which have one or more stopping places”

after the references to “local services”. In itself, it is a wholly good amendment, and I am not seeking to criticise it. It clarifies that the references to “local services” incorporate any service that has a stopping place in the relevant area, including cross-boundary services operating pursuant to a service permit. However, I wonder whether this clarification was necessary in practice. I would be interested to know whether there have been any instances of local transport authorities being misled by the current drafting—I would be surprised if there had been—or any legal challenge to the current definitions that highlighted a need to clarify an ambiguity. Subject to that clarification from the Minister, I accept that there is nothing wrong with the amendment made by the clause. It is a useful clarification of the Transport Act 2000, to avoid doubt in interpretation, if, in fact, such doubt has ever existed.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. My party has little to say on this group. We are supportive of clauses 5 and 6, although the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made a good point, and we would like to hear the Minister’s views on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 7, page 3, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) In subsection (5), omit from ‘and’ to end.”

This amendment seeks to simplify the process for granting service permits by removing the requirement that the proposed service will not have an adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 47, in clause 7, page 3, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Amendment 48, in clause 7, page 3, line 27, leave out from “there” to end of line 34 and insert

“is a benefit to persons making journeys on the proposed service.”

Amendment 49, in clause 7, page 3, line 36, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 3, line 37, leave out from “that” to “will” and insert

“the proposed service has benefits to the economy of the area to which the scheme relates, or to persons living in that area,”.

Government amendments 4 and 5.

Clause stand part.

Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 7, which is reasonably long, introduces a number of additional tests for the granting of service permits. Subsection (2) inserts a new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) to section 123Q of the Transport Act 2000. Paragraph (a) provides that the franchising authority or authorities may grant a service permit for a cross-boundary service—this is the meat of it—if satisfied that

“the benefits to persons making the journey on the proposed service will outweigh any adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.”

Paragraph (b) sets out that the franchising authority or authorities may grant such a service permit if they are satisfied that

“the benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the relevant area”—

that is different from paragraph (a), which referred to benefits to persons taking the journey—

“or to persons living in that area, will outweigh any”

adverse effect on the local service provided under a local service contract. The first paragraph refers to the benefit to passengers on the cross-boundary service and the second to the benefit to the area.

I suppose what sits behind this is the abstraction argument, which we are familiar with from the railway. In fact, those lucky enough to be at Transport questions this morning will have heard a brief rehearsal of that argument by the Secretary of State in respect of open access applications on the railway. The essence of the argument is that when a new service is proposed for a particular area, in addition to just saying, “Isn’t this is a jolly good idea? We’re getting further provision, more choice and no doubt price competition as well, and new constituencies and demographics being served by buses”—or, in the other example, by rail—before agreeing to it, we need to look at its impact on existing services. It is argued that it would be unfair if we have already contracted a franchise agreement or service operation agreement for buses, or we have a franchise operator on the railway, such as London North Eastern Railway—actually, that is not a good example, because it has open access competition. Let us take High Speed 1, where Eurostar has its operations, and imagine that we said, “We’re going to provide a new service.” Virgin, for example, is applying for an operating licence for HS1. We would then say, “What would be the impact on the provision of the existing services? Is this new service going to supply a currently unmet need, or is it going to provide two services fighting over the same customer?”

That takes us back, interestingly enough, to the original regulation of bus services in the 1920s. A major argument for the need for bus regulation in the first place was the common complaint that there could be one route with 15 different buses on it, all from different bus operators competing furiously for a key route, and for the less well-travelled routes and perhaps the suburban or rural routes, there would be no bus provision at all. The argument ran that we could not leave it up to the private sector to fight it out and let the market decide where services should be provided; we needed a degree of regulation so that we could have decent provision on the main thoroughfare and provision elsewhere. I think I am right in saying that the term “traffic commissioner” was first created following the review in the 1920s, and those commissioners still exist to this day. As we progress through the Bill, we will see reference to the traffic commissioner, which is a historical overhang from the initial regulation of the bus network in the 1920s.

I return to abstraction. The argument goes that it would be unfair to provide a new service where the impact of that would be negative on existing services or on other factors in a local area. The Secretary of State’s argument—admittedly in the context of rail, but it is relevant to this argument—is that it would be unfair to provide such a new service, but I challenge that base assumption. The person who is being left out of that consideration is the passenger. New services provide new opportunities for the passenger. Yes, it is true that new services may act as de facto competition for existing service providers, but as we know from every other aspect of our lives, competition tends to improve performance.

Before I came into Parliament, I was a businessman running a consumer-facing company. I hated competition, and I did everything I could to stifle it, because I knew the impact it would have. I will not tell the Committee the things I used to do—I should think there would be a by-election—but the point is that existing providers hate competition, because they have got a comfy little operation, they know what their activities are, they know what their likely revenue will be, they know how they deal with their customers, and they do not like change.

When competition comes in, businesses are forced to sit up and say, “Oh my goodness! This is an existential threat to us as an operator. How are we going to respond?” Businesses in aggregate respond in a number of different ways. Some of them are nicer to their customers and improve their customer service to hang on to their customers and ensure they are not tempted across by the new provider. Others reduce their fares to attract custom. Then we get a price war, as we often read about in the press—we get price wars between Tesco and Asda, and Lidl and Aldi. Those who benefit are not the businesses but the customer, who gets either better customer service or lower prices. They certainly benefit from wider provision of opportunity, because they have two services available to them instead of one, and that puts the providers on their mettle.

My submission is that new provision of whatever description is inherently a good thing, even if there is an argument about abstraction from existing providers. I suppose it comes down to the core beliefs of Government Members as opposed to Conservative Members, who at heart—my heart, anyway—believe that competition and the challenge of a competitive market is a good thing. In the vast majority of cases—not always—it brings benefits to the customer and forces a focus on the end user rather than the supplier.

If I were to traduce Labour Members’ political opinions—perhaps I am putting words into their mouths—my criticism of the Labour party more widely and its approach to legislation as demonstrated in this clause is that its instinct is to support the supplier and the operator, rather than the customer, particularly in heavily unionised sectors. We touched on this point a little bit in our last sitting on Tuesday, when I was discussing the Bee Network in Greater Manchester and the decision on whether to increase the hourly rate for bus drivers.

At the time when the contract was being let, the commercial rate was £12.60 an hour. The Mayor for Greater Manchester insisted on an hourly rate for bus drivers of £16 an hour. I rehearsed the arguments both for and against. We can look at it in two ways—we can think it is a wonderful thing that bus drivers are being paid more, but it also means that bus services are considerably more expensive to provide in Greater Manchester than they are elsewhere in the country because salaries—wages—are more than 60% of the costs of running any bus operating business. That is the heart of it. Who are we after? Are we supporting the suppliers or are we supporting the customer—the passenger?

That brings me to amendments 46 to 50, standing in my name. Amendment 46 would have the effect of removing the requirement in section 123Q(5)(b) of the Transport Act that

“the proposed service will not have an adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.”

Given my preceding comments, we can see why this is so important. As it currently stands, we have a measure that prohibits the provision of a new service if that service were to have any adverse effect on pre-existing services under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates. That is a very low bar—it is almost a veto—for the provision of new services, because one can imagine that it is very easy to assert that the provision of a new service may draw customers away from one that is already being provided.

The amendment seeks to simplify the process for granting service permits. Demonstrating that a change will not have any adverse effect is an enormously high bar and is evidentially onerous. Removing section 123Q(5)(b) from the Transport Act, as the amendment would do, speaks to the Government’s desire to streamline the process and make it easier for the supply of new services, for innovation, and for new entrants to enter the market.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister raises an important point about competition and the customer being at the heart of bus services. Will he share with us why so many rural bus services have been cut, if the commercial operator is king and the focus is on customers? That is not the experience we feel in rural communities. We have had cut after cut.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is an interesting point, and the hon. Member is of course quite right. I did preface my comments by saying that competition is beneficial in most areas, but there are some areas where it is not. The counter-argument is that, in this instance, this is about a new operator, which does not have to be a private sector operator, suggesting an additional service. This is not about cutting services. This is about where, for whatever reason, an analysis has been done that there is additional demand—this is not about cutting a service, but about providing an additional service.

The hon. Member is quite right to raise rural areas, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk has done through a number of his amendments. I represent a rural constituency myself in Norfolk. In bald terms, the rural service in Norfolk is not too bad as long as the destination is Norwich. We have a radial provision of bus services from outlying villages directly into Norwich. If someone wants to go across the county to anywhere other than Norwich on those lines, it is very difficult. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is right that if we look to only the passenger ride and the fare box to support usable and sufficiently frequent services, it is highly unlikely that a purely commercial approach will do it. That is why, in Norfolk and many other places, the innovation of an advanced partnership has worked so well.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

On my hon. Friend’s point about rural areas such as his constituency and my constituency on the Isle of Wight, it is difficult to move between towns. On the Isle of Wight, we have a radial system that makes it easy to get in and out of Newport, which sits in the middle of the island, but it is less easy to go anywhere else. I am at a slight loss as to how we get over that fundamental issue in bus franchising—this is geography, and the market for moving between villages is clearly smaller. I am concerned that the entire franchising model and, indeed, this clause are overselling a solution to a fundamental problem. If we are to get over that hurdle, it would ultimately require a lot of public money.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is no commercial case for large-scale, frequent bus services to every small rural community. I have certainly not come across such a case, even if one does exist. The solution—if there is a solution—will be one of a number of things. Under a franchising scheme, it would be open to a local transport authority to invest in and design a scheme that provides for frequent bus services to every rural community. It would be possible to do that, but it would be phenomenally expensive.

Already, one of the key criticisms of the Bill is that it has no money attached to it, so we are going to spend the next two and a half weeks virtue signalling about how wonderful franchising could be. It is not mandatory, and no one is actually going to do it—outside of the big mayoral authorities that are doing it anyway under the Bus Services Act 2017—because there is no money supporting the Bill. It would be incredibly expensive.

There is an alternative, hybrid solution: a combination of scheduled bus services on the key arterial routes from big villages into their major towns, such as from Norfolk going into Norwich, a rural hub-and-spoke system for the more remote villages, as suggested by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, and demand-responsive public provision.

On Tuesday, I described this as the “Uberfication” of public transport. It still is unlikely to make sense on a purely commercial basis, but it is the kind of focused provision of public sector transport that could work in a highly rural area where the aggregate cost would be less than the blind provision on frequent, full bus services to every community, which would be monumentally expensive.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Amendment 46 would remove the requirement for the service not to have an adverse effect on local services. Bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the impossibility of commercial viability for some rural services or non-radial routes in cities, is it correct that the amendment would allow commercial entities to come in and take away part of the market, even where a local transport authority had built up the potentially profitable part of a wider, well-planned public network? The requirement as it stands is intended to prevent commercial companies from parasitising on a market that has been built up with public money. The Minister is not proposing that it should be easier for commercial entities to come in and develop new markets where there is potentially pent-up demand in rural areas.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady is right that there is a risk of challenges in some areas, but in other areas there is the opportunity to increase provision for new markets. The difficulty is that the clause as drafted says that “any adverse effect” will be sufficient to prevent the application.

Amendment 47 would replace the word “may” with the word “must” in clause 7(2)—in reality, proposed new section 124Q(5A) of the Transport Act 2000—if a local transport authority is satisfied with the conditions of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b). In such circumstances, why should the local transport authority be given discretion to refuse to grant a cross-boundary permit? It will have accepted that there are no adverse effects; nevertheless, it is given discretion. The clause says that it “may” grant the application, but why? If someone wants to provide an additional service and the local transport authority has satisfied itself that there is no adverse impact, why would it say no?

That is the purpose behind amendment 47. If the applicant—it could be the municipal bus company, given that there is nothing to prevent it from doing this—has satisfied the local transport authority that there is no adverse impact, as set out in the conditions of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), why should the provider not, as a right, be able to create the service?

[Siân Berry]

I just want to give an example in which “may” is more appropriate. Proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) talk about a local service that is provided. If a local transport authority is building out a planned network and, in the very near future, a service will be introduced in an area, it may want to prevent disruption of the benefits of an integrated local service there by such an application. I believe it is very appropriate that “may” remains in the clause.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady is bending over backwards to think of hypothetical instances in which it is possible that something like that could exist. The fact remains that we must ask—this comes down to the philosophical difference between us, perhaps—whether we are looking after the passenger or the supplier. From my perspective, the Bill should have services for passengers squarely in its sights. If passengers will benefit from a new service, the local transport authority should allow it. After all, the aim of the Bill is to maximise general utility for the wider bus service. Amendment 47 would therefore prevent local authorities from sitting on their hands, as the hon. Lady suggests they might.

Amendment 48 goes one step further. If the previous two amendments were red meat to some members of this Committee, this one will send them over the top. It would scrap entirely the convoluted assessments about balancing benefits and adverse effects in proposed new subsections (5A)(a) and (b). The authority would simply take a view on the benefits for persons making journeys on the proposed service—what is wrong with that? If the service has benefits for customers, why should we not just go for it? It is a straightforward process where applicants are in the driving seat. The amendment would provide higher certainty for applicants and therefore encourage additional service providers.

I anticipate that hon. Members may say, “What about the web—the franchise service—that the local transport authority may be trying to design?” But I seek to remind them about the incentives of providers. Again, I speak as a former businessman. We sometimes forget something in this place. We make lots of rules and we deal with processes ad infinitum, and we think that everyone will be incredibly logical. We say, “Oh yes, they have to go through this process, then that process and the other one, and then the local authority may decide to help them or not.” That ignores the basic maxim of private enterprise, which is that time kills deals. If a process is convoluted by design, it is also, by design, time consuming, and therefore expensive and uncertain in its outcome.

Let us think of a potential service provider looking through these provisions. They would say, “I’ve jumped through the hoops of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), and I’ve demonstrated the evidential basis for this application,” but then there is the discretion at the end where the local authority may, for whatever reason, choose not to award the deal based on some plan for some date in the future that we have not even heard about. Is the provider even going to bother doing it in the first place? This is an important issue of practicality. Commercial organisations respond to incentives, and if we make something long-winded, expensive and complex, they are much less likely to bother doing it. They will employ their capital, their time and their creative energies elsewhere.

[Joe Robertson]

The more I hear the shadow Minister unpicking all these issues, the more it transpires that the whole franchising model that the Bill offers to local authorities is really rather unattractive. Particularly for smaller local authorities, it is complicated, and there is a huge risk that when the new service is implemented, despite the best of intentions, it will not run in the way that the local authority or commercial provider thought it would. All the while, the local authority—I am thinking in my case of the Isle of Wight council or the potential combined mayoral authority with Hampshire—is taking on that risk of things going wrong. The shadow Minister is getting to the heart of a fundamental problem with the Bill: it will not sort out bus services country-wide, particularly in rural areas. It is really just a model for the big cities.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is right. In broad terms, the Bill facilitates additional opportunities for local transport authorities, which is a good thing. As I have said, allowing franchising is in fact a Conservative concept. It goes back to the days of Mrs Thatcher, but more recently, the 2017 changes allowed franchising without consent for mayoral combined authorities. In fact, any local transport authority was allowed to apply for franchising operations, but with the safeguard that it required the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport, because of the huge commercial risks associated with franchising for local transport authorities, particularly smaller ones. That was an eminently sensible safeguard that I have spoken about previously, so now we have that risk.

Even if the local transport authority is capable of managing that risk, of developing the expertise to design these complex systems in-house, as is anticipated, and of starting a municipal bus company on top of designing the franchise operation, we cannot get away from the conclusion that is expensive. Whichever way it is designed, if it is going to improve services, it will be expensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the entire structure of combined authority devolution, particularly in Greater Manchester, which has pioneered much of this work, is about the earn-back or gainshare principle? Early public investment results in economic growth down the line, and higher business rates and tax revenue that then fund some of this work. In other words, in the end, it pays for itself.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that thoughtful intervention. In principle, the answer is yes, which is why we legislated in 2017 to allow that in principle and why we supported Greater Manchester through the implementation of the Bee Network. That happened under not Labour, but the Conservatives. However, it comes with financial risk. There needs to be clarity on where the costs are and an absolute, laser focus on minimising them, just like in any other business.

The hon. Member did not say that the forecast in the Bee Network’s business case, which enabled it to get the go-ahead, was for it to make a profit. I accept that there will be periods where it makes a profit and periods where it makes a loss, but it should break even overall. Over the forecast period, however, the plan was for it to make a profit of £94 million—that was how it was sold. For it to make a planned loss in 2025-26 of £226.3 million and change, given the huge cost overruns that I hinted at in Tuesday’s sitting, is a disaster. It makes me wonder where that has come from.

I remember the hon. Member watching with interest on Tuesday as I talked about the more than £17 million overrun on agency bus drivers, because the transport authority had failed to provide enough qualified drivers having misunderstood the nature of the TUPE regulations regarding their transfer from the previous operators to the franchise process. There was also the massive cost overrun on the purchase of bus depots because it was the only buyer in the market. There was an explosion in costs for the purchase orders for new buses, with a surcharge of £40,000 on every bus that Andy Burnham’s Greater Manchester combined authority buys because of the design requirements that he has put in, including bits of leather on the seats—we will not go into the detail of that.

If we are not absolutely laser-focused on the costs, that is what happens. The biggest overrun, which perhaps I should have led with, was the increase in wages. There has been an increase in unionised power—which arguably could be a good or bad thing—and an increase in hourly rates for bus drivers to £16 an hour, which is above the market rate. There are not just bus drivers in a bus company; there are all sorts of other roles as well.

I should also mention the failure to be efficient with the application of capital. In a private organisation, having bus washers is important, because having clean buses is part of the service and it affects the customer experience. Since the Bee Network has been in place, and the local transport authority purchased the depots, there has been a rather unfortunate occurrence whereby the bus cleaning mechanism—the washers—have been out of action for over a year.

The processes and the efficiency within the new structure have to date proved inadequate to get the funding to repair the washers, because that is capex rather than opex. I am assuming that is what the problem is—that it is an unplanned expense, so the authority has to go through the rigmarole of a public sector procurement process. No doubt it will get there in the end, but the consequence is that the bus depot is sending out buses that have not been cleaned for a year. Is that an improvement in service? No, it is not.

I say that not to denigrate franchising. Franchising can be done well—it is not a necessary consequence of bus franchising that there are dirty buses—but the evidence that we have at the moment is that even a really sophisticated operator such as Greater Manchester, with a mayoral combined authority and the financial resources, but without the experience of running buses, suffers very significant bumps along the road. That needs to be addressed. If that is happening in a large local transport authority, what is the likelihood of it happening in a small one—for example, in Norfolk county council in my neck of the woods? That is one of our problems with the Bill.

Going back to amendment 49, proposed new section 123Q(5B) of the Transport Act 2000 deals with intra-boundary services. I am applying the same logic as I did to amendment 47. Why should local transport authorities have the power to refuse to grant a service permit if they are satisfied that there are benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the area, or to persons living in that area, and that those benefits will outweigh any adverse effect on any existing local service?

All the amendment requires is for local authorities to act in the wider interests of consumers—the passengers. The proposed service might have an impact, but if we are satisfied that overall the net benefit is in the positive column and not the negative, why would we not agree to it? Let us think of the passenger—the consumer—rather than the supplier.

The amendment would be a particularly important safeguard if the local transport authority was also the owner of a municipal bus company, which was the supplier of the local services contract. There would then be an added layer of opacity in the process, because the contractor and contracted would be the same organisation. A challenger brand could then come and say that it wanted to provide additional services, and it could be assessed to be net beneficial to the economy or the people living in that area, nevertheless the local authority could refuse to grant a permit, even though it is the operator that would be adversely affected—let us imagine how that would look.

The temptation, of course, would be to say that the award was refused for wholly improper reasons: a circling of the wagons to protect one’s own. I hope that the whole Committee would agree that that would be an improper reason to deny additional access to the people living in the area, and/or to deny a benefit to the economy, yet there would be a strong temptation. If the authority has built its bus service network, and a little so-and-so comes in and demonstrates that it can go one step better, but that would have a negative impact on the authority’s cosy plans, people in the authority are going to think, “I don’t want to be troubled by this.”

[Siân Berry]

The shadow Minister was looking at me while making those points, and I agree that our parties have very different philosophies on this issue. The circumstances that he has just described as “cosy” relationships that are improper, are ones that I characterised earlier as public money being invested in building up a market that should not be parasitised. Those are, very clearly, different points of view, and I want to make sure that is on the record at the right time.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that there is a fundamental difference of philosophy here. She appears to back what I described as the cosy relationship—but let us not use pejorative language; let us call it the mechanism of state supply. She thinks that that is more important than improving the experience of passengers in that location and/or improving the economy, because that is the hurdle that would have to be crossed for the change made by amendment 49 to take effect. I accept, acknowledge and celebrate that difference. As a Conservative, I stand up for the consumer—for the resident—in my constituency, not for the supplier of services, even if it is the state supplier. Those are the people who I represent, those are the services that I am trying to improve, and that is what amendment 49 would do.

The amendment would require the local authority to act in the wider interest of consumers, not that of its own suppliers. That is particularly important where the authority has skin in the game. If I am unsuccessful—as I have a sneaking suspicion that I might be—in persuading the majority of the members of the Committee to support amendment 49, we should at least expect transparency in any decision-making process where the decision taker, the local authority, is taking a decision that affects a municipal bus company owned by that authority. At the very least—as we will discuss in relation to other amendments—we should insist on absolute transparency in those commercial relationships, so that the disinfectant of sunlight can shine on the exact rationale for a commercial opportunity being refused.

Amendment 50, my final one in this group, goes one stage further. It would get rid of the complex “balance of benefits” argument entirely and replace it with a simple assessment of the application: will the proposed service have benefits for the economy of the area or persons living in the area? If yes, the licence would be granted. The impact would be similar to that of amendment 48: it would simplify the process and give agency to the applicant. If they could prove that their service would deliver benefit, the local authority would grant a service permit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I fear that the hon. Member and I may agree more than he perhaps thinks. As I said, I accept that rural routes are unlikely to be profitable, but that does not mean they should not be provided. That is why I went on to talk about demand-sensitive transport, as well as to mention the suggestion from the hon. Member for North Norfolk about rural transport hubs. Those can be subsidised, either through an enhanced partnership or through a franchise process. I accept that they will not be part of a purely commercial result, but that is not what I was suggesting in the first place.

[Mr Kohler]

I heard the shadow Minister say that, and I understand it. However, there is a contradiction in his analysis. He admits that point, but constantly refers to consumers operating in profit-and-loss markets. He is making a very narrow equation, and I fear that allowing public providers in the way he wants would simply undermine the whole rationale behind what we—or the Government—are trying to do with the franchising process. It is too narrow and simply ends up completely undermining what we are trying to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.

To refer to the general comments made by the shadow Minister, I am totally up for supporting things that put passengers first and are aligned to that purpose. I was regretful that the Committee disagreed to clause 1, on the inclusion of the overall purpose of the Bill, in our previous sitting.

The shadow Minister gave a long and wide-ranging speech; I was disappointed that it did not extend to his own personal tactics for rope sabotage, given the provenance of his business background—but perhaps that is for a future hearing. I will leave the Minister to respond to the issues of the words “outweigh” and “persons”, because I feel that it is his Bill to defend, but I do not fear the potential to refuse to the same extent as the shadow Minister.

Let us get back to what we are substantially talking about here, which is the cross-border issue. From my perspective—my constituency and that of the shadow Minister share many geographic characteristics—the whole point is that, however it is looked at, bus transport, even in urban areas, does not make a profit. Franchising is a welcome model because it allows the state, which is funding the operations, to contract to the providers who are going to deliver the service most efficiently and effectively. I do not see room for the entrepreneurial business model and profiteering that the shadow Minister refers to.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The risk of the franchising model, as we are already seeing in Greater Manchester, is that the size of the contract determines the amount of profit. Although the profit percentage is reduced, it is applied to the full size of the contract. Ironically, there is no incentive for the operator to reduce costs—for example, by pushing down wages—because wages are paid as agreed under the contract, and then the operator receives the 3% or 4% on top of that. My concern is that, as currently evidenced in Greater Manchester, we are seeing costs rise despite services being operated by private sector companies.

[Steff Aquarone]

The shadow Minister makes a valid point, as is always the case, but it takes us into the philosophical domain again. I gently point out that there are other perfectly profitable industries where the cost-plus model is the industry norm, and where it is possible for investors to make a return.

Nevertheless, to bring us back down to earth, I want to mention a couple of scenarios. One is from my own experience—in fact, from the shadow Minister’s constituency, which I travelled through growing up, where we had two providers leapfrogging each other from Aylsham to Norwich on commuter journeys. It was literally the same service, but if someone happened to get on the wrong bus, they could not get the same route back on the other operator. That is a fine example of why it would be appropriate to refuse a cross-border permit.

Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) sent me an example:

“We also have an issue of cross-county boundary bus routes. For example it takes maximum 10 minutes to drive from Malmesbury (Wiltshire) to Tetbury (Gloucestershire) but up to 2 hours on the bus as there is a huge diversion to another big town and then on to Tetbury through the small villages”.

These measures are about the practicalities of cross-border permits. With more rural areas likely to enter into combined mayoral authority arrangements, that will reduce the need for cross-border permits. Although I am grateful to the shadow Minister, I do not see the equivalence with open access in rail. This is, to me, what validates the franchising model overall, as well as providing for necessary moderation in common-sense, cross-border issues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

Absolutely, and that is why I was so proud to chair the first bus manufacturers expert panel in March. That is a year-long project with bus operators, bus manufacturers and mayors across the country to try to forge a smooth pipeline of orders to support our fantastic UK manufacturers.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Government know that bus franchising is commercially risky and very expensive for any local authority. We know that because Transport for London costs taxpayers £650 million a year in subsidy, and Andy Burnham’s Bee Network in Greater Manchester is currently on course for an annual deficit of £226 million, when its business plan was for a forecast profit. What is the point of giving risky franchising powers to every local authority in the country when the Government do not provide the money to support them?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not take any lectures from the Conservatives under whose watch we saw 300 million fewer bus miles. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman in Committee and in various exchanges, the full fat franchising—as it is commonly known—in Greater Manchester is only one kind of franchising available to local authorities. Various other methods are available to different areas, including the model adopted in places such as Jersey, which is a partnership between the private operators and the local transport authority so that they can benefit from its skills and knowledge.

I do not recognise—and I have corrected this in Committee—the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes for Greater Manchester, which is performing fantastically, delivering better, more affordable, greener, smoother and reliable services for the people of Manchester.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that answer, and we have four hours of Bill Committee later today to rehearse the arguments yet again. In an earlier answer, the Minister said that he is providing £1 billion of support for buses in this financial year, but surely he knows that £700 million goes to help local authorities navigate the huge administrative burdens that come with franchising and the other schemes that the Government have in mind. That leaves just £255 million for actual bus services across the whole of England. That is only enough to satisfy Andy Burnham for a year, yet we have full fat being pursued by Liverpool and West Midlands. I ask again: where is the money to support those ambitions?

[Simon Lightwood]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, places such as Greater Manchester are part of the group of authorities that have received £15.6 billion to spend in their local areas. It is important to recognise the extraordinary performance of buses in Greater Manchester. Once again, we are not telling local areas which model to adopt for buses: it could be franchising or enhanced partnerships, as well as removing the barrier to municipal bus companies.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kohler]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The Lib Dems support the Bill and applaud the Government’s ambitions. This is an excellent move forward, and we support the purpose set out in clause 1. The stated aim to

“improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services”

in the UK is vital. However, buses have for too long been a poor relation in public transport, which is why we are pushing the Government to give local authorities a general duty to promote the use of bus services.

The bus is the most popular form of public transport, but it has long been neglected and, to some extent, looked down on. New clause 22 would ensure that local authorities have a duty to encourage the use of buses and promote their benefits and services, but it is only a general duty. Subsection (2) would not be mandatory; it simply suggests the things that a local authority might consider.

Although the Government’s ambitions are wonderful and to be commended, we want local authorities to start saying to people, “Yes, buses are important, and we have a role in providing them.” That is why we are pushing the Government on that.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is very reassuring to have you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I already feel calmer, and I am sure the Minister does as well.

[The Chair]

How are you spelling that—calmer or karma?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will tell you at the end of the day.

The Opposition welcome the Bill in principle, which is why we did not divide the House on Second Reading. We welcome it because franchising was an innovation that the previous Government introduced in 2017. At that stage, it was limited to mayoral combined authorities, although any local authority could apply to the Secretary of State for agreement that franchising could be brought in.

We are concerned, however, that the Bill does not deliver the goals of value for money and improvement of passenger services as it is currently drafted. It is therefore important that we use this opportunity to carefully consider the many amendments from the Government, official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; each of them has their various merits, and there are many good ideas to improve what every party agrees is currently an imperfect Bill.

That brings me to clause 1—the purpose clause—which was proposed by the Earl of Effingham in the other place, and received substantial support. It ensures that the overarching aim of the Bill is to improve bus services, and that that remains at the heart of all decisions undertaken in its provisions. By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose, the clause embeds into the legislation a commitment to improve bus services. That is not merely a formality; it is about setting a clear duty on the Secretary of State to put the improvement of bus services at the core of any decisions he or she makes under the legislation.

The clause gives the Bill a necessary focus; it is the framework on which all the baubles of other clauses and requirements are hung. That is important when there is a change to structures, as the Bill anticipates, because it is easy for process to take over from the clear objectives of the Bill. In a purely commercial construct, where there is an operator driven by the profit motive—they need to drive fare box and have customers to get a return on their investment—it is obvious that the natural incentives focus on the customer. When we move to a franchise and the primacy of commercial incentives are removed, the risk is that the customer gets overlooked.

In what is commonly described as full-fat franchising—rather like the Manchester example of the Bee Network, which I believe we will refer to quite frequently in Committee—the local authority takes full assumption of commercial risk within its remit and the operator is contracted merely to provide a service. That brings the temptation to mould services in favour of the supplier—particularly if the supplier is a municipal bus company, such as an in-house provider—as opposed to the passenger.

With external providers, there are a couple of checks on that: first, the direct relationship between fare box and profitability, which I have already mentioned; and secondly, the local authority’s overseeing position to challenge operators and hold them to account, particularly when partnerships are the enhanced partnerships that we have in many local authorities around the country. That combination enforces the interests of the passenger, even when they are not directly consistent with commercial performance. Under wider franchising, there is a risk—albeit a manageable one—that that check will disappear, because local authorities may become both the judge and the jury.

That makes the purpose clause even more important to ensure that the Secretary of State focuses on passengers in every decision. It makes it clear that the accountability for achieving that result lies firmly with the Secretary of State, and it is useful, as in any complex consideration, to have organisational clarity. Nothing in the Bill, other than here in clause 1, puts passengers front and centre—that is a notable omission from the Bill as currently drafted; all the rest deals with procedure. Placing an explicit duty on the Secretary of State provides a valuable guiding principle throughout the Bill’s implementation period, and ensures that every step taken under the Bill will be aligned with the objective of improving bus services for all those who rely on them.

The Minister in his opening remarks said that the clause was not necessary, because it does not encompass

“the full scope of the Government’s ambition.”

Yet the clause says that the Bill will

“improve the performance, accessibility and quality”.

Surely “quality” encompasses safety, which was the Minister’s example as to why the clause was inadequate to describe the full scope of the Government’s ambitions. I push back on that, because quality does encompass safety in the ordinary sense of that word.

Paragraph 1 of the Government’s explanatory notes for the Bill says:

“The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill brings forward primary legislative measures intended to support the government’s commitment to deliver better buses.”

Clause 1 honours that Government commitment to deliver better buses and should remain part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Clause 2 removes the requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. The measure puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field. It also removes from the process an administrative step that does not provide an effective check on local transport authorities’ plans, given that it occurs before a franchising assessment is produced. I am confident that the measure will make franchising more attractive to local transport authorities by speeding up the overall process.

New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, would require authorities to publish a statement that outlines their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence for deciding whether franchising is the best option to achieve their aims, before they initiate the formal process. The Department for Transport has established franchising guidance; to require local authorities to provide an up-front statement during an exploratory stage would be premature. The franchising scheme assessment also provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise.

Although local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to investigate the right bus model for their area, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The new clause would also make the franchising process slower and undermine the Government’s ambition to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective.

New clause 18 would require local authorities to publish the costs associated with franchised bus services operated by local authority-owned bus companies. Authorities are already subject to statutory requirements to publish detailed information on their spending and financial performance. Under the 2015 local government transparency code, they must regularly publish data on all expenditure over £500, and are required to produce and make publicly available their annual statements of accounts, which are subject to external audit and public scrutiny. The framework ensures a high level of financial transparency and public accountability, making such an additional burden on authorities unnecessary.

New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes that includes specific information on rural and suburban areas and coastal communities. The Department for Transport has published franchising guidance, including on the consideration of neighbouring authorities and on the requirement to consult affected areas. The Department continuously refines the franchising guidance, and plans to undertake comprehensive updates after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The introduction of piecemeal additions without considering the guidance in its entirety would risk reducing its effectiveness.

In addition to the guidance, the Department supports LTAs through the franchising and bus reform pilot. The ambition is to explore alternative models that may suit a local area and help to provide evidence for the decision. Lessons learned, tools, templates and best practice will be shared throughout the pilot programme.

New clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require franchising authorities to establish a forum of stakeholders to address staffing and employment issues in the franchising area. It seeks to increase accountability in areas that choose to adopt franchising. I am sympathetic to the new clause’s aims, but it is not the role of central Government to prescribe how local transport authorities run their services. Franchising guidance that covers driver welfare already exists, giving the franchising authority scope to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services. The new clause is therefore unnecessary and I hope it will be withdrawn.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 2 amends the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the availability of franchising schemes. It is essentially a facilitating clause to allow for one of the really important changes in the Bill, which is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to any local authority other than mayoral combined authorities when deciding whether to embark on a franchising scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am a Warrington MP, and, as has been mentioned, the town has one of the country’s eight remaining municipal bus companies—the award-winning Warrington’s Own Buses. It is a trailblazer, and it is an example of what a municipal bus company can be and what can be achieved. For example, Warrington still has capped fares, and the bus company can still offer a flat fee of £2 for adults and £1 for under-22s. We have a pioneering all-electric fleet and a brand-new depot. Any profit goes back into the service, and we have free travel for care leavers. With a municipal bus company that understands our communities, we have been able to maintain the essential services that private providers would simply give up on and walk away from.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I agree with much of the hon. Lady’s description of Warrington’s Own Buses. A few weeks ago, I spoke to the company’s managing director and I was impressed, as I said on Second Reading. However, does the hon. Lady agree that that is because Warrington’s Own Buses has 30, 40 or 50 years’ institutional experience in running those kinds of services—experience that other local authorities simply do not have? Does she also agree that exactly the same delivery of services can be achieved through an enhanced partnership, in which the operator works in collaboration with the local authority, and it is up to them to decide what is important for the community?

[Sarah Hall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I put it on record that Ben Wakerley, who heads up Warrington’s Own Buses, is fantastic. He has been a real asset for us. Experience is an important factor, but it is also about understanding the community that a company serves, and that does not take 30 or 40 years. It just means taking the time to know and understand the community. Ben has not been there for 30 or 40 years, but he has been leading the way with a lot of the delivery.

Collaboration can be good, but my experience of Warrington’s Own Buses, and of how it has focused on services and delivered in the way that it has, shows how powerful that format can be. I encourage other areas to adopt the same thing, because it has put power back into the hands of the community, not private providers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about which system passengers prefer. The way to really judge that is through ridership—how many people take the buses. It is absolutely right that in Greater Manchester, under the Bee Network, there has been a post-pandemic increase in ridership of about 34%, from memory. However, does the Minister not accept that in Norfolk, where there is an enhanced partnership, ridership has increased by more than 40%, and in Essex, another enhanced partnership area, ridership has increased by more than 50%? The point is that it is not the scheme design that is fundamentally important, but the way in which it is approached. Does the Minister accept that we can have outcomes that are just as good—better outcomes, in fact—through enhanced partnerships as we can through franchising?

[Simon Lightwood]

What the shadow Minister failed to hear in my previous remarks is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to buses. This could be done through franchising; it could be done through municipal bus companies or local authority-operated bus companies; or it could be done through strengthened enhanced partnerships.

Let me touch on franchising, because the shadow Minister talks about Manchester as the full-fat model. A huge number of alternative franchising arrangements are available, including the Jersey model, which I will go into in a moment. Within franchising assessments, there will be a detailed investigation that is then checked robustly for assurance purposes. Obviously, the process as it stands does not provide an effective check on local transport authority plans, because it happens before a franchising assessment is produced.

On the Secretary of State’s consent, as I have said, it is not effective because it is at the beginning of the franchising process. The assessment must look at the finances of the proposed scheme and then be independently assured. Different areas will also have different circumstances when pursuing franchising; the Secretary of State is not in a position to scrutinise them all.

On funding and LTA support, £1 billion of funding was announced for 2025-26, £700 million of which was for local authorities to improve bus services. That is not for franchising per se; as I said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The Government are opening up options to local transport authorities. No LTA is being forced to franchise. No LTA has been forced to franchise through the Greater Manchester model, in fact. The Government are looking at how best to support LTAs, including through franchising pilots, which will include elements of rural communities as well. Funding is provided through the bus allocations for LTAs to decide how to spend. The franchising pilots will look at alternative models, one of which could be a joint venture model like the one in Jersey.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister is right, of course, that all sorts of different franchising schemes and mechanisms are available, and I am looking forward to his description of the Jersey model. However, does he not recognise and accept that, of the authorities that have expressed a direction of travel so far, both Liverpool and West Midlands have also decided to go down what I have described as the full-fat model? It is not just Manchester being an outlier. It is likely that the Bill will ensure—in fact, it is happening already—that full fat is seen as the direction of travel. Does the Minister not think that that is correct?

[Simon Lightwood]

I concede that, at the moment, it tends to be city regions that are looking at franchising, which is why we are doing the pilots to ensure that we have the template approach. We will learn the lessons from the various different franchising models that could be used. As we announced at the spending review, York and North Yorkshire is one of the areas that would be ideally suited to demonstrate the effectiveness of franchising in a rural setting. There was a comment about coastal communities, so let me just put this on the record: this South Shields-born, not SW1-postcoded MP knows full well the importance of buses to coastal and rural communities. In fact, I am the son of a bus driver as well. [Interruption.] I have ticked all the boxes—he was not a toolmaker, though.

Let me touch on Manchester. The figures quoted on franchising costs in Manchester refer to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network, supporting economic growth, greater productivity, access to homes and so on. In 2024-25, the cost of operating the franchised bus network was about £151 million, but it would be misleading to compare that with the £226 million in an attempt to argue that costs have inflated year on year. Greater Manchester was only partway through the three-phase transition to franchising during ’24-25, so the cost was accordingly lower. Transport for Greater Manchester was operating only half of the full network for the majority—nine months—of ’24-25. There is very little additional cost resulting from the adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester, and evidence to date shows that this model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.

Bus depots in Greater Manchester were required to ensure a level playing field when procuring franchised operators; otherwise, there would be an inherent advantage, of course, to incumbent operators. Depot acquisition also recognises the importance of investing to bring infrastructure up to modern standards to deliver a quality service and electrification of the fleet.

Turning to local authority bus companies—LABCos or municipal bus companies—there is a level playing field for arm’s length LABCos, which the existing ones in England are, and for private operators. There is existing legislation and regulations around local authority bus companies.

There will be different ways that LTAs can franchise. Rural areas, for example, could look to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network. It is right to recognise the successes that there have been in Jersey. When I visited in April, I saw at first hand the benefits of franchising and what it has delivered for passengers. A small team have successfully introduced franchising in rural areas. Although that offers useful lessons for rural and suburban communities in England, Jersey offers just one model, and there will be particular local transport challenges and opportunities in other places. Far from stipulating the one-size-fits-all Greater Manchester model, we are exploring and working with local transport authorities throughout the country to demonstrate different forms of franchising to make that a success.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Specification of areas

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I wish to speak to new clause 35 and amendments 70 and 71 tabled in my name. The Minister has done a very good job of outlining what those proposals seek to achieve, for which I am grateful. I am seeking to remedy the lack of vision for fixing the public transport problems that we face in rural areas.

As I have said, we cannot just throw new powers at rural areas and hope for the best. We have to create workable models for adoption to support areas to use the new powers in the best way possible. There has been great excitement about how to use them to transform the bus networks in our major cities, but in all the conversations here on this issue, rural communities seem to have been forgotten about.

In rural areas, the local bus service is not just a convenience or a “nice to have”, but a real and genuine lifeline. For many, it is the main way they can get to see friends and family, go to medical appointments, and get to the shops and to leisure activities. Bus services keeps many rural villages going. It is no surprise that when the withdrawal of routes in areas like this are proposed, there is fury locally and major campaigns against it.

I asked some of my rural colleagues about their experiences and, unsurprisingly, I was inundated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) has been campaigning to save the X5 between Aylesbury and Hemel Hempstead, which was replaced with an unreliable service that is making it hard for residents to get to key medical appointments. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) are trying to bring back the 84/85 route from Yate to Wotton, a vital route to shopping centres, schools and colleges and for those visiting HMP Leyhill. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) has been working with campaigners to save school bus services in Ancells Farm, with children facing the prospect of long walks down unsafe roads to get to and from school in Fleet.

There are all these communities and campaigns, but we still have not come up with better ways to serve rural areas and protect their access to services. It is telling that when my Transport Committee colleagues and I, several of whom are represented on both sides of this Committee, wanted to go and see some best practice of rural bus networks for our “Buses connecting communities” inquiry—report forthcoming shortly; I am sure everyone will be reading it as soon as it is published—we had to travel to the Republic in Ireland to find them. We simply do not have good examples of successful rural networks here in the UK.

All of that serves to say that it is time for a bold new approach. A good few years ago, when we were researching the Liberal Democrat manifesto for Norfolk’s 2021 county council elections, we undertook research with a number of key local stakeholders to hear what they thought of the local bus network and what we could do to improve it. I personally interviewed bus companies, council officers and other stakeholders. Most importantly, we surveyed local people, including those who do not currently use buses—an often overlooked audience segment. We concluded that we need to combine two of the most successful features of current public transport models to create a new model for rural public transport. Those two things are park and ride services and demand-responsive transport. Pairing them could create a real network that works for our rural towns and villages without the near-impossible task of running an hourly timetable to every village. That conclusion resulted in the rural bus hub scheme outlined in new clause 35.

Rural bus hubs would allow people to get between key towns and villages that they need to visit directly. People in many rural areas suffer from having to take buses in the opposite direction from where they want to go, going to the nearby town or city just to go straight back out again. That adds hours to people’s journeys, the journey is totally derailed if one link in the complicated chain goes wrong, and it is ultimately an inconvenient way to get about. As a result, it does not improve passenger numbers.

Similar to our park and ride networks, rural bus hubs would have facilities to enable those living nearby to travel to the hub independently, either by car or active travel routes. The hubs would have the amenities to charge electric vehicles, and to lock and store bikes safely, so that people could easily return to them to complete the final few miles of their return journeys. The hubs would also be well served by demand-responsive transport for those who are not independently mobile. That would ensure that the network could reach into all areas, including rural villages and harder-to-access communities that may never have had a regular service, if any service, from an existing bus route.

Such passengers, once at the hub, could catch direct, frequent buses to any part of a proper network, getting them to the hub nearest to where they want to go, and linking up with train connections or even hospitals and employment areas. It is a model that could easily be adopted by transport authorities. It would reach the most people possible without seeking to run a regular bus through every village, and it would connect those in rural areas to a proper public transport network that broadens the range of their destinations, rather than just taking them to the nearest city or large town.

My amendment 70 would permit rural bus hubs to fit into the current model of franchising, allowing for specified services to include those running to and from, or between, the hubs. My amendment 71 would add to the review of service provision to villages an assessment of how service in the villages could be impacted by the establishment of rural bus hubs, or how the establishment of the hubs has affected services for villages at the time of the review. That would ensure that, as we assess how villages are faring following the passing of the Bill, we do not simply grow a list of complaints but assess what could be done differently to make improvements and the impacts that those improvements would have.

I grew up in a rural village with a sketchy bus connection. I now live in another, and my children are growing up with the same sketchy connection that I had. That cycle cannot continue. We have to do better for areas like mine, and conventional thinking is not going to cut it. It is time for a radical rethink of how we deliver public transport in rural areas. We have to challenge the old ideas and be willing to seize on something new.

I am sure that the Government will oppose these ideas, but I would gently say that they have not put forward anything equivalent. It is all very well to say, “You could do anything,” but there is nothing of substance to say, “Of all the things you could do, these are the things you might specifically like to consider.” We could feasibly help households to reduce the number of vehicles they rely on, saving them thousands every year. We could encourage active travel by expanding the number of journeys, and the hubs could be a component of that. By expanding demand-responsive transport, we could even remove car reliance altogether, while connecting the carless to a far better range of travel times and destinations than they currently have.

The same old approach is not working. The situation will not magically fix itself with the new franchising powers alone. We have to try something different, and do something to create networked, accessible public transport that works for people, and gets them where they want to go, when they want to go there. I do not think that is asking the world, and I hope that the Government will pledge to look into this idea further to deliver real change for people in North Norfolk, and rural communities across the country.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 3 is not controversial, so I will not make a long speech. Proposed new subsection (2A) of the Transport Act 2000 simply makes it clear that, where more than one area is specified in a franchising scheme, the specified areas “need not be contiguous.” I say no more about that.

Amendment 70, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, adds a reference to bus hubs. As he is my constituency neighbour, our constituents share many of the same experiences, and I absolutely support the sentiments that he eloquently expressed: rural areas are often overlooked, bus policy is designed with the major cities and large towns in mind, and policymakers—perhaps because they have limited experience of life in the kind of rural communities that he and I serve—do not consider the very different challenges that we face. I therefore support the sentiment of the amendment, but the challenge is the cost. We keep coming back to the money—or lack of it—in this legislation, because it is disproportionately expensive.

The hon. Member is absolutely right that park and ride is an interesting hub-and-spoke model for rural areas, but there is also the on-demand model, which I have previously described as the Uberfication of rural transport. The tech is obviously already there. Someone books in and says that they want to go from here to there; the algorithm sorts out the route and how many people can be picked up; and then they are delivered from door to door. Because it is door to door, it has the opportunity to provide an improved customer experience.

The challenge is getting the take-up, because it requires a large number of people to buy into such a scheme, and the set-up costs are expensive. There has been a trial in Wymondham, in Norfolk, where the county council put forward a type of on-demand rural service, but the take-up was disappointingly low. Why was that? My working hypothesis is that, if it is a pilot, hardly anyone knows about it, but if there is wide-scale adoption—“This is the future of rural transport”—and it is backed up with public information so that everybody in the community cannot help but know about it, the take-up will be much greater and that then transforms the economics of it.

As a fellow Norfolk MP, I fully support the concept behind the hon. Member’s amendment, but I am afraid that I question whether it is needed, given the specifics of the drafting. As “places” are not defined under the clause as drafted, I am not sure about the requirement to define a specific place—this is my lawyer’s background coming through; it is a nasty rash I am developing—and I wonder whether there is a legal need for that clarification.

I will move on to clause 4. According to the explanatory notes, it inserts proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(a) into the 2000 Act to clarify that services can be specified by routes or the places intended to be served. I think that is sensible. For example, a franchising authority could specify the services by listing the principal points to be served, so, “The local services to be provided under local service contracts are ones that serve the following principal points,” followed by a list of what they are, such as the hospital, the railway station and the doctor’s surgery.

Another example under this proposed new subsection would be for services to be specified route by route. I will come back to that in a moment, because that is quite an important clarification when we look at the kind of operators that will be in a position to provide these services. Specifically, there is a question about the access of small and medium-sized enterprises to contracts under franchising, which sounds a bit niche but is nevertheless important.

Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(b) of the 2000 Act clarifies that services can be specified by describing intended services in general terms. It is broad and gives franchising authorities a wide range of options for specifying services under this proposed new subsection. That, again, is eminently sensible; I will not go into the detail.

Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(c) of the 2000 Act clarifies that franchising authorities can combine the approaches under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, a franchise authority that covers both urban and rural areas could specify services by reference to the specific routes for the urban areas, in line with proposed new paragraph (a), and then could take a broader approach for the rural areas. Finally, paragraph (d) clarifies the catch-all that franchising authorities can specify services “in such other way”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I appreciate the warm support from the hon. Gentleman, who is, as he stated, my constituency neighbour. I defer to his lawyering experience on his salient points about the propriety of my amendments given the Bill’s drafting, but I will ask for his reflections on two points.

First, cost is a big unanswered question in the Bill. If the Minister had access to the Treasury, I know that he would be raiding it to fund improved rural bus services. Does the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agree, however, that at least looking at a hub model makes more sense financially, and for service provision, than trying to establish hourly services in every village?

Secondly, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for amendment 71. Although I intend to withdraw amendment 70, I will push amendment 71 to a vote with his support.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I do not disagree with anything the hon. Member said. I do not have in my head the financial details associated with rural hubs, but it makes more commercial sense as a matter of principle, although it would probably not be profitable, to have a hub-and-spoke approach rather than an hourly service for every village. I do not know whether the hon. Member has counted the villages in North Norfolk, but there are well over 100 in Broadland and Fakenham, so that would be a challenge for any provider.

The Opposition support the concept of new clause 35 if the finances—the missing link—add up, but we question the need for it, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing what it sets out.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I am conscious that we are finishing in three minutes, so I will limit my comments to give the Minister some time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I query the premise that public is better than private. The hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned the ability to provide a better service than existing franchise services, but I want to put on record that we can still get £2 fares in South West Devon. There is not necessarily a concrete need for a franchise; it is not necessarily a magic wand. I will fit my other comments in somewhere else, because I am conscious of time.

Mass Transit: West Yorkshire

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is very good to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. As everyone else has done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate.

West Yorkshire and the city of Leeds have long been underserved by transport connections; that is common ground across this Chamber. Research from the Centre for Cities in 2022 found that just 38% of the population can reach the city centre within 30 minutes by public transport. That is a very low percentage for a city the size of Leeds.

As the former Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities made clear in his 2024 policy paper, that leads to below-average productivity in the area, and a critical catalyst for improvement must be better transport connections. The hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley was also right to allude to a long history of promises, half promises, schemes and plans to improve transport in Leeds, going back many decades. He was generous enough to say that it was a failure of Governments of multiple different colours.

I will go back just to the 2000s, when there was the supertram proposal, which the hon. Member might remember. It was a 17-mile system with 50 stations, but it was cancelled by Alistair Darling in 2005 because of cost overruns. In the interests of time, I will not read out the juicy quote from the leader of Leeds Council, but I am sure the hon. Member is familiar with it. In 2007, that proposal was replaced by the bus rapid transport scheme with FTR. That had some of the benefits of the supertram, but with lower initial capital costs, and it was replaced in 2012 by Wright StreetCars. Also in 2012, the trolleybus network proposal was approved by the Government. The scheme was allocated £173 million of public money to be in operation by 2018. From memory, it involved two park and rides and a bus system into the city centre. That, in its turn, was dropped in 2016—again, because of cost overruns and delays.

Then we jump forward to 2021, to the West Midlands combined authority and the mass transit scheme with light rail and tram-trains, or bus rapid transport. I am pleased to say that in 2023, it was given the go-ahead by the Conservative Government of the time, and £2.5 billion was allocated for the mass transit system, funded in full for Leeds and West Yorkshire by the Secretary of State’s predecessor Mark Harper. That was a firm commitment supported by the Treasury at the time.

On last week’s announcement by the Chancellor of £2.1 billion for the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme, I can see how the constituents of the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley might feel a little sceptical—they have been burned more than once. The plan now is to get the spades in the ground in 2028. It is almost as good as the previous Conservative Government’s plan, which was to get spades in the ground in 2027. The number is remarkably similar to what was then Network North policy.

It is worth looking at the numbers. In 2023, it was announced that £2.115 billion would be allocated, so it was a bit of a surprise that last week it was £2.1 billion. The Chancellor has knocked off 15 million quid, but it is absolutely a re-announcement of existing policy.

[Katie White]

Does the hon. Member agree that although those announcements were made, like many other announcements, such as those on hospitals, they were never funded, and so the Treasury never allocated the money to them. He is right that there was a similar intention, but we are fulfilling on the delivery of that intention.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The answer is that this is spending from 2026 to 2031, so of course we do not have the allocation in 2023. We will have it in 2026, however, and it is part of the Government funding process. If the hon. Lady asks me where that money is coming from, it is from the savings made through the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2. In rail terms, that was £19.6 billion.

[Tom Gordon]

On that point, I had an interesting interaction with the Secretary of State for Transport. I asked her about the reallocation of that HS2 money, and she referred to it as “fantasy money”. What does the hon. Gentleman say to the point that it is a reallocation of money that the Secretary of State says did not exist?

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is an interesting point. If it is fantasy money, this is a fantasy announcement from last week. I suspect that the Treasury has realised that it is not fantasy money. It is the scheduling of capital expenditure in five-year periods, a bit like we have with road networks and the road investment strategy. In the RIS system we have a five-year forward allocation of resources, and this is just the same, so there is a little political sleight of hand here.

A report by Steer suggests that a light rail vehicle with a capacity of 200 operating every three minutes can carry up to 4,000 people per hour in each direction. That is equivalent to about 50 fully laden buses. The aim now is to get it up and running in the mid-2030s. But if the past is any guide, the biggest risk to the project is delay and cost overruns. With that in mind, I ask the Minister these questions. What steps is she taking to ensure that costs are contained and deadlines do not slip? Has the West Yorkshire combined authority set out a timeline for the environmental and technical work to enable the development to proceed on time? Can she outline what discussions she has had with the mayor to ensure that upgrades to heavy rail infrastructure, such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade, are fully integrated? Can she provide assurances that tomorrow’s transport budget will not see cuts in other areas? Will this scheme actually be delivered? We shall wait and see. I certainly wish it well, but I understand why the residents of West Yorkshire feel sceptical.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Greater Anglia supports economic growth in the east of England with modern, quiet, fast trains, paid for by £2 billion of private sector investment. Its service is the most punctual in the country, it is popular with its passengers, and it is run so efficiently that instead of costing the taxpayer, it pays money into the Treasury. It is currently train operator of the year. Greater Anglia knows that nationalisation is coming, and it has offered to extend its operations to allow the Government to focus on the worst performing operators first. Why did the Government refuse? Is the Secretary of State focused on improving the lives of passengers, or is it an ideological determination to put the unions back in charge of the railways?

[Heidi Alexander]

I really do not know how many times I have to say this to the hon. Gentleman. I met him a couple of days ago, and I explained that our process for bringing train operating companies into public ownership is designed to offer best value for money to the taxpayer. We will not be buying out failing private sector operators by breaking contracts early. He is right to say that Greater Anglia provides an excellent service, and I am confident we will build on that when it comes into public ownership in October.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Perhaps the Secretary of State did not understand the nature of the offer from Greater Anglia. It was not expecting to be bought out; it was offering to continue its current arrangements for a couple of years.

In a previous answer, the Secretary of State said to me that the benefit of rail nationalisation will be the £150 million of efficiency savings. Let’s see how that is going. Her first nationalisation will be South Western Railway in two weeks’ time. That new service will need trains, yet The Telegraph has revealed that inept contract negotiations by her Department, where there was no effective competition, mean that the cost of re-leasing the same trains is increasing by £250 million over five years. Are those the efficiency savings she had in mind?

[Heidi Alexander]

The up to £150 million of savings that the taxpayer can enjoy as a result of train operating companies coming back into public ownership are the saved management fees that we are currently paying to private sector operators, and efficiencies will be delivered on top of that.

On the substantive issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about South Western Railway, the cost of renewing rolling stock leases has been fully and properly budgeted for, with successful commercial negotiations recently concluded. The franchising process under his Government saw some “buy now, pay later” deals done on rolling stock, where costs were always expected to increase. I think that approach was deeply dubious, but that was the short-termist, ill-thought-through approach of his Government, and we are now having to clear up that mess.

Road Maintenance

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

Decisions on the appropriate speed limits on their roads are decisions for local highways authorities. I will not pretend to know the detail of what my hon. Friend is talking about, but I will say that safety is an absolute priority for this Government, and that any local highway authority should be taking appropriate decisions to limit the number of people being injured on our roads and, ideally, to eradicate death and serious injury.

This Government’s ambition for road users stretches far beyond local roads. Just last week, we announced £4.8 billion for National Highways to deliver critical road schemes alongside maintaining motorways and major A roads. With this bold investment, which is higher than the average annual funding from the last multi-year settlement, we can get on with vital schemes in construction, such as the A57 Greater Manchester link road, the A428 Black Cat scheme in Cambridgeshire, the A47 Thickthorn scheme near Norwich, unlocking 3,000 new homes—

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

[Heidi Alexander]

I hear appreciation from the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench.

Those works will also include the M3 junction 9 scheme in Hampshire, which will support 2,000 more homes. By raising living standards, creating high-quality jobs and kick-starting economic growth, these projects will drive this Government’s plan for change.

We are committed to delivering the road infrastructure that this country needs today, tomorrow and far into the future, and we are already working on the next multi-year road investment strategy to do just that. This is part of our mission to secure the future of Britain’s infrastructure. We are building better roads, creating safer streets and unlocking more efficient transport systems to help businesses to thrive and make life easier for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State.

Each year, the Liberal Democrats and their friends travel about 800 billion km, while those of us on the Conservative Benches travel about 500 billion miles, and 90% of that is by road. Roads are the backbone of our transport network; they deliver goods, services and, importantly, people. They deliver economic growth and human flourishing—workers to their jobs, students to their schools, patients to their hospitals—and bring families together. It is absolutely right, therefore, that good roads deliver a stronger economy and a stronger society—I think we can all unite around that.

The roads network is divided between the national infrastructure and local roads. Since local roads make up 97.3% of the network as a whole—nearly 204,000 miles—I think it is best that I start there, because local roads are at the heart of the problem of potholes. Legal responsibility for maintenance of those roads lies with the local authorities, but it is too easy for us to blame local authorities and move on, because their funding comes from central Government. The previous Government felt a degree of frustration, which I know is now shared by this Government, that while some local authorities are better than others at clearing up potholes, it is the Government—of whatever colour—who tend to get the blame.

The Prime Minister has taken a view on this issue—he seems to be frustrated as well. Last month, we had the announcement that local authorities are required to publish reports on how many potholes they have repaired. That is not a novel undertaking; they were, as I recall, required to do exactly that back in 2013 or 2014. The risk now is that if they have not repaired a sufficient number of potholes, local authorities risk losing 25% of their increased grant.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that adopting a policy of managed decline, as the Conservatives did in Oxfordshire in 2014, is a disaster, and is really not the appropriate way to fix the problems we have in front of us?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I would absolutely agree that managed decline is not the right way to fix these problems, but I refute the accusation that the Conservative Government managed decline—[Interruption.] Well, let us look at the data.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made reference to the RAC pothole index, which is a very useful piece of information that tracks how much more likely a driver is to suffer a breakdown as a result of a pothole. This data goes back to 2006, when Labour was in power. You may not be wholly surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, to learn that under the previous Labour Government, a driver was more than twice as likely to suffer a breakdown as a result of a pothole than under the subsequent Conservative Government, corrected for seasonal weather effects and improving longer-term vehicle reliability. Those on the Government Benches say that the Conservative Government managed decline, but, in fact, exactly the opposite is true. Breakdowns caused by potholes peaked under Labour in 2009, and have more than halved as a result of the investment of the coalition and Conservative Governments.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Birmingham city council, which is the largest council in Europe, covers some of the vast number of roads and arterial routes coming in and out of the city with Spaghetti junction. Labour has controlled the council for around a decade, and roads are simply going from bad to worse. Part of the problem is the desensitisation of the residents, who feel there is just no point complaining about a pothole—officers come out but do not repair them. What mechanisms need to be put in place so that we can address the potholes that exist and are getting worse?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The best mechanism would be to vote for a Conservative local authority on 1 May. If we look at the data rather than the slogans, 68 miles of roads on average are repaired each year under Conservative councils, while just 14 miles are repaired under Labour councils. I say it again: if people want potholes fixed, they should vote Conservative on 1 May.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. I get on with him relatively well—[Interruption.] Very well, I should say, though we will get on even better if he agrees with my point. He has just said that people should vote Conservative because of the successes to which he has just referred. What would he say to my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme who have a Tory borough council and county council—and have done for several years—who describe our roads as “deeply sunken” and “physically uncomfortable to drive over”, and say that they have “crumbling surfaces”, “failed resurfacing work” and “repairs that don’t last” and “worsening conditions despite recent repairs”. Several constituents have noted that “only a few potholes” were ever patched and “hazardous conditions from multiple directions”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Interventions are getting far too long. There is a very long list of speakers wishing to contribute to this evening’s debate, so interventions should be short and pithy.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I had hoped the hon. Gentleman and I got on better than that, but I am grateful for the question. Everyone in this Chamber can point at potholes and say that more needs to be done, and we would all be correct. We have far too many potholes, and we need to build, repair and improve our network over time. I accept that it will not just be by voting Conservative that we reduce potholes overall.

There is a question of prioritisation of funding, and that applies under both Labour and the Conservatives. How funding is provided is also important. The overall amount of funding for the repair of potholes is obviously crucial, but how it is provided in the long term is essential for local authorities to schedule their repairs. Long-term funding would increase their efficiency. it would not be the stop-start feast or famine that we hear so much about at the moment.

Local authorities could also increase the number of potholes being repaired for the amount of money spent. It was for exactly this reason that the last Conservative Government committed to a 10-year £8.3 billion investment for the repair of potholes. That long-term approach made an enormous difference. The RAC welcomed the news and said that the plans would “give councils certainty of funding”, allowing them to “plan proper long-term maintenance”.

The Asphalt Industry Alliance—I am sure you read about them often, Madam Deputy Speaker—said that there is a consensus among local authorities that

“guaranteed long-term funding helps increase efficiency and provide a more resilient road network”.

It said that

“security of funding helps authorities to plan with more confidence and drive greater cost and environmental efficiencies through the promotion of proactive asset management techniques.”

The point is that long-term, predictable funding increases the number of repairs undertaken and reduces the cost we have to pay for it.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

The hon. Member has mentioned a couple of figures, including one from 2006, when I was nine. To quote a more recent figure from the annual local authority road maintenance 2025 report, when the Conservatives left office they left us with a backlog of £16.8 billion-worth of pothole repairs. What does he say to the people who are still driving over those potholes?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member may have misunderstood me; the figure I was referring to was from 2009-10—the very last year of the Labour Government. Since then, although there have been variations because of winter and summer, the number of potholes leading to breakdowns has more than halved, according to the RAC, which is of course independent. I know there are lots of examples of people driving into potholes, including me and everyone here who drives, but the overall data demonstrates beyond doubt that people are better off under the Conservatives than Labour if they want to avoid potholes that cause breakdowns.

Long-term predictable funding leads to an increased number of repairs at a reduced cost, but Labour has cancelled that long-term approach, so predictability of funding for local authorities has gone. The efficiencies associated with that predictability of funding are gone, as are the cost savings. Instead, we have had an announcement of £1.6 billion until 2026, which is very welcome; I have constructive opposition to this issue, so when more funding comes for the repair of potholes, I welcome it.

However, if we look beneath the bonnet, we see that the Labour Government have at the same time increased costs to local authorities through their national insurance contributions hike of £1.1 billion. They give £1.6 billion with one hand, but they take away £1.1 billion with the other. It does not stop there. Their hike on vehicle excise duty over the course of this Parliament means another £1.7 billion being taken from motorists. They take £1.7 billion from motorists, and they give £400 million net back for road improvements.

What happens after 2026? Do we know? Does the Secretary of State herself know what happens with the funding after that? The Government have been entirely silent, leading local authorities to be deeply concerned about their ability to plan long-term repairs, not just to potholes but to road infrastructure as a whole. It is an unfortunate example of this Government chasing headlines over responsible government.

Let us move from local roads to the major road network. Labour’s first act on coming into Government was not to back our road infrastructure or improve repairs but to cancel five vital road improvement schemes. Those were the A5036 Princess Way, the A358 Taunton to Southfields, the M27 Southampton junction 8, which was obliquely referred to earlier, the A47 roundabout at Great Yarmouth—the other end of the Thickthorn roundabout, which the Secretary of State is continuing the previous Government’s improvement of—and the A1 Morpeth to Ellingham.

Labour is not prioritising roads or road users, despite taking another £1.7 billion out of vehicle excise duty. It is dipping its hands yet further into the pockets of motorists while cancelling major road improvements. That contrasts with the Conservative record of 2015 to 2025, where we invested £40 billion into England’s strategic road network. Short-term headlines over long-term planning—that is Labour.

What is to come with Labour’s road maintenance plans? I hope this debate will shed light on it and clarify the future of funding for road maintenance. Perhaps the Secretary of State can whisper into the ear of the Minister for the Future of Roads before she winds up so she can tell us what happens after 2026, because local authorities deserve better than to be marched up a hill with road repairs and then left in a hole.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Alex Mayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

It has been an interesting debate, and one might be forgiven for thinking that there are local elections coming up. I do not know what caused me to think that, but there was there was something in the air; let us leave it at that. I am not going to go through everyone’s contribution, insightful and interesting as each of them was in its own way. I will just pick out a few highlights of the debate.

I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). Rather in the theme that I developed earlier, he referred to Bradford council’s terrible performance on potholes and said that it was leading to a loss of trust in Labour. In particular, he referenced the residents of Ilkley, who went to the trouble of having a referendum on what they should do about the state of the roads. He talked about the council’s proposal to impose speed humps and a 20 mph limit, despite 98.3% of residents voting against it. They were ignored by Labour.

Then we heard from the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), who is in his place. He also raised the condition of his local roads, but he went on to make an interesting point when he complained of what he described as the “crumbs of levelling up”. I took advantage of the length of the debate to look up what the crumbs of levelling up were, and, in fact, £19.9 million was directed to Burnley through three town centre schemes. That was an achievement of the excellent former colleague of mine, Antony Higginbotham, who was an understated but amazingly effective Member of Parliament. I will follow the career of the current Member for Burnley closely to see whether he delivers even a fraction of that for the people of Burnley.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) showed off about the length of his roads, which certainly put mine to shame. He was another advocate for the JCB Pothole Pro, saying that 1,889 repairs had been undertaken in six months. But what he really exposed was the repeated failure of the SNP, which has cut funding north of the border, and the lack of interest shown in this debate from SNP Members in this place, as we can see from their empty Benches.

[Peter Swallow]

The shadow Minister is making a gallant effort to rattle through the fantastic contributions that we have heard tonight. Will he take this opportunity to congratulate Bracknell Forest council and its Labour administration for the £5 million investment over four years in pothole repairs?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am happy to commend any council, of whatever colour, that gets on top of its potholes. I am about improving the quality of life for the residents of this United Kingdom. I make no bones about it: if Bracknell Forest council is improving the potholes in its neck of the woods, that is great, and the same is true of Conservative-led councils.

In his exposure of the SNP’s failure, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk was joined by the hon. Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). They agreed that the SNP is failing the people of Scotland. I will take this opportunity, as I was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, to highlight the need for wheelchair access on pavements. That is a very important consideration.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made a speech that reinforced the reputation he has already earned in this House. We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), and then we heard from the hon. Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), who, as I should have mentioned earlier, also blamed the SNP for failing motorists. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who made an expert intervention, levering in a reference to Romford during a speech that was entirely about Scottish issues. I learned an important lesson: he gained the maximum impact from the minimum amount of time in the Chamber—if only the rest of us had followed his example.

There were contributions from the hon. Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), as well as the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who referred to the power of mayors. That gives me an opportunity to make a shameless plug for the Conservative candidate for mayor of Doncaster, Nick Fletcher, who is a former colleague and very good friend of mine. He will be the best leader for Doncaster.

There were further contributions from the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) —we all miss Jonathan Gullis in this place—and, finally, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume).

I opened this debate for the Opposition by talking about the need for predictable long-term funding, which is a key issue. I wish to draw a quote to the House’s attention:

“British people are bored of seeing their politicians aimlessly pointing at potholes with no real plan to fix them”.

That quote is not from me, but from the Prime Minister. He was right, and he identified the problem, but he has gone on to make it worse. [Interruption.] Well, I would love to be corrected. I will give this Minister the opportunity to confirm yesterday’s calculations from the Local Government Association, which said that the Government’s actions, through their national insurance contribution tax grab from local authorities, will reduce their ability to fund roads and other important matters by £1.1 billion. Does she agree with the Local Government Association, which is of course an independent organisation? Secondly, will she confirm that the Government will increase vehicle excise duty to the tune of £1.7 billion over the next five years, and whether that dwarfs the funding that Labour has so far announced for road improvements?

It is not too late. The Government could admit that they were wrong to shorten the timeframe for investment in road infrastructure. They could today commit to a 10-year funding plan. They could take this opportunity to reassure local authorities about how their funding will be received, allowing them to increase the efficiency of their pothole repair programmes. They could take this opportunity to deliver the long-term funding that our road networks need. I look forward to the imminent announcement from the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is clear that local roads maintenance is an issue that affects every one of us, and that our constituents care about deeply. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken up on behalf of their constituents. I assure them that the Government get it and are determined to do something about it. There were too many contributions for me to mention them all, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) highlighted why it is important that local councils are required to publish reports on their plans. We want people to know if their local council is choosing not to spend the extra funding that we are providing on fixing their cratered, potholed, pimpled roads. I assure her and other members of the Transport Committee that work is already under way on a complete review of the guidance—the code of practice on well-managed highway infrastructure, to give it its full name.

I am really pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) highlighted the innovation that has been adopted by Stoke-on-Trent’s Labour council and its highways department—investing in AI to properly understand and monitor its road network and using the Pothole Pro to undertake long-lasting repairs. I am really sorry to hear that Conservative Staffordshire county council is not as responsive to the concerns of my hon. Friends’ constituents who are calling for investment in road safety. As my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) rightly reminded us, Staffordshire residents can do something about that problem by voting Labour on 1 May, as can residents in Derbyshire, Northumberland, Hertfordshire, Lancashire and many other parts of the country.

I am grateful to Scottish colleagues for their contributions. It is disappointing to hear that the SNP Government are not acting to tackle the state of Scotland’s roads, as this Government are in England and my Labour colleagues are in Wales. The Scottish people deserve better. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) raised the important issue of pavement parking, as did others, and he was right to do so, because it contributes to our broken pavements, which are so unsafe for many elderly and disabled people. The previous Government promised action for almost a decade and did nothing. We plan to respond to the 2020 consultation and set out our policy in this area.

When I tell people that I am the roads Minister, I can pretty much guarantee that the first question they will ask is, “What are you doing to fix my street?” It is not surprising that this issue is so often raised with us when we are out and about in our constituencies. The appalling state of our local roads and pavements is all too visible to us every single day. As we have heard time and again in this debate, it is unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and bikers, it makes motorists’ lives a misery and it is holding back economic growth.

The shadow Minister suggested that things were worse in 2006 than under his Government, but according to the RAC pothole index, drivers were nearly 40% more likely to have a pothole-related breakdown in 2024 than they were under the last Labour Government.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Not right now, as the hon. Gentleman has already had an opportunity to speak on this issue.

[Jerome Mayhew]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you give me some advice? Where the Minister has misquoted me and refuses to give way, what steps can I take to correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I think that is a matter of debate, and it is now on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

We are told that nationalisation is the answer to improving passenger rail performance. If that is the case, surely it would make sense to start by nationalising the worst performing operators. CrossCountry comes last out of all train operating companies for passenger satisfaction and it is not complying with its obligations. The Secretary of State could call in that contract, so why is it not the first operator to be nationalised under GBR?

[Heidi Alexander]

We made a commitment to bring the train operating companies back into public ownership without any cost to the taxpayer. The appropriate point at which to bring the train operating companies back into public ownership is when the franchises expire. If there is terrible performance, we can seek to break a contract earlier. I am pleased that there are some improvements at CrossCountry. We are seeing improvements from the train operating companies that have been brought into public ownership. In particular, for TransPennine and LNER there is a really positive story to tell on passenger journeys and revenue growth.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but she ducks the point that if she had the political will she could bring CrossCountry in-house now. It is not the first operator to come under GBR or even close to it. Under current plans, the Government will not get around to tackling CrossCountry until 2031. In the meantime, highly effective private operators with some of the highest levels of customer satisfaction such as c2c and Greater Anglia will be subjected to dislocating nationalisation this year. Why are the Government forcing nationalisation in areas where current services are liked, and sitting on their hands where people are crying out for improvements?