Department for Transport

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place. I very much welcome the investment in transport—especially public transport—in the spending review. The commitment is really clear; for example, there is £2.3 billion for the local transport grant, which will support local transport improvements such as bus lanes, as well as £616 million to build and maintain walking and cycling infrastructure and £2.6 billion to decarbonise transport, which is all very important.

Investment in public transport, particularly in buses, brings multiple benefits. First, it reduces congestion.

[Catherine Atkinson]

In the east midlands, we saw our bus routes cut by 60% under successive Conservative Governments. Does my hon. Friend agree that buses have a huge impact upon people’s lives and their ability to access opportunities in training and work, to get to health appointments and to connect with family and friends? Does my hon. Friend agree and welcome this Labour Government’s focus on enabling better bus travel, which is the right direction to go?

[Alex Mayer]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know she is normally a champion for trains in her constituency, so I welcome her branching out into buses. The Campaign for Better Transport says that £1 of investment in buses brings £4.55 in benefits, and I am absolutely up for that. While we are on the subject of better buses, where we have good public transport, such as busways in my constituency, people come to them. That is why I back the campaign to extend the Dunstable busway west towards Leighton Buzzard and then ideally on to Bletchley.

In her opening remarks, the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) talked about fees, particularly for driving tests, which we have been discussing in Committee. Will the Minister consider looking at fees as a way to change behaviour? I have been contacted by constituents who have been told they will have to wait up to nine months to get a driving test slot, which is utterly ridiculous. People are putting their lives on hold for such things. One issue we found when we gathered evidence in the Committee is that people are booking up tests, regardless of whether they are ready to take a test. As my hon. Friend said, it is cheaper sometimes to book a driving test than to book a couple of lessons, and that cannot be right.

I cannot imagine any Government out there would relish putting up the price of a driving test. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) was challenging us to find policies that are both popular and free, but we could think about driving tests a little bit differently. For example, how about putting up the fee, but giving everybody one free go at it? Basically if someone passes their driving test, they would get a refund. That would encourage everybody to only go for it when they really thought they would pass. We could probably make it cost-neutral, and it would free up slots, because only those who thought they were definitely ready would go for it, and it would be offset by putting up the charges for everyone who fails again and again. That probably would not have done me any good; I failed my driving test about five times, but I eventually managed it.

Moving on, local roads make up 98% of the road network and carry 60% of all traffic. Every journey, however it starts—whether by foot, by bike, by bus or by car—starts and ends on a local road, and local roads are managed by highways authorities, but highways authorities are not always transport authorities. This will become an increasing issue as the Government roll on with their devolution agenda, which I welcome, and more strategic transport authorities are established. With buses, for example, whether it is an enhanced partnership agreement between a local transport authority and a bus operator, or franchising carried out with a transport authority that is not the Highways Authority, there are things that it is difficult for the transport authority to do to keep a bus running on time, because that is dependent on the road on which it is running.

As we all know, roads can be blocked by roadworks, they can be in a poor state of repair and a bus lane can be obstructed, yet a stand-alone transport authority does not have control over any of that. Such authorities do not manage the planning system, do not collect the community infrastructure levy, do not own the bus stops and do not get any cash from bus lane enforcement—none of that comes their way. However, they are the authorities expected to get on with delivering the funding, such as the £15.6 billion transport for city regions settlement.

May I ask the Minister what lessons have been learnt from CRSTS in respect of delivery? I am thinking especially of any blockages that may have been encountered because of the split between transport and highways, and indeed the lack of passenger transport executives or their equivalents. I have talked to other Ministers about that, but I am delighted to see this Minister on the Front Bench, and it would be interesting to hear anything from him on the subject of passenger transport executives.

As I have said before, we could have a much more cost-efficient system. The Government are rightly bringing track and train together, and I think we now need to have a conversation about bringing bus and bus lane together.

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

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson]

All the comments I was going to make have already been made by the shadow Minister. He was so complete and comprehensive that he leaves no space for any additional comment. However, I will briefly give my slant on some of the points. When I rose at the beginning of this sitting, it was to talk about the costs that would be put on to local authorities by the general duties in new clause 22. That has been dealt with. This clause will put much more significant costs on to local authorities that choose to go down the franchising route—after all, franchising is a choice available to a transport authority. Those are costs incurred by transferring a risk from commercial operators to local authorities and the taxpayer if the business does not go in the way of the business plan.

The shadow Minister has already spoken about the huge cost subsidy, effectively, to the services operated in London and Manchester, where there are huge economy of scale advantages. My view is that the franchising model, if it works at all, works for high population densities—cities, large local authorities and those that can swallow bad years—and offers nothing at all for smaller authorities other than the option to take a step into the unknown for no obvious benefit. I think of my local authority on the Isle of Wight—it is fanciful to think that that unitary authority could in any way take a step towards franchising. Even if we end up with a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire county council, which has a big budget deficit, it seems highly unattractive to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight to go down the franchising route and take on all those risks.

I have no direct experience of the Manchester model, but if Manchester really is the shining beacon, it is one that has cost a huge amount of money. However, that is a huge amount of money that the taxpayer in Manchester may be able to swallow. For a transport authority with a significant chunk of rurality—Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is an exception only in that it has an island attached to it, not in terms of how rural it is—I cannot see the figures adding up because no money goes with franchising.

The Government may talk about money being available for bus services and the £3 fare cap. Those are welcome things, but they are not sums of money that naturally flow with an option to go down the franchising route. Although that does not go against having franchising as an option, I feel that it is going to be attractive only to a fairly small proportion of England—areas with high-density populations and those with metropolitan authorities. In this country, franchising is for the few; it is not a mass model that all local authorities will find attractive. It could lead to a more uneven quality of bus services across the country, and to a two-tier system.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I want to challenge the suggestion that franchising is an obligation. It is not; it is a power that is given to authorities to use if they wish. However, in those communities that were so poorly served for the past 14 years under the previous Government, should we not inspire an ambition for better bus services?

[Joe Robertson]

I was not suggesting that it is an obligation. Plainly, franchising is an option. My point is that it is an option that is unattractive to smaller local authorities, which cannot benefit from the economies of scale of franchising bus services. It is much more attractive for city areas. Of course I want rural bus services to be improved; my constituency is a rural area and we want better bus services. I see absolutely nothing in the franchising option that will deliver that, because I cannot see a local authority—in my own or other rural areas—looking at it and thinking, “This is helpful.” That is because it does not, as a right, bring money with it.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Alex Mayer Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think buses are brilliant, so I am delighted that this Bill is coming forward on 2 June, because, as you said, it is my birthday. I thought it was the Minister’s way of wishing me many happy returns—and singles also!

For too long, buses have been in decline. It is great that the Minister has been clear for months that he wants to fix that and that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. December’s guidance on varied franchising approaches was excellent, and I welcome how the Bill simplifies franchising, as well as the Government’s review of enhanced partnerships and the plans in the Bill to strengthen them. We need—and I believe that this Bill will help to deliver—tailored, practical options that can work for people in every kind of town, village and city.

We can already see some EPs delivering that change, with real, substantive control over network design. From 24/7 routes in Portsmouth and a 50% zero-emission fleet in Leicester to profit-sharing arrangements and repainted buses that build identity and loyalty and encourage interchanges, EPs already encourage innovation and partnership. In the west of England, “birthday buses” offer residents free travel across 500 square miles throughout the whole of their birthday month. That is a great gift and, more importantly, a successful scheme that targets non-bus users in order to embed long-term behavioural change. That happened without the need for new legislation, but with the need for vision.

I will always call for greater public investment in buses, but I am realistic about the economic pickle that we have been left in by the Conservatives. If we want sustainable networks, we have to grow farebox revenue. The Department’s bus service improvement plan guidance is absolutely spot on here, correctly making the vital point, in line with the national bus strategy, that:

“Almost all social, economic and environmental objectives for the role of the bus…can be boiled down to the simple, practical and measurable objective to grow bus patronage.”

With that in mind, might I suggest the odd tweak to the Bill to better reflect that spirit?

We have talked about clause 1 and the purpose of improving “performance, accessibility and quality”. That is good, but my constituents certainly want quantity as well as quality. Perhaps “availability” could be added to focus minds on growing patronage. Clause 11 has some fantastic language about consulting disabled “users or prospective users” of buses. I think the term “prospective users” could be deployed elsewhere—for instance, the Transport Act 2000 requires consultation ahead of franchising with only

“those representative of users of local services”,

not prospective users.

Clause 30 gives the Minister powers to set standards for bus stops to improve safety and accessibility. That is great, but why stop there? Would the Minister not also like to have some standards aimed at increasing ridership? According to the Campaign for Better Transport, poorly maintained bus stops and bus shelters put off 23% of people from using buses.

I have looked at clause 23, on grants. I wonder whether local transport authorities could be incentivised to design grants to increase passenger numbers? It is clear that we need a virtuous circle of more passengers and more fare income, not the spiral of decline that we have seen previously.

That brings me briefly to socially necessary routes, which are important but mainly unprofitable. I absolutely agree with the Minister that the new list he is introducing will bring some certainty, but I wonder whether alongside that list, LTAs could also be required to produce a transparent and ranked formula for how they calculate whether a service is socially necessary, which they could use in turn to allocate funding. That would rightly give local leaders flexibility, but would also allow residents to see what is being prioritised and why, and where the cut-off for taxpayer support lies. If we also included the number of journeys in that formula—if that was made a criterion—it could allow residents to save a bus by using it. It would prevent lists from becoming fossilised and reduce the risk that those who shout loudest get the better services, with funding determined by data, not decibels. Fundamentally, LTAs should not be pigeonholed as a place of sticking-plaster solutions; success will lie in a network-wide approach.

Finally, I know that the Minister does not plan to create any new passenger transport executives, but I believe that—just as we are bringing track and train together—there is a real case for bringing bus and bus lane together, particularly as more strategic transport authorities are created. This is a really good Bill, and I think it is a great birthday present.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I think everyone in this room agrees that walking and cycling are good; they are good for health, for the environment and for young people’s social skills. I also think they are a selling point for people trying to sell houses. In my constituency, there is a development called Bidwell West. For the last decade, there have been pretty pictures of children cycling to a local school, only that school has not yet been built, which is a bit of a problem. Children have to go a mile and a half away, on a completely and utterly unsuitable road, with a lack of footpaths—there are footpaths, but they have to cross from one side of the road to the other—water running off the nearby fields and a lack of street lighting, because it was not built for that. My question to the Minister is: how do we make sure that this does not happen as we build more houses, which we desperately need?

Road Maintenance

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

“It’s like driving over the surface of the moon,”

is what Karen from Houghton Regis told me. Marion and Brian explained how they had had two tyres ruined, costing them over £200. A plumber from Dunstable sent me multiple photos of craters in his road. Councillor Matt Brennan showed me more when we visited Aldbanks in Dunstable, and a constituent in Leighton Buzzard told me that Mile Tree Road has become increasingly hazardous because of the number of potholes.

After 14 years of Conservative rule and the increasing effects of climate change, too many of our roads are in a sorry state. Figures from the RAC show that drivers encounter, on average, six potholes per mile in England and Wales. That is bad news for not only car drivers but cyclists, bus users and coaches.

I welcome the Government’s investment in improving our road conditions. This Labour Government have increased the funding to Central Bedfordshire council to nearly £9.7 million this year, which represents a 39.7% increase. That sounds like really good news, and one would think that more potholes would get filled in, so I was really concerned to see that the council budget showed only a 5% increase in highways spending. I appreciate that Central Bedfordshire council also contributes capital to the highways budget along with the Government, but I was hugely disappointed by a statement made at the council’s joint budget scrutiny taskforce committee:

“When the Government announced that we would receive more funding, the decision was made to spend less of our own money rather than increase the programme.”

I have warned that that attitude could jeopardise the full uplift of Government funding. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on that.

In the light of that, I particularly welcome the Government’s plan, as we have heard, for councils to publish reports on their websites by the end of June detailing what they are doing to improve the state of local roads. I was especially pleased to hear that the reports will be short and in plain English—all reports should be, really. Particularly important is that the template means that councils must show how many holes they filled in during the previous five years. Residents expect, and indeed deserve, to see the number of potholes being filled in increasing. We are all watching this space.

Councils will also be required to show how they are spending more on long-term preventive maintenance programmes, which is incredibly important. As I have said, we are living in a time of climate emergency, and the wetter winters and extremes of hot and cold are making potholes worse by increasing the number of freeze-and-thaw cycles. However, some emerging technologies may help. Apparently, artificial intelligence can identify cracks and spot potholes before they appear. There are also graphene-reinforced asphalt, which is self-healing, as well as bacteria-infused cement and systems to regulate road temperatures. Tech is clearly moving apace. Given all those innovations, is the Minister considering updating the Department’s guidance on preventing potholes during the winter?

While we are on climate change, well-maintained and smoother roads reduce fuel consumption and cut emissions. Data show that smoother roads can reduce vehicle emissions by more than 5%. The opposite is true for bad roads: the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that poor road conditions have an impact on driver behaviour, as I think we know as we try to swerve around potholes. It has calculated that that changed driver behaviour from speeding up and slowing down means that CO₂ emissions are about 0.5 tonnes higher.

It is also crucial to minimise the disruption caused by utility companies’ street works—I know that Ministers have repeatedly stated that—because we know that when a road is opened up with a trench, that can reduce its structural life by an average of 17%. I therefore draw all hon. Members’ attention to the street works inquiry currently being carried out by the Transport Committee, which I and other hon. Members in the Chamber are members of. Members can tune in to any of the evidence sessions, and the final report will be available very soon in all good Vote Offices.

We are all familiar with instances where the same stretch of road or pavement seems to be repeatedly opened up by different companies over a short period, particularly in new developments. A constituent wrote to me about Bedford Road in Houghton Regis to say that, over roughly a month, five different companies had dug up the road, one after another. When I queried that with the council’s street works team, I was informed that

“no collaboration opportunities were identified to reduce the number of road closures”.

Residents think the situation is ridiculous.

Let me turn to cost. In April 2024, the Centre for Economics and Business Research reported that poor road conditions were costing £14.4 billion a year in economic damage to England—or 60% of a Tory Government black hole, as I like to think of it. But there is hope, because the Department for Transport’s economic appraisal tells us that for every pound invested in local road maintenance, there is a minimum return of £2.20, and typical returns identified of up to £9.10 at a national level.

Finally, let me turn to buses and coaches. Unlike car motorists, cyclists and pedestrians who can often take different routes when there is a particularly bad potholed road or a road is closed because of potholes, buses have an obligation to stick to their routes wherever possible. The Confederation of Passenger Transport highlights a 13% increase in bus operators’ costs per kilometre since 2019, with much of that attributed to delays, diversions and disruption, including those caused by the poor state of roads. First Bus told me that it spends more than £1 million each year repairing bus suspension components. That cost inevitably gets passed on to passengers through higher fares and reduced service levels.

I welcome the Labour Government’s investment in road maintenance and sincerely hope that all local councils will rise to the challenge. For my constituent who thinks it is like driving on the moon, this really is not rocket science, but nor is it just a matter of inconvenience. Filling in these potholes is crucial for safety, for the environment and for economic growth.

Improving Public Transport

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I am delighted to be called to give my maiden speech, and I do so with a sense of trepidation and excitement, which I imagine that many a new MP feels. It has struck me that maiden speeches are a little like buses: you wait ages, and then 335 of them turn up at once. I beg your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, to listen to one more as we near the end of this journey.

As hon. Members will know, the excellent House of Commons Library helpfully provides us with the maiden speeches of our last two predecessors, to give us a feel for this place and to acknowledge the work of those who came before us. Mr Selous served for a whopping 23 years, and I pay tribute to his work as an assiduous constituency representative who stood up for what he believed in. I discovered in his maiden speech that he in turn referred to his predecessor who served for 31 years, who in turn harked back to the Member who came before him—the last Labour MP for the area—who was elected back in 1966. Clearly, 1966 was a year that was rather good for teams in red, albeit followed by rather too many years of hurt.

History shows us how rarely change comes for these communities, yet change is desperately needed: on shop- lifting, I have met workers who have been spat at, threatened with needles and even a gun; the lack of healthcare facilities, including in Houghton Regis and Leighton-Linslade; sewage polluting our waterways; and transport. I am delighted to be a member of the Transport Committee, and transport is the subject of the debate, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing.

My constituency has a long history of transport innovation. It has Britain’s oldest road, dating back to prehistoric times, the Icknield way, which runs through the constituency. It has the Grand Union canal, the freight superhighway of its day. Leighton Buzzard railway once transported sand from quarries and is now a much-loved tourism attraction, going full steam ahead. More recently, we have one of the longest guided busways in Europe, which I hope one day can be extended. That brings me neatly to the topic of buses and encouraging more people to switch on to them, which is so vital in this time of climate emergency.

I welcome the BSIP investment announced recently by the Government, and I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about plans to allow more local areas to have a smoother path to franchising. I am keen for the Minister to look carefully at transport governance. London and Greater Manchester, which have franchising already, have also historically had alignment of transport powers, resources and capacity all in one centralised place. Passenger transport executives and their equivalents can accelerate the delivery of transport plans and play a crucial role in unlocking regional economic growth. For 50 years, such structures have benefited from much higher levels of control and co-ordination of buses. They also benefit from running over a much more logical functional economic geography.

Outside such areas, transport powers are held in many different places, and they require a number of organisations to independently agree reforms to enact change. That can mean, for example, that bus stops, which are surely the window to the soul of buses, can be owned by an organisation with no say in how the bus service itself is run. In many places in the country, highways and transport powers are split. We perhaps need more passenger transport executives, although the Urban Transport Group advises that the last passenger transport executive was established so long ago—not quite so long ago as when a Labour MP last represented Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard—that the mechanics around establishing a new one are unclear.

In any case, we need governance that is fit for the 21st century, with the right delegated functions being granted to a passenger transport executive or equivalent, and the establishment of an executive function to speed up decision making and delivery that makes the difference. It needs to be based on a geography that reflects travel patterns as well as wider social and economic geographies, and which gives a large enough base to raise farebox income.

On geography, I argue that there need to be possibilities to franchise in areas larger than local transport authorities. Given that franchising is not entirely a silver bullet, I urge the Minister to look at the geography of enhanced partnerships as well. It is only one bus, but the F70, which travels from Luton to Milton Keynes via Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, goes through three separate enhanced partnership areas.

Finally, I thank Grant Palmer, Arriva and First, which have invited me aboard their buses recently, and Dawsongroup for bringing a double-decker bus just outside Parliament for Catch the Bus Month, which many hon. Members from across the House came to support. It is my belief, really, that every month should be Catch the Bus Month. I urge all hon. Members to get on board and back our local buses all year round.