Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate and introducing it so very well.

In Burnham-on-Sea, we have a fantastic coastguard team and rescue officers. They are dedicated volunteers who respond to incidents along one of the most challenging stretches of coastline in the country. The Bristol channel has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, and the risks are very real. When people get into difficulty, it is these volunteers who respond, often within minutes. Following the recent court ruling and changes to policy, many of those volunteers now face losing the limited financial compensation that they receive in return for their valuable efforts. I have spoken to members of the Burnham-on-Sea coastguard team, who are deeply concerned about what that means for their future involvement.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Member talks about the responsibilities. Does he agree with what the coastguard in South Queensferry, in my area, has said—that at the stroke of a pen, the MCA has dispensed with all responsibilities to the CROs and put them in a vulnerable position?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I agree with the hon. Lady: I think those volunteers have been poorly treated.

The payments were never a salary, but they made it possible for people to continue volunteering. One officer of many years, who shared his thoughts with me, said:

“Call Outs never come at a ‘convenient’ time. The money we earn would never replace the time lost, but it does soften the blow.”

It is often said that rescue officers do not volunteer for financial reward but out of a strong sense of duty and community spirit. However, the modest compensation recognised the very real costs involved: travel, time away from work and the disruption to family life.

I understand that the MCA must operate within the law, and that the Court of Appeal ruling has created a complex situation. It is, though, sad to see these committed volunteers penalised as they have been. I urge the Government to look at what they can do to continue supporting our volunteer coastguards and would be grateful if the Minister addressed these questions when he sums up. What assessment has been made of the impact on recruitment and retention? In constituencies such as mine, a reduction in volunteer numbers would have a direct impact on public safety. Is the Minister satisfied with the MCA’s engagement with volunteer coastguard teams? I end by thanking the coastguard volunteers in Burnham-on-Sea and across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I, too, want to see more cycling in London, and in towns and cities across the UK. Dockless cycles are one way to support that aim. We want to empower local leaders to shape shared cycle schemes so that they can deliver the greatest possible benefits and mitigate any possible issues. We will introduce local licensing regulations and guidance in the coming months.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

T2. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s decision to discontinue hourly payments to volunteer rescue coastguards threatens the safety of Burnham-on-Sea in my constituency and coastal communities around the country. It is inevitable that fewer people will be able to volunteer to assist the coastguard if they cannot be reimbursed for time lost off work. The Minister will be aware that this decision follows a recent Court of Appeal case, so what steps will he take to ensure that the judgment does not lead to a reduction in the number of willing volunteers who keep our coast safe for residents and tourists?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the Court of Appeal’s judgment made clear that the current arrangements could not continue, but we are committed to protecting volunteers who preserve a valuable form of public service. The revised model protects choice, flexibility and the ability for people to serve alongside their primary employment. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and Members across the House to ensure that we continue to have volunteers at the heart of our seafaring nation.

Railways Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

Finally, we need a great British spruce-up of all our stations. As we roll out GBR, I want everything to look really good at our stations. Also, I have been reassured by my conversations with the Rail Minister about names on trains. I was worried, as we painted them all red, white and blue, that the names that people have chosen and which show pride in place might disappear—or, indeed, that we might not get any new ones. I hope the Minister will join my campaign to get the next train painted red, white and blue in my area named Q Central, after the fantastic women who were part of that organisation during world war two, which was the communications hub for the whole of the UK. It would be fantastic if the first GBR-branded train bore that name.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

A modern railway system should enable everyone, regardless of their mobility, to travel safely, independently and with dignity. That is why new clause 30, which would place a duty upon Great British Railways to establish an accessible rail strategy, is so important. If the railways are to be nationalised and brought together, we should take that opportunity to ensure that the new body takes a strategic approach to make sure rail travel becomes more accessible for all our constituents.

I have two stations in my constituency, Bridgwater and Highbridge, neither of which is fully accessible. At neither station is it possible for a passenger with poor mobility to cross from one platform to the other without leaving the station and taking a circuitous route that involves crossing a road. That is not only inconvenient but unsafe.

I witnessed that for myself on a recent visit to Highbridge station when, believe it or not, I used a mobility scooter and attempted the journey that many disabled passengers are forced to take. The experience was difficult and, frankly, alarming—especially for anyone who happened to see me. The route included uneven pavements, awkward navigation and a crossing over a railway bridge. It required time, effort and confidence that not every passenger can reasonably be expected to have. This is not just about fairness; with improved accessibility, journeys become smoother, connections are easier and delays caused by limited access are reduced.

Although I welcome the Department for Transport’s Access for All scheme, it is disappointing that neither Highbridge nor Bridgwater stations are currently on track to receive support. I will continue to work with Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge town council to resolve the issue at Highbridge. We have met Network Rail and Great Western Railway to raise those concerns directly, and although there is a recognition that change is needed, it must be matched with action.

I support new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which would lay down key performance indicators for Great British Railways. Clear, measurable targets should guide how we assess accessibility and service quality. Whether it is step-free access, reduced transfer times or improved passenger satisfaction, such benchmarks matter and, crucially, they must be followed up on with real accountability.

Amendment 157, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, serves a similar purpose, ensuring that Great British Railways is duty-bound to promote passenger and economic growth, and increase investment. In particular, new paragraph (j) would make GBR duty-bound

“to remove or reduce the need for public subsidy of the railways”.

We have not heard from the Minister about getting good value for money for the taxpayer. I am concerned that, over time, Great British Railways will transform into another British Rail: a public corporation beholden to the unions, soaking up ever greater amounts of taxpayers’ money, and more focused on keeping Eddie Dempsey and the RMT satisfied than its customers.

I want a better-run, more efficient and more productive railway for my constituents; one that will be used and enjoyed by the greatest number of people; and one that does not cost the taxpayer a fortune.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

This is a very significant piece of legislation. I have tabled a number of amendments that I believe would strengthen it even further, but in the time available I will focus on the issue that is without doubt the top priority for my constituents when it comes to rail reform: cutting fares, through amendment 32.

Thirty years of the railways being run for shareholder profit has left British commuters with some of the highest fares in Europe and taxpayers shelling out more in subsidies than it cost to run a public service for the pleasure. It really was the worst of all worlds. When something basic that people need to live their daily lives, such as getting to work or school, visiting family or seeing a doctor, is treated as a commercial enterprise, what should be a service that facilitates our lives degenerates into a way of squeezing as much profit out of people as possible. When people are more or less turned into human cash machines just to get around, it is no wonder that extortionate fares put so many people off using the railways altogether, and I am sure that we have all seen the mind-numbingly bonkers stories of instances where it has been cheaper to fly to Europe than to get a train from London to one of our great northern cities.

This is what happens when essential public transport is handed over to private capital in a sector where real competition cannot function. For too long, our ability to get around reliably and affordably has come second to extracting profit for shareholders, and we see similarly infuriating failures with our water and energy, too. Taking back control of our railways means that we can rewrite the rules so that they work for ordinary people at long last.

I pay credit to the Labour Government for getting us here, but it is now vital that we grasp the opportunities presented by public ownership and use that control to make rail travel more efficient and accessible for all and, crucially—I turn here to my amendment 32—more affordable. Ultimately, we must always keep in mind that it will not wash to just tell the public that nationalisation has made our railways better; they need to feel it in their pocket. The good will for a different way of doing things is undeniable. The public overwhelmingly support the principle of public ownership, but that support will vanish if fares continue to rise.

My amendment proposes a Great British Railways railcard, our own version of the schemes in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. Instead of a morass of wildly varying fares, discounts based specifically on age or other characteristics, and schemes that almost seem deliberately designed by some fiendish mind determined to catch passengers out with validity only on certain routes and at specific times, amendment 32 would give every resident in the UK the right to a railcard offering substantially reduced fares on all rail travel, whatever their age, whatever the route and whatever the time of day.

The best signal we could send to the public as we take over the railways is to use some of the savings from reduced waste and management costs and ending profit flowing out of the system to bring down fares. Seven in 10 Brits—a full 70%—say that the Government should wholly reinvest the savings from ending rail privatisation into cutting fares or opening new rail services.

For decades now, the cost of existence in this country has been killing off hope and the chance to embrace so much of what makes life worth living, with death by a thousand costs. Energy bills are too high, rents are out of control and council tax goes up and up. We have to pull every lever available to us across every part of Government to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, so that everyone can afford the basics of daily life without facing the constant stress and struggle of scraping by. For a key worker who schlepps into work each day on a train, or for a disabled person or pensioner heading for multiple medical appointments a month, knocking 25% or even 50% off their travel costs would make a profound difference to ensuring that the sums added up at the end of the month.

Cheaper fares would benefit millions of people, from those at the sharpest end struggling to put food on the table to the squeezed middle who feel like the helping hand of Government is always reserved for someone else. Rail fares are a crucial way of showing that a Labour Government are on the side of all those people—a benefit to all and a loss to none. I believe that my amendment 32 is a chance to show tangibly, in a way that reaches across generations, geography and traditional political loyalties, that Labour values mean more money in your pocket.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 29 to 32 and amendments 65 to 67, tabled in my name.

My mission is to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving. Rail and transport are important to us: we are situated within the London commuter belt, one 10th of the M25 runs through my constituency, along with the M3, and Egham is five miles from Heathrow. The constituency has companies that were established there because of our transport connections, but also those that deliver services linked to transport, such as logistics.

I have tabled a series of amendments with a view to improving services and transport, not only in my constituency but across the country, as we have heard from colleagues—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for referring to my amendments in their speeches. If the amendments are not pushed to a vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope at the very least that the Minister will be minded to support them, not least in the spirit of improving the rail service across the country, and perhaps to stop having to listen to me rattle on about the level crossings in Egham and other problems in my constituency.

A key strength of the Bill is that, as several Ministers have said, the buck stops with them. I believe the Secretary of State said that the buck stops with her, and when I met Lord Hendy, he said that the buck stops with him. That is a key improvement on the previous system, in which South Western Railway and Network Rail were separate, because we now have a clear person and organisation to go to in order to raise issues or problems about the rail infrastructure in our constituencies.

New clause 29 would give the Secretary of State the power to direct GBR to co-operate with transport authorities to ensure the effective operation of transport networks and to reduce disruption. It does not make sense to have railway engineering works at the same time as local motorways or arterial roads are closed, or to have multiple pockets of utility works around Chertsey, where I live, all taking place at the same time. We need better co-ordination among all bodies to ensure, first, that such works do not all happen at the same time, and secondly, that if a utility company excavates a road to work on the water supply, for example, necessary work to fix the gas or electricity supply or to install broadband takes place at the same time.

New clause 30 relates to an accessible rail strategy. Accessibility issues affect many stations across the country and, frankly, it is scandalous that we have such accessibility problems. In my constituency, there is a focus on the Weybridge lifts, which I have been going on about for many years, as they frequently break down, affecting many passengers across Weybridge. I would like to give a shout-out to Tim Blanchard, a wheelchair user who has led a campaign to try to improve the Weybridge lifts. I am promised that they will be replaced this summer, which will finally see an end to the Weybridge lift saga, but we need more, and I hope the accessible rail strategy will prevent colleagues from having the same problems that we have had locally.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 30. Has he been offered any explanation by the Minister or any part of the ministerial team as to why they will not accept his new clause?

[Dr Spencer]

I hope we will hear from the Minister about why he may or may not accept the new clause—I hope he ends up doing so. Under the previous Government, the Weybridge lifts were notorious in the Department for Transport because of the problems we had—[Interruption.] I see some of my hon. Friends are nodding in agreement. I hope the lifts will lose their notoriety as they are replaced.

New clause 31 sets out requirements for GBR to ensure that any planned changes to passenger services are only made with due consideration of its objectives, and following communication with stakeholders. The new clause relates to an issue in the summer of 2025, when quiet off-peak services—including services from Chertsey between 7.30 am and 9.30 am—were cut during the summer holidays, impacting people’s ability to get to work. Feedback from stakeholders is important because, after all, it is a service for our citizens.

New clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to review the provision of rail infrastructure and services before an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project can be approved. The third runway at Heathrow, which I oppose, looks like it will go ahead. If it does, we need to make sure that we have improvements to our local rail infrastructure, which is already creaking, and particularly to surface-access transport.

That brings me nicely to amendments 65 and 67—which I know we have all been awaiting for—on level crossings. Egham is punished day in, day out by the excessively long down times of its level crossings. This is unacceptable and it needs to change. We need one, if not more, of the level crossings to be removed so that we can get Egham moving. If the third runway goes ahead, that work could be linked to the funding coming out of Heathrow. I am grateful for the minor improvements that will be made by SWR, and for SWR’s engagement on the issue, but I ask the Minister to please help me to get Egham and Runnymede and Weybridge moving.

Railways Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Railways Bill because it prioritises putting the rail system under state control, rather than prioritising passengers and taxpayers, and the effective and efficient running of the railway; because it significantly reduces the role of the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, whose duties it transfers in large part to Great British Railways, with limited rights of appeal against Great British Railways’ decisions, so there will be no proper accountability for the state controlled operator, and this, along with the duty for Great British Railways to prioritise its own services for access to track, will squeeze out popular and well-regarded open access operators, who run services without taxpayer subsidy; because it allows ministers to interfere at will in the running of the railways, for example by setting fares, which will not create a stable environment for private sector investment, with the result that reliance on taxpayer subsidy will increase; and because it will do nothing to grow passenger numbers, or modernise or improve the rail network, and does not include provisions to grow rail freight, which means that the chance to create a thriving railway which delivers economic growth and relies less on taxpayer support will be lost.

Once again, just as with the “Unemployment Bill”, we are gathering to witness a throwback to the 1970s. Despite what the Secretary of State has said, ideology is clearly core to the legislation that she is presenting today, because otherwise she would not be ruling out concessionary schemes like those operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. This time it is our railways that are about to become the latest victim of the Government’s desire not for Government oversight, but for state control. So down the rabbit hole we go.

Despite the warm words of the Secretary of State, there is nothing in the Bill that guarantees growth in our rail network or cheaper fares—in fact, only this morning the Secretary of State refused to say that rail prices would continue to come down—and nothing to guarantee safer, more comfortable journeys on our railways. There are no plans for greater electrification, which is hardly surprising given that the last Conservative Government delivered 20 times as much electrification in our 14 years as Labour achieved in its 13 years. This Government have chosen to betray North Wales again, and have abandoned the midlands main line upgrade as well. Both were important electrification projects.

There is nothing in the Bill that promises better and more consistent internet connections on our trains. Instead, like the card soldiers in “Alice in Wonderland”, the Secretary of State is busy covering up her blunders by painting the roses red. She claims that the new branding is

“not just a paint job”.

Well, what on earth is it? We on these Benches know the answer to that. The Secretary of State is trying to paint over the cracks in a rusting hulk of a Bill that picks the pockets of every other DfT budget, whether it involves our roads or bus users, air passengers and air travel. All of them will be hit with cuts, and also with higher taxes so that the Secretary of State and her civil servants can play trains in the Department of Transport.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

One of the first acts of this Labour Government was to hose money at striking train drivers to buy them off. Does my right hon. Friend share my fear that we will see the cost of a publicly run railway increase dramatically at the cost of taxpayers, and that we will also see services get worse?

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was interesting to hear Government Members saying, “Yes, yes,” while he spoke, because that is exactly what they did: they threw money at the transport unions. It is particularly interesting that the Secretary of State said today that the railways will face a £2 billion-a-year subsidy for the foreseeable future, because that is not what the Government have said in answers to written questions submitted by me or Opposition colleagues.

Let me be absolutely clear that when it comes to Britain’s railways, we are not against the idea of uniting track and train. We would back a model that brings coherence to the system, but not one that weakens scrutiny and clamps down on competition. That is why we have supported a concessionary model, which the Secretary of State will no doubt recall from her time at Transport for London, as will Members from Merseyside and Greater Manchester, where such a model is being proposed. I do not think anybody has ever considered them to be on the far right.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, except to say it is no surprise that our first stand-alone inquiry in the Transport Committee was on buses in England outside of London. That issue affects Members in England from across the House and from all sorts of constituencies.

I speak in support of two amendments that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), myself and others: amendment 66 and new clause 46. Since Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the Transport Committee has published its “Buses connecting communities” report, which focuses on potential solutions to the long-term decline in bus ridership in England outside London. If the Government seek the reversal of bus decline in England, I hope the Minister will support our two amendments. They add to the Bill, because they specifically seek to improve bus services in a way that relying on future guidance may not. They provide the context in which local transport authorities can determine their specific bus provision. Merely devolving greater control to local authorities without any kind of overarching values-based vision will not help in areas that have no interest whatsoever in enhancing and extending their services, and could risk simply entrenching inequality and decline.

New clause 46 seeks to ensure that local transport authorities have a duty to consider funding for service enhancements. It is about

“whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.”

The local transport authority must have regard to six principles. These are the potential for increased ridership; the overall sustainability of the network; the service improvements, particularly the frequency of existing services; extending operating hours; improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; and extending the routes of local services.

We know that progressive local authorities are committed to enhancing and expanding the public transport in their areas, and they do that; we have great examples under Labour mayors in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. Having more people on more buses addresses the policy objectives that they and we in Labour seek to achieve, such as addressing congestion, air pollution, carbon emissions, social and economic isolation, and growth. However, I fear that there are—and that there could be more—local authorities that care little for those important objectives, which are central to this Government’s values.

New clause 46 would therefore bake in a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate funds to improve bus services where it would

“grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network”.

It sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. It would also enable bus user groups and others to measure the intentions of their local transport authorities against those basic objectives.

New clause 46 comes from the Transport Committee’s recommendation 117, which says that the Department should

“require local transport authorities to consider using grant or fare box funding to enhance existing local bus services.”

The need to improve local bus services while growing ridership was a focal point of the evidence received by our Committee.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

On that point, does the hon. Lady accept that increasing the fare cap from £2 to £3 is likely to reduce ridership, whatever is contained in the new clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

Those are exactly the issues that the Bill should and could address if the Minister took the bold steps we are asking of him today. In its passage through the other place, the Bill was clearly strengthened through constructive engagement across the political divide. The Government have been willing to accept sensible proposals from their lordships, so surely there can be no good reason why equally sensible amendments tabled here in the Commons could not be adopted.

One such sensible proposal concerns floating bus stops. Badly designed floating bus stops are a menace to the disabled, old and infirm, and in particular to the visually impaired, which is why my party tabled new clause 17, requiring the Secretary of State not only to conduct a review, but to retrofit all existing floating bus stops where necessary. We support amendments 18 to 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and welcome the Minister’s concessions on the issue.

I will address the three amendments that we continue to press with most conviction before turning to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). Our amendment 10 addresses the scourge of headphone dodgers, which is not a trivial matter. Many passengers feel unsafe or uncomfortable when others play loud content on their devices without headphones, oblivious of those around them. That is not simply an irritation; it causes genuine distress to many trying to travel in relative peace and quiet. More than 75% of those who use public transport stated that it disturbs them, according to a recent Savanta poll. More than 80% of people in a separate YouGov poll agreed that it is unacceptable.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that the provisions apply to people who travel on trains but not on buses? Does he understand why the Government made that distinction?

[Mr Kohler]

I agree entirely. We need a simple rule across all public transport. I also think it is odd that the hon. Gentleman makes that point after his colleagues jeered me when I first raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions a few months ago—but I thank him for his support now. Our amendment 10 would allow local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to prohibit such disruptive antisocial noise. It would be a simple, practical measure that would make bus travel better for everyone. Some have argued that such measures are illiberal, but liberalism—unlike libertarianism—is as concerned with responsibilities as with rights. My right to play loud content on my phone does not preclude my responsibility not to cause someone else unnecessary disturbance by failing to plug in my headphones—after all, that is why they were invented.

When I first raised this issue at PMQs, as I mentioned, the Conservatives and Reform—who are not here, of course—jeered at the suggestion. I cannot say whether the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) or other members of the shadow Transport Front-Bench team joined in that chorus. Although the Prime Minister, in his extremely constructive answer, agreed that it was a serious issue, his Labour colleagues in Committee voted down the amendment, which the Tories also refused to support, consistent with their previous hostility.

In a bizarre volte face, the Conservatives have now tabled an amendment that mirrors our own, and the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, has taken to the airwaves in recent weeks to demand action on headphone dodgers, having miraculously seen the light—or at least heard the noise. Whether that was because of headphone dodgers or Conservative headquarters focus groups, I will leave others to judge. People say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and, despite the Conservatives’ previous mocking and blocking, I am delighted to welcome our Conservative friends to the cause. I ask the Minister to listen again—which would be a damned sight easier to do were amendment 10 accepted and the headphone dodgers were consigned to history.

Without doubt, the Minister will say as he did in Committee, that the Bill already gives local transport authorities the ability to address antisocial behaviour. However, it does not explicitly reference the scourge of auditory disturbance, which is so serious a problem as surely to merit the individual attention that our amendment 10 would provide, empowering local transport authorities to create a bus environment that is safe, civil and comfortable for everyone. If the Government are serious about improving the passenger experience, they, like the late-arriving Conservatives, must surely come around to supporting this sensible Liberal Democratic policy, which according to Savanta is supported by a vast majority of the public; only 13% are opposed.

New clause 1 would reinstate the £2 bus cap. The Government’s recent decision to hike the cap to £3 represents a 50% increase that will drive people off buses and hit the most vulnerable in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

It is time for public transport that puts people before profit. New clause 22 would do just that.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My constituents want the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services to be improved, and that is why I support new clause 34. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for re-tabling it. When the Secretary of State spoke to the Bill on Second Reading, she said that improving bus services underpins the Government’s plan for change. If that is the case, it strikes me as odd that the Government would strip out a new clause made in the other place that specifically stated that that was the purpose of the Bill.

I also support new clause 29, which calls for a review of the provision of bus services to villages in England. There are many villages in my constituency with poor or non-existent bus routes, with particular problems in Spaxton, Enmore, Combwich, Fiddington and Stockland Bristol. These villages find themselves just off the main routes, with the residents left all but stranded, unable even to get to and from Bridgwater unless they have a car.

Even in the villages that do have services, far too often the bus service stops in the early evening. For example, the last No. 16 bus to Langport, which serves Westonzoyland, Middlezoy and Othery, leaves Bridgwater at 5.15 pm. That means not only that the services fail to cater for those who want to travel for leisure, but that many constituents are unable to use buses for commuting because they cannot get home after work.

The review should also consider integration between different modes of transport, which is an important issue for those living in rural areas who need to travel further afield. There has been no usable bus stop at Bridgwater railway station for several years because of road layout problems. It is a relatively small fix, but despite running Somerset council for the last three years, the Lib Dem administration seems unable to fix the problem. We must ensure that the Bill obliges local authorities to act in circumstances such as these, and I hope the review will assist in that.

Another problem my constituents would wish the review to consider is seasonal timetables. I am fortunate to represent a beautiful part of Somerset that attracts large numbers of visitors to both the coast and the Quantock hills. During the summer, demand for buses is understandably higher. What the bus operators seem to forget, however, is that the local resident population relies on bus services continuing all year round. Seasonal buses help those in the north of my constituency commuting to work or college in Weston-super-Mare. The reduced frequency of the No. 20 bus service and the lack of a Sunday service in the winter months mean that fewer people can rely on it. I hope that the Government accept the need for this review and that its results better inform policy when the new franchising is rolled out.

I support amendment 23, which calls for an assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap. The £2 cap was a great achievement of the last Conservative Government, and I was disappointed when the Labour Government decided to scrap it. They increased the amount that all our constituents have to pay by 50% and then proclaimed it a triumph. It sounds like something from Soviet propaganda. We are supposed to welcome this glorious new £3 bus fare as some sort of victory of the proletariat over the forces of capitalism, conveniently forgetting what preceded it. I want to see the £2 cap reinstated, and I hope that the assessment will be the first step toward that.

I want to see bus services improved for my constituents. I believe that amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34 would improve the Bill, and I urge the Minister to accept them.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses.

Within my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) are two sites of the UK’s largest bus manufacturer, Alexander Dennis, which employs around 400 people in Falkirk, with thousands more jobs dependent on the buses created at Falkirk. Manufacturers will welcome new clause 38 and the certainty that it gives by consolidating the provisions of the Bill in Scotland.

Bus manufacturing in Britain has been in difficulty in the past year, partly due to the failure of the previous Government to deliver on their pledge of 4,000 British-built, zero emission buses by 2024. In the end, they supported just over half that number, with just under half being bought from abroad. The Tories funded too few buses and got far too many of them from elsewhere in the world.

Then there was a second policy failure, this time by the Scottish Government’s recent ScotZEB 2 programme, which saw less than one fifth of its buses come from Scotland’s only bus manufacturer and more than three times more come from China. Standing up for Scotland—aye right! Both the Conservatives and the Scottish National party did not take the protection of the domestic bus manufacturing sector seriously, and their failure has jeopardised hundreds of jobs in my constituency and potentially thousands in the supply chain across the country.

All this is to say that the future of a domestic industry that we will need if we want to see a green, clean, safe and effective bus network is contingent on legislation that supports the effective domestic procurement of buses and enables local authorities to make decisions that are right for their area and put the passenger first. The Bill does an excellent job of delivering on those priorities, with a streamlined and more flexible franchising process, stronger powers for grant funding from local authorities, and local authorities able to order in bulk, as in the case of the Bee Network in Manchester.

The Bee Network was bolstered by 254 buses ordered from and built in Falkirk. I will never miss an opportunity to remind the House that the Bee Network’s buses were reliant on the skills and craftmanship of bus manufacturing workers in Falkirk, more than they were reliant on any other place. That is thanks in no small part to the instincts and political foresight of the Mayor of Manchester to work in the national interest—instincts that will be empowered across the country by the provisions in the Bill. If only we had the same foresight from the Scottish Government, who must now deliver on their commitment to a prospective rescue deal for Alexander Dennis workers following the excellent engagement and flexibility of our Transport, Cabinet Office and Scotland Office colleagues.

It is welcome that, following consultation, the ban on registering non-zero emission buses for local services will start no earlier than 2030, as moving too fast on the necessary transition to zero emission vehicles would create a degree of risk for domestic manufacturers in the current market. This year, the industry reported that 35% of ZEV buses purchased in the country by local authorities and operators will come from China, compared with 10% only two years ago. That is an alarming share to have been taken out of our domestic manufacture. We must address that before we throw ourselves head-first or too fast into building an exclusively clean, green and foreign fleet across the country.

While I am sympathetic to the well-intentioned environmentalist calls in amendments 62 and 63 from the Green party to accelerate the non-zero emission buses ban, that approach would risk creating a situation in which authorities and operators would likely be compelled to buy from abroad, further undermining the competitiveness of our domestic industry, on which my community relies. I would more than welcome Green Members’ engagement with the all-party group to discuss how the House can align British industry with the laudable intention of those amendments. The UK timeline will align with the transition in Scotland, as I mentioned, as is addressed in the Secretary of State’s new clause 38 and amendments 46 to 48.

Accelerating our ambition beyond what domestic capacity allows would create a risk that local authorities and operators would be compelled in the long term to buy an unsustainably high proportion of their fleet from abroad, from manufacturers who have received decades of state subsidy elsewhere. I repeat the ask of my all-party parliamentary group for Ministers to use the work of the bus manufacturing expert panel to map out a fully funded and coherent pipeline of zero emission bus orders that can be met by our world-leading domestic manufacturers, and provide the certainty that the sector—especially workers in Falkirk this week—needs before the ban comes in in 2030.

As I mentioned, Falkirk has already seen the benefit of local authority-controlled bus networks, with Labour-controlled Liverpool and Manchester combined authorities making clear strategic commitments to partner with UK manufacturers and ordering significant numbers of buses from Alexander Dennis. Considered strategic and small-p political local leadership can often make more effective policy decisions than the private sector or—I acknowledge—lazy franchisers, who all too often simply look to the cheapest price rather than considering our national, industrial and economic interests.

More authorities operating like that, in tandem with the upcoming changes to the local authority procurement framework, could see us not just protect jobs in Falkirk in the short term but materially enable an expansion of the industry. That is essential to delivering the socially positive outcomes clearly articulated by hon. Members in new clause 45 and amendments 7 and 16, to mention just a few. We cannot forget the social benefit of an industry that provides an additional 3.25 jobs per job hired in manufacturing. The benefits are seen in quieter and smoother journeys, but also in jobs created and protected, taxes paid and communities strengthened.

The Bill seems on the whole to be about building up the powers of our local authorities, but it also gives us an opportunity to build up the bus manufacturing industry while we set our minds to the task of improving local transport. The Bill on the whole is better for passengers, better for local authorities, and hopefully better for British workers. With the Bill we can deliver a transport system that is clean, affordable and reliable and a bus manufacturing industry that thrives for decades to come. First stop, Falkirk.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Ashley Fox Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

The Bill will improve the ability of local transport authorities to deal with precisely that sort of situation.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Heidi Alexander]

I will make some progress. I am conscious that a number of Members want to speak, and I would like to allow as many people as possible to make contributions.

I want to say something about our commitment to meeting our net zero targets. This Bill will restrict new non-zero emission buses on most local services in England from no earlier than January 2030, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Transport is already speaking to the industry—not just about securing an orderly transition, but about the opportunity for British bus manufacturers to meet new demand both at home and abroad.

Finally, several non-Government amendments were added to the Bill during its passage in the other place, which is why I was unable to make a statement of compatibility with the European convention on human rights. That was the result of clause 40, which was not tabled by the Government. It requires recording violent behaviour on buses and sharing that data with the local transport authority, and it also requires consulting trade unions on staff safety. The personal data requirements are incompatible with ECHR obligations; as such, the Government will seek to address this matter as the Bill progresses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

I will make a bit of progress.

However, the Bill in its original form does not do that. The Secretary of State has acknowledged, and I agree, that the Bill does not mandate franchising everywhere, and that is a sensible step, but the Bill does not prioritise passengers, and nothing in it guarantees an improvement in service standards. The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era, without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The Highbridge bus passenger group in my constituency has raised the issues of Sunday services either not existing or starting so late that people cannot get to work, bus services being put on in the summer during the tourist season but not being available in the winter, and poor connections for rural communities. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, without additional funding, this bus Bill will not solve those problems?

[Gareth Bacon]

Yes, my hon. Friend is completely correct, and I will come to that a bit later in my speech.

While we do not oppose the franchising of bus services, we do oppose a particular assumption that underlines this legislation, which is that the public sector is the solution to everything. Some local authorities may have the expertise and resources to successfully franchise passenger bus services, but let us be clear that many do not. The very central premise of the Bill—giving every local authority the unchecked power to implement franchising, regardless of its resources or capacity—is not an act of empowerment; it is irresponsible. By removing the need for the Secretary of State to consent to franchising, as required under the previous Conservative Government, this Government are eliminating crucial safeguards.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I commend my hon. Friend for her support for safer roads. National Highways has undertaken several safety studies on sections of the A34. I am aware that improvement works took place on the East Ilsley slip in 2019, including work to widen, resurface and add new road markings. It continues to review concerns about safety on the road and is happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further and plan a site visit. I will, of course, keep up to date with progress.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Bridgwater railway station has a bus stop that has remained unusable since its construction due to road layout and safety issues. Despite this being a relatively small fix, Somerset council has yet to take action. What additional support can the Government provide to ensure that buses can stop at the station safely and improve connectivity in my constituency?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. It does sound like it is a matter for his local council, but I am sure that my officials would be very happy to work with it to provide any advice and support it may need to work out how to provide a safer service in that area.