Ivanhoe Line: Restoration

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I will call Amanda Hack to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention with a 30-minute debate.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered restoration of the Ivanhoe Line.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey.

I am pleased that colleagues have joined me for what I believe is the first ever debate solely about the Ivanhoe line—a train line that would reopen a direct passenger link between Leicester and Burton upon Trent. The line has a long history. Before the 1830s, Coalville did not exist; it was known as Long Lane and included the four medieval parishes of Whitwick, Hugglescote, Snibston and Swannington. When William Stenson, the proprietor of coalmines in Whitwick, returned from a trip on the Stockton and Darlington railway, he carefully studied the land between Long Lane and Leicester. Taking into account the mines in Ibstock and Bagworth, he planned the line of a possible railway.

Stenson enlisted the help of George Stephenson, “the father of railways”, who delegated the construction of the Swannington-to-Leicester railway to his son, Robert. It became the sixth steam railway in the country, linking Leicester and Long Lane so that coal could easily be transported between the two. Some estimate that around the same time the town became known as Coalville. The line traditionally transported coal before it was opened to passengers.

Fast forward to the 1960s, when what was then called the Ivanhoe line was closed during the infamous Beeching cuts of 7 September 1964. Since then, there have been many campaigns to get it fully back up and running, especially as it remained open to freight traffic until only recently.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this matter. I spoke to her before the debate, and I now rise to support and encourage her.

I hail from a rural constituency that once had a railway line but now has none whatsoever. Sometimes the bottom line is not the financial one, and sometimes obligations need to extend to more than profit margins. Does the hon. Lady agree that there must be an obligation —if necessary, a statutory obligation—to provide a rail service in isolated areas?

[Amanda Hack]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Later in my speech, I will talk about how we can connect our communities, which is really important.

Lack of maintenance on the Ivanhoe line led to the gradual withdrawal of freight services, although the private section, from Bardon Hill quarry to the rail network, is still operational; in fact, the quarry has recently extended its lease. There was an opportunity to get the line up and running in the 1990s, but any hope of doing so was thwarted by the break-up of British Rail when it was privatised. Throughout all this change, there has been continuous local pressure to deliver a passenger rail service for my constituents. The most recent business case was supported under stage 1 of the restoring your railway fund, of which Lord Hendy, the Minister of State for Rail, was the chair.

The project originated from a successful bid by the Campaign to Reopen the Ivanhoe Line, or CRIL, and was one of the 12 projects nationally to receive restoring your railway development funding. I want to take a moment to thank everybody from CRIL for all their hard work to get to this stage.

The project, which was in phase 1 of restoring your railways, was for a partial reopening from Coalville to Burton upon Trent, with stations at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Castle Gresley and Coalville. That would have finally reconnected two of the largest towns not connected to the rail network: Coalville and Swadlincote. Those two towns have also seen the highest growth in homes and employment in the last decade. The east midlands has grown by 8%, yet my constituency of North West Leicestershire has grown by 12% and South Derbyshire has grown by 13%.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She has been a fierce champion for this campaign since before becoming an MP and has been relentless since—and I love her for it. I also thank the members of the Campaign to Reopen the Ivanhoe Line who live in South Derbyshire.

Swadlincote lost its original Midland Railway station in 1947, leaving it a disconnected town. There are very few places the size of Swad in the UK without a train station. The nearest train station, for anyone who wants to get anywhere, is in Burton. Anyone who wants to get a train directly to our capital city would have to go to Tamworth, over 15 miles away and 30 minutes away on a good day. East Midlands Parkway is over 30 minutes away, and there are many others.

I want South Derbyshire to continue to grow, with great tech jobs and opportunities. Does my hon. Friend agree that reopening the Ivanhoe line for passengers, as well as the railway station in Castle Gresley, would help to create a two-way gateway and opportunity for people in Swadlincote and the surrounding areas?

[Amanda Hack]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and her support during the campaign. The main thing is that large towns need the infrastructure to match. There are certainly other examples of investments in railways to connect towns that are exceeding their passenger targets, such as the Northumberland line.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

What my hon. Friend is talking about reminds me of an issue that affects my constituents. The line between Liverpool and Preston crosses the line between Southport and Manchester. Up until the 1960s, the two lines were linked by two curves at the town of Burscough, just outside my constituency. For 60 years, there has been a campaign to get the curves reopened and to reinstall the commuter link between Southport and Ormskirk, and also between Southport and Preston, which would add huge amounts of GVA to the local area and create an economic powerhouse for the north-west. The cost of rebuilding and reopening the Burscough curves has been estimated at just £35 million. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be £35 million pounds very well spent?

[Amanda Hack]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do not know a huge amount about his line, but that certainly seems to be good value for money, and it adds to the point about towns that need infrastructure. What does that infrastructure do? It gives those people opportunity.

On that point, I ask the Minister what work has been done to assess the impact on growth and investment in large towns like mine, and those of my colleagues, that are not connected to the rail network. North West Leicestershire, alongside other parts of the east midlands, is outside the East Midlands combined authority and does not benefit from the city region allocation, which, for Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, is £2 billion. Although part of the Ivanhoe travels through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), it ends in Burton, which is also outside the combined authority, yet the Ivanhoe line would give my constituents the opportunity to get to Derby via Burton and vice versa.

The money allocated to Leicestershire is limited to public transport and some long overdue road improvements. If Leicester and Leicestershire were allocated city region funding at the same rate as the combined authority, we would have £1 billion to invest in Leicester and Leicestershire. We cannot just accept that the mayoralty alone gets the increase, when we know that the east midlands lags behind in terms of funding.

Research has shown that, had the east midlands received the same funding as the UK average between 2019 and 2024, we would have had about £10 billion extra for transport. Will the Minister highlight how areas such as Leicester and Leicestershire, within the most poorly funded region for transport investment, will be supported to ensure that services can be provided?

Now I want to talk about the value of the train line for our communities—the exciting and most important bit. MPs can get really competitive when it comes to who has the prettiest constituency, but mine is at the heart of the national forest, and it really does not get much better than that. The National Forest Company transformed the post-industrial landscape into a thriving success story of environmentally led regeneration in the midlands. Reopening the Ivanhoe line has the potential to create a beautiful train line travelling through the greenery of the national forest. The National Forest Company reached out to me before the debate and shared its recent research. It found:

“The second highest contributor to CO2 emissions within the National Forest is resident travel, with car travel accounting for 14% of the residents’ consumption-based footprint—higher than the National Average”.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend stressed the importance of rail freight. The Railways Bill, currently in Committee, will introduce a target to increase rail freight. Does she share the concerns relayed to me about the potential for this line to be closed to freight? Does she agree that we should be getting lorries and haulage off our roads and on to rail freight, as we are doing with Great British Railways?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come to freight in a little while; he has pre-empted my speech.

The National Forest Company also shared that 99% of the over 200,000 annual visitors to Conkers, which is one of the key attractions in the national forest, travel by car. It feels counterproductive that the only option to make the most of our green spaces is driving, and there is certainly opportunity for investment along the line at Moira to assist with changing that.

The reopening of the Ivanhoe line through the national forest is critical if we are serious about reducing carbon emissions in this part of the midlands. There is also a local idea of changing the name from Ivanhoe to the National Forest line; I think that has a good ring to it. Last year, I did a survey, and about 400 people in my constituency responded: 90% said they travelled by car because of poor public transport, 72% said that they were prevented from travelling to where they want to go because there were no public transport options, and 97% supported the restoration of the Ivanhoe line.

My constituent Karen pointed out that there are many attractions and services in Ashby and that the rail line would be a valuable asset, bringing people to the castle, leisure facilities and the array of shops, pubs and cafes. Ashby is a pure market town. Unsurprisingly, a lot of respondents also said that the reopening of the line would help them to access job opportunities outside the area. One of my constituents told me that she is disabled and wants to work in Leicester but struggles on the buses to Ashby. Another told me how a train line would help him to see his young daughter more, connecting and putting his family back together. Another works for the management team at a homeless charity and explained on behalf of their clients that the reopening of the line would remove some of the barriers to accessing accommodation, attending appointments and securing local job opportunities.

It is fantastic to hear that the Government have stressed the importance of apprenticeships and fulfilling education and job opportunities for all, but how are my younger constituents going to get there? When I meet young people like William across my constituency, they tell me that public transport is a huge barrier to getting to the training opportunities and apprenticeships they deserve.

Buses are also leaving people stranded. Dave contacted me over the weekend. He went to watch a Leicester City match and got the last bus home to Ashby. However, the bus stopped in Coalville, and the passengers were told to get off and walk to another bus stop. They waited and waited for a bus that never arrived. He quite rightly says:

“where a simple bus ride can’t get people home, a train line would help enormously”.

North West Leicestershire also does not have a main hospital. My constituents travel to Derby, Leicester, Nottingham and Burton, and having to rely on services as unreliable as the one I just described is a real problem. As one constituent said in the survey:

“It’s harder to think of reasons NOT to reopen the line”.

I understand that, ever since we have come into office, we have had to battle to deal with the financial mess that the previous Government left behind. On that point, I want to segue on to another rail project: HS2, which has been marred by significant delays and cost overruns. It would have literally just gone through my constituency—it would have moved a dual carriageway in my constituency, but it would not have brought us a train station.

HS2 Ltd owns 74 homes in my constituency, more than in any other. I have written to the Secretary of State on this issue, and would be grateful if my constituents could get a definitive answer on how that money can be reinvested. Can constituencies with assets purchased for HS2 be allocated the appreciated asset value as well as the rental income that is coming in? Setting aside that money for rail improvements would make such a difference.

HS2 was about providing capacity. For the east midlands, Ivanhoe was the only project to progress in restoring your railway, creating rail capacity for both passengers and freight. It is outstandingly different from many other rail infrastructure projects, because we already have a track in place, and therefore it is quick to deliver. I have been engaging with CRIL, Network Rail, Midlands Connect, East Midlands Railway, Siemens Mobility, the East Midlands combined county authority and the National Forest. I have had numerous meetings with Ministers in the Department for Transport, and have mentioned the Ivanhoe line whenever possible here and in the main Chamber.

North West Leicestershire has so much potential, and we have to make it count. We sit in the heart of the UK, with great people, an ever-evolving community, tons of aspiration and an industrial past we are proud of. We have a real sense of looking forward. Significant levels of investment in UK logistics have not gone hand in hand with as much infrastructure investment as our community needs. In fact, the line would go through the golden triangle freight logistics area, which has the most intense concentration of warehousing in the country, so we should take the opportunity to improve public transport to this important employment hub.

North West Leicestershire is in some ways a great set of contradictions. We have an international airport, yet poor public transport. We have the East Midlands rail freight terminal, yet no passenger rail. We have great road networks, yet local roads have been poorly invested in. We are enhancing our environment, with the National Forest planting more greenery and trees to tackle carbon emissions, but we are cancelling that out because have only the car as an option. Siemens Mobility, the train signalling company, is based in my constituency, yet none of its staff can get to work on the train.

We have a line, and we have the stations reserved in the local plan. The delivery from start to finish would be very short. The biggest contradiction is that we have gone back on public transport connectivity since the ’60s while growing exponentially. The reopening of the Ivanhoe line would be beneficial to investment and growth in public transport, but I also recognise that we have to prepare for the population growth that is already contained in the local plan, quite apart from the new growth in progress.

I promised my constituents that I would continue to push for the rightful restoration of the Ivanhoe line all the way from Burton to Leicester and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for bringing forward this important debate on transport in the midlands—which is one of my favourite subjects, so I had to be here for it. I represent North West Leicestershire, so my focus will inevitably be on the east midlands.

My constituency is at the heart of the national forest, and East Midlands airport rests at the very top of it. However, in tune with other semi-rural constituencies, we have no passenger rail at all, and a pretty poor level of bus connectivity. As North West Leicestershire is also not in the East Midlands combined county authority, it will not directly benefit from the financial settlement allocated to the city regions, so I would welcome the Minister’s view on how the areas within the midlands that are not covered by devolution can get their fair share of transport connectivity.

Before I came to this place I sat on the highways and transport committee at Leicestershire county council. I know at first hand how poor transport funding has been under the last Conservative Government, including in Leicestershire, with 62% of services being cut in my constituency alone. As a county councillor, I lost count of the number of notifications of bus service changes I received, which included cuts. Bit by bit, those changes cut off public transport access to healthcare, college, work and leisure.

Through new funding, thanks to our Government and our clear commitment to public services, we can restore some of that, although it can be frustratingly difficult to liaise with our county colleagues to get the changes in services that our communities desperately need. It still feels disjointed and patchy, and I know the issue will not be solved overnight.

In 2023-24, the east midlands had the lowest transport spending per head of the population at just £368 per person, compared with the UK average spend of £687 and the London spend of £1,313. Between 2019 and 2024, research shows that the east midlands received £10.8 billion less in funding than it would if it had been allocated just at the average, not at the London level.

[Catherine Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is very effectively making an important point. As she has set out, between 2019 and 2024, the Conservative Government gave the east midlands a quarter of the funding that they gave to London and half of what they gave to England on average, and I know that her area does not benefit from the £2 billion that our brilliant East Midlands Mayor Claire has secured for transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that if our regional transport was more equal, it would create more prosperity, economic growth, social equality and regional development?

[Amanda Hack]

The economic benefit of effective and connected transport is there for us to see. Having never worked in London before, it always surprises me how easy it is to get to places—if a bus or train gets cancelled, it is fine, because there is one five minutes away. If a bus gets cancelled in my constituency, people need to get a taxi or they will not get home. That is the inequality that we see.

What does this issue mean in my constituency? Around 87.4% of households in North West Leicestershire have access to one car or van, compared with 61% in Manchester and 22% here in London. With the lack of available and reliable public transport, more people are forced to rely on personal transport, thereby increasing the volume of cars and vans on our roads. That also has a devastating impact.

Some 80% of east midlands commuters drive, and the average number of rail journeys per resident is just seven per year, which is half the rate of the west midlands and a third of the east of England. In fact, East Midlands airport has the highest proportion of travellers getting there by car, at 91%, which is mainly down to it having the lowest connectivity of all airports across the UK. We have to think about transport connectivity—railways, buses—and how we get to our airports.

North West Leicestershire has not had a passenger rail service since the Ivanhoe line closed there in the ’60s. My constituency relies heavily on buses, but I will say much more about the Ivanhoe line next week in a dedicated debate on the subject.

I have done a little research on how my constituents get to their nearest train station. From Coalville, the station is about 12 miles away, and it would take an hour on public transport to get to Loughborough or Leicester—far too long; it would be about 30 minutes by car. It would also take about an hour to get from Ashby-de-la-Zouch to Burton train station, but that would include more than one bus, which could be problematic for travellers, who are really reluctant to take multi-bus journeys because one of the buses might fail to come. Residents in Kegworth have the most convenient public transport journey to a train station—to Loughborough, which takes just 36 minutes. However, East Midlands Parkway train station is only a few minutes by car.

We are massively underserved as a result of this connection problem between rail and buses. The fact is that my constituents have to make ridiculous, non-efficient journeys just to get where they need to be. I would welcome the Minister’s view on how the difficulties of connecting communities are a real barrier to growth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) mentioned in her intervention.

My constituents tell me that they are driving to get to the train station anyway, often in the wrong direction, so they might as well continue by car to their destination and avoid getting on the train altogether. That means more cars on our roads and more pressure on our road network.

Obviously, I have given simple examples, but I want to think about what the situation means for my constituents when they are trying to get to work, school or hospital. Accessible, efficient, reliable public transport should not be a luxury; it should not be a postcode lottery, but that is what it seems to be. When I meet young people across my constituency, they tell me that the public transport situation is a huge barrier to getting the training opportunities—the apprenticeships and classes—that they want and deserve.

Recently, a resident of Ashby-de-la-Zouch got in touch about their daughter’s problems in getting to college in Loughborough. I thought it would be useful to share their words:

“The number of buses are extremely limited and this results in her leaving the house at 06.30 am and not returning until 7 pm with several hours waiting in and around bus stops”

—for a girl of 16, that is not ideal.

“Secondly, the service has on multiple occasions failed to turn up and left her in Loughborough without a way of getting home other than hoping my wife or myself are able to pick her up.”

When a young person is trying their best to get their life on track, the very last thing we should be doing is putting additional hurdles in front of them. Yet for too many, transport—or the lack of it—becomes a deciding factor in whether they can engage in their chosen education at all.

If we get transport connectivity right, the impact on individuals, families and the long-term prosperity of our regions can be transformational. I cannot continue to accept a situation in which my constituency has an international airport yet has no passenger rail and such poor bus services.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Order. I warn hon. Members that there may be a vote soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend is right to recognise the historic levels of funding going into local areas, which are almost doubling by the end of this Parliament. We increased funding this year from £1.1 billion to £1.6 billion, which came with conditions about publishing transparency reports on their websites. The multi-year funding that we have announced will also come with some conditions and incentives, to make sure that we turn the attention of local authorities from just patching those potholes—going back to fill them again and again is not a good use of taxpayers’ money—to preventing them from forming in the first place and ensuring that we fully resurface roads. That accountability will be there for all our constituents to see where the council is or is not doing its job. If it does not spend the money, we will pass it on to a local authority that will.

To come back to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), we are providing the East Midlands combined county authority with £2 billion through the transport for city regions fund, with the east midlands receiving £450 million from the local transport block. That means the east midlands will receive significantly more local transport funding per head than the England average in the coming years—£561 per person against an average of £391.

[Amanda Hack]

I want to reflect on those numbers. The east midlands mayoralty is not the east midlands. It covers only Derbyshire, Derby, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. How does the rest of the east midlands fare in terms of funding?

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend jumps ahead of my next comment. The Department is providing all local transport authorities with a multi-year consolidated funding settlement, delivering on our commitments in the English Devolution White Paper to simplify funding. Leicestershire county council will be allocated £22.5 million in local authority bus grants over the next few years, in addition to the £8.2 million it received in 2025-26. It is then for her local authority, which I appreciate is a Reform council, to use that funding to the best effect. She touched on bus services. What I would politely say to her local authority is that it has the funding and the powers—it should get on with the job.

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for her comments on Aldridge station. She is a former Minister of State in the Department for Transport. Mayor Andy Street failed to use the £1.05 billion allocated to him in 2022 to fully develop designs for Aldridge station when he had the chance. This Government have allocated a record £2.4 billion in transport for city regions funding for the West Midlands combined authority.

Airport Drop-off Charges

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate, which holds such importance for my constituents.

My constituency is proud to be the home of East Midlands airport—part of the Manchester Airport Group —from where about 4 million people fly each year. Before I focus on the drop-off charges at the airport, it is important to understand them in the context of a wider local problem. The closest train station to East Midlands airport is East Midlands Parkway, which is a 10-minute drive away. The only bus service from East Midlands Parkway is dial-a-ride only—that is, it is an on-demand service, not even a regular bus service.

For those who might not have experienced an on-demand service, a passenger basically rocks up at the train station and rings a number, and there might be a bus available. That is how it operates. It is very good, but the reality is that when someone is going through the stressful scenario of going on holiday with a couple of kids in tow, they are going to get a taxi. The taxi will have to use the rapid drop-off option, so despite travelling via public transport, the passenger will still have to pay the drop-off charge to get to the airport.

Some 91% of travellers to East Midlands airport travel by car, leaving just 9% travelling by public transport—a proportion so much lower than for every other passenger airport in the country. The drop-off charges seem so unfair because our choices to get to airports are pretty limited. People are also parking in villages near the airport, including in Leicestershire. I was chatting to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) yesterday, and he said it was a problem in his constituency too. Essentially, to avoid parking at the airport for any length of time, people will get a taxi from a village outside the airport and make their way there, thereby avoiding the weekly charges. Given that there are hardly any alternatives to travelling by car to the airport, we need to look at the infrastructure around our airports, as people feel they have no choice but to drive or get a family member to drop them off.

Raising drop-off prices, as we have seen many airports doing, does not mean that my constituents or others who travel to East Midlands airport are suddenly able to magic up a bus or train to get them there. People want the convenience of being dropped off close to the departure gate, and airports know that. Let’s face it: it is a cash cow. It is an easy way to make money. As has been stated, East Midlands airport has recently been made barrierless, which means that someone can only pay online or by using an automated phoneline by midnight the following day. When dropping someone off early in the morning or late at night, it can be really easy to forget. I am sure we all have examples of that.

As the airport is in my constituency, I get a lot of casework on this matter that I then field to other MPs, because it generally does not come from my constituents. I was contacted by someone who returned home just after midnight, having dropped off a loved one at East Midlands airport, and they had just 24 hours to pay. Thankfully, they remembered, but they felt it was so unfair that they had such a short time to pay. It is possible to set up an account to take automatic payment, but that simply will not be accessible to all, and setting up an auto-payment for a single or twice-yearly event is not worth while.

What other service operates a system in which it is impossible to pay at the point of sale? It feels like the system is set up in the hope that people will forget, with fines of £100 if it slips their mind—although, of course, there are no reminders. The fine is reduced only if it is paid within 14 days. Coincidentally, 14 days is the length of many family holidays, which is ironic.

I have raised the issue directly with the airport and requested that a pay terminal or a simple QR code be put in the terminal building. That request was refused, based on fraud issues. Yet such options are common practice. Just yesterday I used the QR code at my local train station—which happens to be operated by the very same parking company. If the company can do that at Leicester train station, it could do it at East Midlands airport with no trouble. That is where regulation could bring merit, with clearer payment methods, reminders and limits on parking charges—not radical ideas, just basic consumer protections.

I wrote to APCOA parking to request data on the number of parking charge notices issued prior to and after the introduction of the new system at East Midlands airport. I was refused that data, which is not a good sign. Companies that are privately fining individuals should be subject to data-access rights relating to the schemes they operate. Ultimately, the current system of airport drop-off charges is unfair. When we factor in inadequate transport infrastructure, the case for regulation becomes even stronger.

A50/A500 Corridor

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Collier]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has been a great champion for improvements alongside me. Congestion around Uttoxeter, Blythe Bridge and Sudbury undermines productivity and growth and turns commutes into nightmares. Queues stretch for miles at peak hours, average speeds fall below 20 mph and local roads bear the pressure of diverted traffic. My constituents experience that on a daily basis.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important Adjournment debate. I was recently contacted by a constituent who regularly travels between Castle Donington and Littleover. They say that every evening last year, the A50 was either closed or restricted, or the access slip roads were closed. Does my hon. Friend agree that everything possible needs to be done to improve this part of the vital network for the east midlands as well as his constituency?

[Jacob Collier]

My hon. Friend has made the case that this investment would benefit not just the people of Staffordshire, but the people of east Staffordshire and the wider midlands.

I hope that the Government will commit to the A50/A500 being part of the next road investment strategy in March 2026. The Treasury has already set aside £24 billion of capital funding for that programme, and my purpose this evening is clear: to ensure that the A50/A500 is placed within that document, and that the Department for Transport commits to funding the next stage of upgrades through RIS3.

Midlands Connect, which has led the technical work on this route, has produced powerful evidence of what those upgrades could achieve. Its latest assessment shows that by 2031, improvements along the A50 could create more than 2,000 jobs across Staffordshire and generate £116 million for the local economy.

Road and Rail Projects

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

With respect to HS2, one of the benefits is that when the high-speed trains move on to new lines, we will be able to improve other regional services on the existing line. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman may feel that the HS2 line has limited value to his constituents at the moment, getting it up and running will open up other options for rail travel moving forward.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for the significant investment in transport across the UK. The confirmation of funding for the A511 corridor in the east midlands is extremely welcome. For far too long, communities such as mine have been overlooked by the previous Government for infrastructure investment where we have had lots of housing growth. This funding marks a turning point, accelerating opportunity and connecting our community. Can the Secretary of State assure me that every part of my constituency will see and feel the full economic benefits of this vital investment?

[Heidi Alexander]

Our local roads have a key role to play in driving growth across the UK and across the area my hon. Friend represents. They will allow people to access new opportunities and a higher quality of life wherever they choose. I am pleased to confirm that the scheme in her constituency is one of 28 that the Government have secured funding for and will be going ahead.

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

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steff Aquarone]

I support clause 38, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the provision of bus services to villages in England within two years of the Act being passed. Members will have heard many of my points about the clause in previous speeches, including on amendment 71, which I have pressed to a vote already, but the clause as a whole is not only sensible but essential. I am very pleased that those in the other place added it to the Bill and I hope it will be retained today.

In North Norfolk I have more than 100 villages and hamlets. From Alby and Antingham to Wiveton, Wickmere and Worstead, they are all treasured communities but face challenges with rural transport. Too often, rural communities are treated as an afterthought when it comes to public transport planning. I know this at first hand and my constituents experience it day in and day out. I am sorry to say that the last Government did not do enough in the years that they had to tackle the issues that rural communities face. It is time we stepped up to the challenge of rural mobility.

Villages across England have been cut off by decades of under-investment, deregulation and short-term decision making. The clause acknowledges that rural isolation is not a minor inconvenience, but a daily barrier to work and education, healthcare and opportunity more broadly. The clause rightly demands that the Government take stock of the current state of rural bus provision. It requires an assessment of how many villages are being served by regular bus routes, and it asks important questions about who is being affected—which demographics, which regions and which types of communities are being left behind.

As I said when speaking to my amendments and new clauses on rural bus hubs, having a service to every village might not be the right approach for every area. In many places, moving towards a hub-and-spoke model might be the best course of action. This review would help to identify that and allow us to better understand the current state of play and what steps can be taken to improve the situation.

The clause also rightly mandates consultation with key stakeholders—local councils and transport authorities —who are best placed to speak to the lived reality of rural transport as currently delivered. Without proper scrutiny and transparency, bus networks in rural areas will continue to wither. This review clause is a modest but vital safeguard that ensures we do not look the other way while whole communities are cut off.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long championed the rights of rural communities to fair access to transport. From Cumbria to Cornwall and Norfolk to Newton Abbot, we are fighting for cut-off communities to finally have their challenges heard and their needs addressed. Clause 38 speaks directly to that principle and I urge colleagues across the Committee to support its inclusion in the Bill.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I want to speak in support of clause 38. As a representative of a rural constituency, public transport is one of the things mentioned most frequently when I speak to local people on the doorstep or at events. Car and van ownership in North West Leicestershire is higher than the national average, partly due to the lack of public transport options, including bus and rail.

In the light of the support given to expand local services and our ambition in government, Leicestershire has had an additional £8 million and we are starting to see a change, with bus services no longer being reviewed, reconsidered and cut, but being reviewed with a view to expansion. Bus services are important. People talk about services that have been withdrawn; they feel the loss of service.

As transport is so important, one of the first things I did after I was elected was undertake a local transport survey, and 72% of respondents said that the reason they do not use buses is their frequency and the lack of service and choice. I am sure that the challenge is felt in other constituencies, but local people in my constituency said that buses are infrequent, unreliable, poorly timed and often do not connect towns and villages effectively. That was most commonly felt in Moira, Diseworth, Heather, Ibstock, Ravenstone, Castle Donington, Kegworth and Breedon.

People also said that services stop too early, with no evening or Sunday options, impacting leisure and work. One disabled passenger told me that they can catch a bus to work from Monday to Saturday but cannot be available to work on a Sunday owing to the lack of a Sunday service. Public transport rarely facilitates straightforward journeys to colleges, workplaces or local amenities.

People also said that they needed increased frequency, reliability and coverage, especially in our villages but also in new housing areas. A villager in Belton told me that buses can be unreliable. That has put them off using the service, particularly because, the last time they risked it, they ended up stranded and had to get a taxi home. That happens even in our larger conurbations, where just two weeks ago a resident told me they had to wait for more than an hour for the next bus because the one they had planned to catch simply did not turn up.

Clause 38 provides the opportunity to review and assess the challenges to local services, and to make sure that our ambition reaches all parts of communities, including villages.

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

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Clause 14 is so important, because it is about socially necessary routes—those that are critical to the community. It explicitly includes employment and, as the Minister conceded last week, also catches things such as hospital appointments, GP appointments and education.

Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister has hidden behind localism. Now, I am a Liberal, so subsidiarity is part of my DNA; I believe in devolving power, but national Government must not wash their hands of their responsibilities. It is reminiscent of the old Conservative trick from the Thatcher era, of Government distancing themselves from their responsibilities. Funding is crucial, but as we heard in the debate last week on amendment 54, the Minister says it is not for Government to decide what to do with it. They have given a bit of money, and now it will be up to local authorities.

The Minister even quoted other Tory lines about how there is no “magic money tree”, and I agree—there is not. So we need growth. We do not get growth by wishing on a star, taxing jobs by increasing employer’s national insurance contributions, or tying ourselves in knots with red lines over Europe rather than meaningfully re-engaging with the EU customs union. That is the way to grow the economy; that is the way we pay for these things. The Government cannot talk about growth, do nothing about it, and say to local authorities, “We have given you almost a billion pounds, and you can now go and sort out buses,” because local authorities do not have the finances.

I am straying from the Bill. I have thus far referenced the omissions from the Bill, such as money. By inserting subsections (5) and (6), the House of Lords sought to focus attention on the Government’s commissions—namely, the end of the £2 fare cap, and the disastrous effect of hiking employer’s NI costs on the provision of special educational needs and disabilities bus transport. The Government’s decision to table an amendment removing those subsections is plainly a mistake, one that threatens to undo the constructive and necessary work undertaken in the Lords. The provisions were added to ensure that Ministers are held accountable for the consequences of their decisions—specifically, the rise in national insurance contributions and the short-sighted decision to increase the cap on bus fares.

As the National Audit Office made clear in its report published last Friday, bus services are lifelines, not luxuries. They are essential for the young, for older people, for households without a car, and for those on the lowest incomes. The Government’s decision to scrap the £2 fare cap is not just wrong, but an outrage. It is a direct hit to the most vulnerable. The NAO report revealed that the lowest-income households—those in the bottom 20%—take more bus journeys on average than any other income group, at 42 journeys per household per year. Those are essential journeys to work, school, the shops or the doctor. Removing the fare cap would mean those people—the poorest in our society—paying more to do the basics of daily life. Subsection (5) rightly sought to introduce a review to assess the impact of increasing the fare cap on people’s ability to access socially necessary routes. Scrapping the review removes transparency, accountability and the Government’s responsibility to understand how their decisions impact real lives.

The same principle applies to subsection (6), which calls for an assessment of the impact of changes to national insurance on SEND transport. Transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities is not a side issue; it is central to an inclusive, accessible education system. Without that form of transport, many children cannot get to school. Increasing employer’s NI contributions risks undermining the viability of the services, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made clear last week. The operators who run them are under increasing financial pressure. Without proper assessment and oversight, we risk sleepwalking into a situation where routes are cut, service levels fall, and SEND pupils are left without reliable transport. That would be an unforgivable failure of not just policy, but basic fairness.

Including a requirement to review the impact does not bind the Government’s hands; it simply asks them to look at the evidence, consider the consequences of their actions, and take responsible steps to mitigate harm where needed. We must protect these services for their users and uphold the principle that no one should be left behind due to financial pressures beyond their control. I urge the Government to reconsider and not shy away from scrutiny. They should own their decisions and be prepared to measure their impact. That is what responsible government demands.

Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

We are all here and have all stayed late because we are the voices of the people we represent, and clearly they are all telling us the same thing. It falls to the Government to do something about the challenges we are raising tonight.

Let me quickly mention two or three other places, because I love my constituents, but they are jealous—I know that I will get grief if I neglect to mention places such as Fleet Street in Bishop Auckland, where there are just no road markings at a four-way stop and people do not know who to give way to. That is a regular source of concern for parents in the Cockton Hill area.

I will mention Stanley Crook and a lot of the hilltop villages where the traffic just does not want to slow down as people pursue their journey through residential areas. Let me also mention Kinninvie, where two years ago a car crashed into someone’s dining room—the family was lucky not to be in the dining room at the time. That is an area where for donkey’s years people have said it is a dangerous junction. People knew that, and eventually a serious accident happened.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this really important debate to the House. In my community there is an area called Griffydam, and residents there have been trying for years and years to have something happen to their local community. One of the interesting things is the benchmarks—local knowledge goes over and above those. Not a lot of the accidents get reported nowadays. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look at local knowledge, which goes much further than reported accidents and incidents?

[Sam Rushworth]

That is an excellent point about local knowledge. I think back to High Grange, which I talked about, where only the local people understand the importance of the allotments and the park and the difficulty of crossing the road. Both those places are just outside the village, on the other side of the main road.

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

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

It may be tempting to think that the shadow Minister was particularly detailed, lengthy and comprehensive in his earlier contribution, but from where I was sitting, he was all too brief. There were a great range of issues that he failed to address, and I feel it is my role to address them.

Before that, I will agree with what the hon. Member for North Norfolk said about different companies providing services to similar or the same destinations, where using one service in one direction means that another service in the other direction cannot be used. Unfortunately, the Government are currently unpersuaded that that is a problem for ferry services to the Isle of Wight, which is a shame, given that the Government—I agree with them on this—are reforming public transport. I will, however, save that debate for another time.

It was good to hear some genuine philosophical disagreement between the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. I am sure that the hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of members of the public listening to this Bill Committee will have noticed that it was done in a polite and respectful way. I think the shadow Minister almost went too far at one stage, and I was nudging the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to intervene—even though she is a Green MP and I am a Conservative—because I think she missed an opportunity to fight back, but maybe she will in a later sitting.

I will make a few brief points on the principle, but they are anchored in amendments 46 and 50. They concern the idea that assessing whether a new proposed service will have an adverse effect on a current local service is slightly academic, contested and possibly futile, especially if we add in the possibility that, although the analysis and conclusion may have been done in good faith, they will not translate when a service is brought into effect and the market is tested.

I therefore completely support the shadow Minister’s amendments seeking to get rid of the analysis of an adverse effect. It is entirely possible that an element of the service could be adversely affected by the introduction of a new service. To some people, that is a net gain; to others, it is a net loss. Who is to say which of those competing groups is more important than the other?

I have a completely hypothetical example. The local economy of my constituency is heavily reliant on tourism, but people also use buses to get to work and my older constituents rely on them for their daily movements, such as going shopping, visiting friends or going to appointments, including at the hospital. We could end up with a bus franchising proposal that has a net positive effect on moving visitors around between the key tourist areas. That may have an overall positive effect on the economy—on paper and maybe in reality—and that effect may trickle down and raise the prosperity of the whole area. However, that proposal could also have a negative effect on the older population, who need bus services to move around year in, year out. They do not need to travel to the key hotspots that drive the tourist economy, but to GP practices and shopping areas, and not tourist shopping areas but those that provide essential goods for residents, particularly older residents.

That example poses a very legitimate question: is it more important to provide a service that leads to a general raising of the economy and wellbeing by improving tourism, which some might say has a trickle-down effect on everyone, including older residents, or is it better to protect people who are more vulnerable and who have fewer opportunities, if any, to use a different mode of transport? People could come to fair but different conclusions about that.

Whether a proposed new service will have an adverse effect on a local service is an unanswerable question, and it cannot be fitted into an assessment. If an assessment can be made at all, it will be entirely reliant on subjective, statist, planned, expert-led analysis. One can only hope that a conclusion drawn from that analysis would translate into the real world and be correct, but it is entirely possible that it would not.

[Amanda Hack]

The hon. Gentleman’s analogy ignores the passenger transport strategies that local government should already be undertaking, and the fact that local government already does a large piece of work to make sure that those strategies are relevant to the local economy. The Bill gives local government the opportunity to get the funding—that has not been mentioned—to start making bus services feel like what the local population and economy actually need.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Lady, but of course, it is more complex than that. Obviously, a local strategy will and should sit at the heart of any decision making, but there are great challenges in assessing whether a new service is fundamentally having an adverse effect on an existing service. Even approaching it in that way slightly negates the idea of holistic planning—rather than considering whether a new service conflicts with an existing service, we should be treating them both as one service.

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

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Amanda Hack Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It has been said by the Secretary of State and echoed across the Chamber that the UK has a world-class aviation sector that is key to growth in our economy. I welcome the introduction of the Bill as it will provide certainty for producers of sustainable aviation fuel, allowing the sector to grow and invest.

We all know the benefits that airports have for our communities, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) will welcome the Chancellor’s investment in Doncaster Sheffield. When we think about airports, we may automatically think about Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester. However, as East Midlands airport is in my constituency of North West Leicestershire, it will be no surprise to anyone here that that is the airport I automatically think about.

The airport provides huge benefits to my local economy, as well as making an important contribution to the wider UK economy. As the second largest air freight terminal in the UK, East Midlands serves as the hub for DHL, UPS, FedEx and Royal Mail. This growth is backed by investment in the nearby east midlands rail hub, which transports our goods from port to port. In addition, the airport serves as a base for RVL, a specialist airline that provides support to the Environment Agency and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The transition to sustainable aviation fuel is going to be key if those organisations are to grasp the nettle on net zero.

My airport also serves millions of passengers every year, with the likes of Jet2, easyJet and Tui operating out of it, supporting my constituents and those from those across the midlands to take a well-deserved holiday. Having met representatives of Jet2 recently, I know that there is huge support for the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism, and it will be interesting to hear more about the transitional arrangements to ensure that airlines such as Jet2 have the fuel they need to decarbonise and meet the mandated mix over the short term, as well as to see the SAF industry develop for the future.

As East Midlands airport’s thriving cargo facility extends to meet the demands of exporters from across the UK, cutting greenhouse gas emissions via sustainable aviation fuel will not only have significant benefits for net zero, but will put an estimated £5 billion a year back into our economy by 2050. It will also create additional jobs, securing a long-term sustainable future for the industry. It also puts forward a clear commitment to jobs at the airport, which will benefit my constituents and those of neighbouring MPs in the east midlands. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that North West Leicestershire will see the full strength of these training and work opportunities when they come about, because we have a lot to offer.

I know that the measures in this Bill, alongside the work announced to modernise airspace, will be welcomed by the sector. May I take this opportunity to invite the Minister to the 60th birthday party of East Midlands airport on 21 July?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I notice that that was an exclusive invitation just to the Minister.