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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Lady mentioned this to me a couple of days ago when I bumped into her, but I regret to inform her that the Department does not currently have any plans to take forward a development link between Bishops Lydeard and Taunton. I have, however, asked officials to reach out to those at the local authority to discuss the merits of the scheme.

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

In the ’60s, North West Leicestershire lost its only passenger rail service, the Ivanhoe line. In 2025, my constituents still have no direct access to the rail line. Increasing connectivity of railways is crucial to securing economic growth. Will the Minister share the Department’s plans to improve access to passenger rail for communities with no current access?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

Taxi Licensing: Deregulation Act 2015

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister will address those concerns in his closing remarks.

I have sought this debate to bring attention to the growing dangers fostered under the current system. The 2015 Act has opened a loophole, allowing private hire drivers to license their vehicle in district authorities far from where they operate. In practice, this means that drivers are no longer bound by local standards. Instead, they can shop around for the cheapest licence anywhere in the country, then return to work wherever they choose. Harlow has long had the gold standard for its taxi services—standards that our local drivers proudly meet. Why is that? It is because they know, as I do, that nothing is more important than the safety of their passengers.

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

Taxi licensing enforcement is funded by licence fees. However, with the ongoing race to the bottom for licence issuing standards, local authorities are unable to enforce externally issued licences. Any measure to allow local authorities to enforce would simply stretch enforcement budgets beyond sustainability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution has to be guided by the principle that drivers should operate in the areas in which they are licensed?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind Members that interventions should be short.