Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(4 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members might be interested to know that we will come to the Front-Bench spokespeople at half-past 4. About 10 Members are standing, so you can work out that a time limit will not be needed, unless they talk for an excessive 10 minutes each.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
In the west midlands, the average waiting time for a driving test is 22 weeks—nearly six months, up from 12 weeks in October 2022. That often means that young people are unable to take a driving test before taking their A-levels or leaving home for university.
When I was growing up in Atherstone, getting my driving licence was a milestone for my independence. It meant I could see friends, share the driving with my parents when they picked me up at the end of term from university, and take up jobs that simply were not reachable by bus. And when I reached 21, driving the Leeds University night-time women’s minibus provided me with a good income and some great fun, and I was providing an excellent service. In fact, without learning to drive as a teenager and building up my confidence in driving, I would not have been able to drive a group of students from Leeds down to London, and also across to Manchester, to protest against section 28.
That is why I find it so frustrating that so many young people in North Warwickshire and Bedworth are now stuck on endless waiting lists for their driving tests. In a rural area with poor bus connections and unreliable timetables, a driving licence is not a luxury—it is crucial. It gives young people the independence and confidence to pursue education, training and work in neighbouring towns and cities.
I also want to talk about the freight and logistics industry. It is one of the largest employers in my constituency, offering excellent apprenticeships and training opportunities for school leavers ready to start their careers, but buses simply do not run frequently or at the right times for shifts at those hubs. My constituents who are waiting for driving tests are effectively locked out of those opportunities.
An elderly constituent called me because her driving licence was stuck with the DVLA, preventing her from being able to get around. My team and I contacted the DVLA and spoke to a member of the team, who reissued her driving licence fairly promptly. She told me how grateful she was and how much it would help her, but it should not take MPs getting involved to deal with these issues. For people like my constituent, a driving licence is a lifeline, allowing her to get to appointments, shops, and nearby villages and towns to see friends and stop being isolated. The DVLA must process requests in a timely manner to ensure that people are not left isolated in rural communities.
In 2021, the UK experienced a huge shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers, which was compounded by the delays in tests for HGV licences. Luckily, that situation has improved, with current practical test wait times broadly acceptable at around three weeks; the real problem now is with the availability of theory tests for HGV drivers. As HGV candidates must sit multiple theory tests—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It might be helpful if I highlight that driving tests are governed not by the DVLA, but by the DVSA—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The subject of this afternoon’s debate is very specifically the DVLA. Perhaps Members might take that as a point of information and constrain their remarks to the DVLA.
Rachel Taylor
My apologies. I think when most of our constituents think of the DVLA and the DVSA, they think of them as one and the same, but thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for correcting me on that point.
I think it is still fair to say that young people need access to their driving licence, and that the many people with health conditions who might have to hand in their licence are reliant on it coming back quickly. My own mum has to take my dad around for hospital appointments; she cannot get to her nearest shop or go out to see her friends. There are real impacts here for people who have suffered minor strokes, for example, and have not had their driving licence returned. It is a situation that the Government need to look at, and I would be grateful for anything that the Minister can tell us to inform the situation. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing the debate.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
As we have heard, the DVLA covers important aspects of work overseeing driving licences and people’s ability to drive safely. I pay tribute, as others have done, to the DVLA staff working to support my constituents. However, I also want to highlight some of the issues raised by a large number of my constituents over quite a period of time, which I know are similar to concerns raised by other hon. Members.
One of the most common issues relates to—surprise, surprise—medical applications, which we have heard time and again this afternoon. The crux of the issue seems to be that the system is paper-based and by post. Unfortunately, that adds further delays, not helped by issues with postal deliveries. There also seems to be a lack of co-ordination between the DVLA and clinicians.
Constituents have highlighted other concerns. No matter the outcome after their applications have been processed, there are significant delays in returning documents and, in some cases, licences, as well as delays in issuing medical letters. Six to seven months seems to be the average for cases that do not appear overly complex, but in the worst cases that I have dealt with, returns have taken in excess of seven months. It is clearly deeply unsatisfactory for things to take that long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) said, many more people try to navigate these issues on their own, so MPs do not see the full extent of the problem.
I was pleased that the Government increased the number of additional staff being recruited to support the DVLA’s medical team. That is a fairly new development, but we all look forward to seeing that investment in the workforce, which will, I hope, help to reduce waiting times for decisions. That will, in turn, reduce the frustration felt by my constituents and many others across the country.
The DVLA’s medical licensing system is, as we know, a vital service for our constituents. For too long, my constituents have had to put up with long and unexpected delays. I acknowledge that the Government have unfortunately inherited this and a number of other long-standing issues from the previous Government, and that they recognise that there is much work to do, but will my hon. Friend the Minister set out what more can be done? The length of time that my constituents and others are waiting, and the frustration and inconvenience that it causes them, is just too much for them to put up with. Many of the constituents who have contacted me are armed forces veterans, public servants and people who are doing the right thing, but unfortunately the system is letting them down. I hope that the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing a debate on this important topic, and the Backbench Business Committee for choosing it.
We have heard from many hon. Members the important reasons the DVLA needs to improve. I do not have time to mention all the excellent contributions, but I highlight that of the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who certainly need not have apologised for not using notes. In fact, the passion and authenticity of his speech show the rest of us that having fewer notes can often lead to much better contributions—alas, I have not managed to do that this afternoon.
We have heard lots of reasons why a well-functioning DVLA really matters, including safety culture, which is so important for everybody on our roads. Only if the DVLA works, and if people have faith in it, will we be able to encourage everybody to do the right thing in relation to medical conditions that any of us could develop and which could affect our ability to drive safely. Faith in public institutions, and in the accountability of institutions with which we have an obligation to comply, is important. It is all the more important in the light of the 70 years of societal change—encouraged by Government policy—that have made the car an essential and almost inevitable form of transport for most in our country.
The Government have rightly set out an ambitious road safety strategy that will impose additional duties and expectations on the DLVA, so we will need a better DVLA if that strategy is to succeed. Like other Members, I have had many constituents get in touch with me about issues that affect their ability to access jobs and contribute to the economy, and the personal independence their cars give them. I have constituents who have had very long, unexplained waits for licence renewal. That is often the real frustration: the accountability and the communication from the DVLA just are not there in many cases. Another constituent had a circular and extremely confusing communication merry-go-round between himself, the DVLA and medical personnel. He turned to me and my excellent casework team for help with how to emerge from that incredibly frustrating communication merry-go-round, because he did not know how to get out of it, despite his best efforts to engage with the process.
We are in the midst of a vehicle technological revolution. Driverless taxis are being piloted in London, and electric vehicles are now commonplace. As these changes are felt on our roads, we need to have confidence in the regulator responsible for managing them. We need a dynamic organisation ready to adapt to the challenges that these changes will bring. Unfortunately, the DVLA has not given us confidence that it will be up to the task, and that is not just based on constituents’ experience; the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and a November 2024 Cabinet Office review have all found it wanting.
The well-documented delays in medical driving licences show a system struggling to cope with demand. The 2023 Public Accounts Committee report found that over 3 million people had experienced long delays, with some losing employment and income as a result. Improvements have been made, with the average time to process medical licence cases being 44 days in 2024-25, down from 54 days the year before, but that is clearly still far too long. The DVLA is only facing more and more demands for its services, with an ageing population and the Government’s plan to introduce mandatory eye tests for over-70s. Without structural reform, this problem is not likely to improve any time soon.
Equally, the DVLA’s capacity to administer an increasingly complex and rapidly changing vehicle excise duty regime is a concern. The current VED system is already complex and opaque, given that cars, heavy goods vehicles and motorbikes are all calculated according to different metrics. Shortly after the transition in April 2025, when electric vehicles began paying VED, the DVLA acknowledged issues with V5C vehicle logbooks displaying incorrect tax information. That understandably raised concerns about the robustness of the agency’s data and systems.
At the 2025 Budget, the Government announced electric vehicle excise duty—eVED—a new tax payable alongside the existing VED from April 2028; there are far too many acronyms here, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that electric vehicle registrations accounted for a record 19.6% market share in 2024, this will put further administrative pressure on a DVLA that is already making mistakes and struggling to cope with demand.
Finally, as driverless cars become more commonplace in the UK, the DVLA will play a central role in licensing, registration and data management for autonomous vehicles—a function for which the agency’s current legislative mandate and systems were not designed. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) highlighted some of the existing problems with the administration of licence plates.
All these changes will place greater pressure on the agency, and confidence is low that it will be able to handle it, so the Government need to go faster in their reform of the DVLA. The 2024 report was a welcome start in identifying the structural problems. The Government now need to get on with the unglamorous but essential job of genuine and meaningful system reform, to ensure we have a regulator that is up to the job it faces. Although it is outside the scope of the debate, reform of the DVLA must go hand in hand with further reform of the DVSA to address the persistent backlog in practical driving tests. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Leagrave Station: Step-free Access
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Owen
A rare occasion! I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and yes, he is right, that is far too long. Not only will I be grey, but I will be dead, so progress is far too slow—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Apologies, I was merely commenting that the hon. Lady might not be—longevity is increasing.
Sarah Owen
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have good genes, but I would have to have extraordinarily good genes to see that to fruition. The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. Progress is far too slow. For many people, train journeys are just completely out their reach, and that should not be the limit of our aspirations, quite frankly.
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
Caroline Nokes ExcerptsMonday 2nd February 2026
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill 2021-22 View all High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion on the Select Committee:
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over):
1. The Committee is to have five members.
2. The members of the Committee are—
(a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and
(b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection.
4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that—
(a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and
(b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.
Heidi Alexander
The motions we have before us today are vital for the delivery of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill. It is important that I am clear at the outset about what these motions do and what they do not do. This is categorically not about reinstating HS2 north of the west midlands, and neither are these motions about addressing the longer-term capacity constraints of the west coast main line between Manchester and Birmingham. Instead, the motions are simply focused on ensuring that the Government follow the speediest and most logical consenting route to progressing plans for a new rail line between Liverpool and Manchester—a line that will also call at Warrington and Manchester airport. This new line, which will connect two great cities in the north of England, is part of the second phase of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which this Government committed to last month.
Before turning to why it is important to maintain the Bill’s momentum via today’s motions, it may be helpful if I set out a brief history of the Bill’s passage. Hon. Members will recall that in His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, this Government announced our commitment to carrying over this Bill from the previous Parliament. The Government recognise the importance of rail infrastructure in driving economic growth, enhancing productivity and unlocking opportunity in all parts of the country. The Bill itself is the mechanism by which planning consent for the eastern part of the new route between Liverpool and Manchester can be granted. Given our ambitions for the north of England, it is important that we crack on and get it done.
Heidi Alexander
I will ensure that the organisations the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are appropriately consulted throughout this process. We as a Government are determined to work in partnership with all stakeholders —landowners, businesses and individuals—who are affected. The hybrid Bill Select Committee is of course a quasi-judicial process, but on behalf of my Department I undertake to make sure that all appropriate conversations are happening.
Alongside this Bill, we are undertaking development work for the connection to Liverpool via Warrington Bank Quay. We will work in partnership with local stakeholders throughout the development process, and the detailed route from Millington to Liverpool will be subject to future consultation. We will determine the consenting route for this part of the line in due course. We will ensure that work on both the eastern and western section of the new Liverpool to Manchester line is fully integrated, and that we do everything we can to ensure that the new line is open for use as soon as possible once phase 1 of Northern Powerhouse Rail in Yorkshire is completed.
Before I close, I would like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for their valuable work to date on the hybrid Bill Select Committee in the previous Parliament.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks for what must have seemed a very thankless task in the Select Committee.
This is a slightly odd legislative vehicle, but the motion is a practical mechanism used by the last Government to allow for continued progress on railway improvements to create Northern Powerhouse Rail, and it was moved across three Sessions of Parliament. The Conservative Government of the day decided to carry over this Bill to use it as a wrapper to support Northern Powerhouse Rail. The project was championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) during his Administration, so it is no surprise to me that the Government have followed his lead in their proposal to carry it over again.
Back in May 2024, Parliament reduced the scope of a much wider Bill to focus solely on NPR, so the issue now before this House is in fact a very narrow one: whether there is a collective will to progress development of a roughly 15-mile stretch of track as part of this Government’s plans to progress Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The House is also being asked to agree to the establishment of a new Select Committee. That obviously matters because the Bill is a hybrid Bill, and it is through the Select Committee process that outstanding petitions from those directly affected will be considered. It is also the structure through which any additional provisions brought forward by the Government to reshape the Bill will be scrutinised, and those newly affected, if there are any, by any proposal will be given the opportunity to be heard. If this Bill is to be properly repurposed, it clearly makes sense that the work of the associated Select Committee carries on.
The Opposition accept the rationale for allowing the current process to survive the end of this parliamentary Session to give the Government further time to continue their work. However, while we agree that they should continue with the Bill, it is with increasing concern that I look at the lack of progress they are actually making. We are a year and a half into the Labour Administration, and all we got a couple of weeks ago was a fanfare announcement that Labour would commission consultants’ reports on how Northern Powerhouse Rail could be built. There are not just a few reports, but £275 million of reports every year of this Parliament—£1.1 billion of them—but no sign of any significant building works.
Real progress has been kicked down the road, perhaps because the Secretary of State knows that she does not have the money to do what she has promised. His Majesty’s Treasury has capped Northern Powerhouse Rail at £45 billion, yet that was the claimed cost back in 2019. That was before covid, since when, as we all know, costs have soared. She knows that she does not have the money, so she distracts her Back Benchers with castle-in-the-air planning, with the taxpayer picking up the bill. I asked the Secretary of State a fortnight ago for clarity, transparency and even an indication of how the funds were to be reconciled, and she huffed and she puffed, and said she would not be lectured, but she did not answer the question. We are none the wiser as to how the Government expect to fill the gap. What cuts will she be forced to make, and are they to the high-speed section? Perhaps she could tell the House today.
It would have been better for the public to have had such clarity nearly three weeks ago than the spectacle of the Secretary of State signing bits of paper on her rail tour of northern cities. We want to see these schemes come in on budget and in a timely manner, and addressing local concerns so that communities are not just spoken to, but listened to. To get the best possible result for taxpayers, the Government need to avoid overly onerous environmental mitigations that impose huge costs for minimal benefit. They talk of deregulation to speed up the process, but where is the action to deregulate?
We need to see the Government choosing supply chains based on cost and performance, with value for money for the taxpayer right at the heart of their decision-making process, bringing costs down while speeding up construction. However, the Government are not doing this hard work, and we need a Government with sufficient backbone to be honest about what they can afford to achieve. There is no sign of that. It is on actual delivery that this Government will be judged—not just by me and by the Opposition, but by the public, who, right now, are being let down.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in what I believe is a really important debate. I am delighted to support the Government’s motions, as we continue to invest in and transform our rail network after decades of hollow promises and mismanagement under the Conservatives.
The Bill will allow the Government the powers necessary to deliver on Northern Powerhouse Rail, therefore supporting our economy, creating better jobs, delivering new and much-needed opportunities right across the north-west of England. As a frequent user of rail services in the north of England, it is important to me and my constituents that the Government continue to focus on building capacity, reliability and resilience on one of the busiest rail corridors in the country. The importance of our rail network and infrastructure cannot be overstated. Indeed, its success will have a direct impact on economic growth and productivity.
I take the point about the need for or desirability of cross-party consensus, particularly when looking at such large infrastructure projects. On 14 January, the Government announced that Northern Powerhouse Rail represented the biggest investment in rail connectivity in the north for a generation—some £45 billion. More generally, I am pleased that the Government are looking at the three-phase approach. Its sequencing will ensure that our communities benefit as soon as possible. I note that in phase 1—beyond the scope of the Committee—in my own region in the north-east, work on the business case for the Leamside line is to be taken forward. This is a vital project for connectivity, creating new transport links and promoting wider access to the wider regional and national rail network. I also welcome the proposed upgrades to the lines east of the Pennines, focusing on electrification, an issue that was of great interest and importance during my time as a member of the Transport Committee.
I am pleased by the Government’s overall scale of ambition and real focus on regional rail services. The Bill represents an opportunity for new rail investment and infrastructure, delivering new stations and routes as well as major regeneration projects, leveraging private sector investment and creating better links across the north-west—not only north-south, but east-west.
After many years of raised hopes, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assure the House that the Bill is the most effective means of delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail without any unnecessary delay? This is just a thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been here a little while now and I have served on a number of Joint Committees, mostly pre-legislative Committees, with Members of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised valid concerns about representations from the National Farmers Union and others in respect of the route. However, my experience, having served for a number of years on the previous Bill Committee, is that a hybrid Bill Committee, which this Parliament has adopted not just for HS2 but previously, is a very, very onerous and time-consuming method. It makes vast fortunes for the bureaucracy, the lawyers and the lobbyists. Then the whole process has to be repeated in the House of Lords. I just wonder—it is beyond my pay grade, Madam Deputy Speaker—whether someone further up the tree might give that some thought.
A couple of years ago, Members of the Transport Committee had the opportunity to go to Japan for five days. We saw the Shinkansen, the high-speed bullet train. The Bill for that was passed in the Japanese Parliament, the National Diet, in 1959, and was constructed by 1964, in time for the Tokyo Olympics. We cannot say that Japan is not a democracy, or that the country does not have problems of topography, earthquakes and so on, because it is and it does. There is a method that does not take 10 or 15 years.
We are approaching a period of transformational change in public transport, on the railways in particular. Increased capacity and an improved role for freight in taking heavy goods vehicles off our road network is really important. I fully support today’s motions to carry the Bill beyond the end of this parliamentary Session and to establish the Bill’s Select Committee, so we can get Northern Powerhouse Rail charging full steam ahead.
Heidi Alexander
We have been clear that we expect work to start on the Yorkshire package of improvements in this Parliament. We have also said that we expect work to start on the link between Manchester and Liverpool in the 2030s. The right hon. Lady will recall that Crossrail in London was granted consent back in 2007 and the line was opened in 2022—I make that 15 years. Railways are not built overnight.
To conclude, the Bill will provide the necessary powers to deliver the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester. Progressing the Bill today is the most efficient approach as it makes use of the work that has already taken place. Today’s motions will allow the Bill to continue its passage through Parliament and will allow the invaluable work of the hybrid Bill Select Committee to recommence. This is a vital step in the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Question put.
A Division was called.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Division off.
Question agreed to.
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill if proceedings on the Bill have not been completed before the end of this Session or any subsequent Session of this Parliament (each a “qualifying Session”).
Suspension at end of qualifying Session
1. Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which the qualifying Session in question ends until the Session that follows it (“the new Session”).
2. If a Bill is presented in the new Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the qualifying Session in question—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the new Session;
(c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in the new Session;
(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—
(i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;
(ii) paragraph 4, if the Bill has been reported from the Select Committee but proceedings on the Bill in Public Bill Committee were not begun when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;
(iii) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended (and see also paragraph 9);
(iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended;
(v) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended;
(vi) paragraph 8, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.
3. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the qualifying Session;
(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the new Session;
(c) all petitions submitted in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the qualifying Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in the new Session in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;
(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;
(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the new Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in the new Session shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;
(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;
(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;
(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;
(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;
(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.
4. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
5. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee in respect of those clauses and Schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in the qualifying Session.
6. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
7. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
8. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Other
9. If proceedings in Public Bill Committee are begun but not completed before the end of a qualifying Session, the chair of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House as so far amended and the Bill and any evidence received by the Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
10. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session—
(a) Session 2021-22;
(b) Session 2022-23;
(c) Session 2023-24;
(d) except where the qualifying Session is this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the qualifying Session;
(e) where the new Session is the first Session of the next Parliament, each qualifying Session
11. In paragraph 1 above, the reference to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
12. In paragraph 3 above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Select Committee
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over):
1. The Committee is to have five members.
2. The members of the Committee are—
(a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and
(b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection.
4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that—
(a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and
(b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.—(Heidi Alexander.)
Railways Bill
Caroline Nokes ExcerptsTuesday 9th December 2025
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Mr Richard Holden has been selected.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There will be an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I now call the shadow Secretary of State.
M6: Junction 38
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Shannon, this is a very narrow debate, specifically on junction 38 of the M6. I seek an assurance that your intervention relates only to that.
Jim Shannon
It is more than that, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is about the main thoroughfare for lorries and traffic going to Stranraer and then to Larne. It is about that road and that junction. [Laughter.] No, it is a fact. I have talked to those who transport agrifood goods from Northern Ireland to the north of England and Scotland and back again. This debate is wide; its subject will impact not just the local area, but all the businesses in Northern Ireland that need lorries to bring their food in and take their food out. The agrifood sector will be impacted greatly.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Caroline Nokes ExcerptsWednesday 15th October 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026 View all Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 October 2025 - (15 Oct 2025)
Edward Morello
I think I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am afraid that I do not agree that increasing reporting burdens on industry is a bad thing. Every industry will argue that reporting is onerous. The liturgy starts with water companies. Companies will hide behind not having to report. On the need to move forward with technology, I am reminded that Henry Ford once said, “If I asked people what they want, they would say a faster horse.” The reality is that technology will be the route to our achieving our net zero goals, and this is one step on that pathway.
I will finish. New clauses 4 and 5 would strengthen this Bill, strengthen public confidence and demonstrate the UK’s global leadership, and I very much hope the Government will support them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover
This has been an informative debate on all the new clauses. From a procedural point of view, we are happy not to push new clause 1 to a Division.
Keir Mather
The hon. Member raises a very important point. We need to ensure that the benefits of the Act are felt across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and that includes engaging with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I turn to new clause 2. We do not anticipate a substantial impact on SAF production in the event of a decline in UK bioethanol production. The bioethanol market is a global one, and we do not currently foresee any supply issues. Furthermore, the recommendations in new clause 2 are already under way and duplicate measures can already be found in the SAF mandate. In July, a total of £63 million was awarded to 17 projects via the advanced fuels fund. That includes projects that use bioethanol, municipal solid waste and green hydrogen as feedstocks, among other sources. The Chancellor also announced in the spending review 2025 that we will continue to support SAF production throughout the spending review period. The SAF mandate also includes a formal review mechanism embedded in its legislation, with the first review scheduled to take place within five years.
New clause 3 would also duplicate measures that already exist in the SAF mandate. The mandate awards more certificates per litre to SAF with higher greenhouse gas savings, which will encourage SAF developers to continuously improve on their greenhouse gas savings. This will be monitored through the formal review mechanism, with the possibility to update legislation as required.
I hope that this reassures the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that, in many respects, the concerns he outlines are allayed by existing measures in the Bill. I therefore urge him not to push his new clauses.
New clause 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the legislation within a year of it being passed. Such a report would not show the full economic impact of these measures. Contracts will need to be negotiated, signed, plants built and SAF produced and sold before economic impacts are released. Transparency on reporting in relation to the Act’s economic impact can be achieved through regular updates to the House. Therefore, I do not see the new clause as being effectual, if he wishes to evaluate the economic impact of the RCM. I therefore ask him not to move his new clause.
New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), would require the Secretary of State to introduce a regulation requiring airlines to make an annual report on their use of SAF, both in absolute volumes and as a percentage of overall fuel used. I welcome transparency on carbon emissions to help consumers make informed choices. However, we will be providing data on the supply of SAF under the mandate, including what proportion of the total aviation fuel supply is SAF. Furthermore, many airlines already provide public information on their decarbonisation efforts, and I therefore do not believe this new clause is necessary and ask the hon. Member not to move it.
New clauses 4 and 7, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) respectively, relate to power-to-liquid obligations. On new clause 4, the Government have already committed to keep mandate targets under review. The existing legislation enables the Secretary of State to amend obligations under the SAF mandate, subject to consultation with those affected and scrutiny by Parliament. Allowing amendments to the obligations without consulting appropriate parties could be detrimental to our shared ambition of increasing the use of SAF. On new clause 7, the legislation that gave effect to the SAF mandate already makes provision for a review no later than 2030. Given that the mandate has been in place for less than 12 months and the PtL obligation does not come into effect until 2028, it would not be helpful to review earlier than planned. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to move their new clauses.
Amendment 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the RCM on air travel prices. This was spoken to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). The Government are committed to delivering value for money in the RCM scheme by controlling the scale and number of contracts entered into, and through the prices negotiated in each contract. The impact on air fares are likely to rise or fall by less than the cost of a cup of coffee. The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. Passengers should also benefit from the lower prices generated from the lower project risk and reduced cost of capital for SAF producers. Therefore, the Bill and the measures in it will not limit people’s ability to fly. Given that, I ask the right hon. Member not to move the amendment.
I turn to amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, and to amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley. The decisions on the specifics of contract allocation will be made during the contract allocation process. There will be a fair and transparent allocation process that evaluates the key costs, benefits and risks of each project. That will be developed over the coming months and will be subject to consultation with stakeholders. These amendments would reduce the Government leverage in negotiations by setting criteria in advance and would likely reduce value for money in the contracts signed, which I am sure all of us would seek to avoid. I therefore ask that these amendments are not moved.
Finally, I turn to amendment 11, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay. In May 2025, the Government published the response to the consultation on funding the SAF revenue certainty mechanism. It confirmed that a variable levy on aviation fuel suppliers would be introduced, and this was included in the contents of the Bill. The Government plan to consult imminently on the detailed design of the levy, but this amendment would pre-empt stakeholder responses, which will be considered in any design decisions. I therefore ask the right hon. Member not to press the amendment.
I hope that my responses have provided the explanations and reassurances that colleagues were seeking. The Bill is a crucial step towards establishing a SAF industry in the UK and driving investment, growth and jobs across our great country. Once again, I urge the House to give the Bill its full support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Mr Glover, is it your pleasure that new clause 1 be withdrawn?
Olly Glover
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Air travel providers’ use of sustainable aviation fuel: reporting requirements
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a requirement for air travel providers to report annually on their use of sustainable aviation fuel.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must specify—
(a) that the annual reports include figures for sustainable aviation fuel usage which can be easily understood, including expressed as—
(i) an absolute volume, and
(ii) proportion of all aviation fuel used; and
(b) that the annual reports are accessible to members of the public including by being made available on their websites.
(3) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the negative procedure.”—(Olly Glover.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Regional Transport Inequality
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. With an immediate three-minute limit, I call Andrew Cooper.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It might be helpful if I indicate that I will come to the Front Benchers at five minutes past 3. On a three-minute time limit, there is very little time for interventions.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I will do my best to speak at high speed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood): she was an outstanding Minister and the Department’s loss is the Whips Office’s gain. She will be much missed on the Transport Front Bench.
I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. She and I represent constituencies in the squeezed midlands—regions home to 10 million people that have historically been denied a fair share of funding and political attention. As has been noted already, the east midlands receives the lowest transport funding per head of any region, although the west midlands held that unhappy status until recently. The rail line between Birmingham and Nottingham is slower, mile for mile, than that between Manchester and Leeds. The west midlands has the lowest share of public transport journeys of any English region, followed by the east midlands. That fuels congestion, road safety problems and potholes.
Birmingham’s roads are a special case. We have one of the last private finance initiative contracts in the country. When originally issued, local government austerity and the high inflation of the early 2020s were not foreseen. The previous Government tried to withdraw support for the PFI contract without a clear plan, which was ruled unlawful. I know that the new Minister will be looking at that closely, and I look forward to working with him to get a fair deal for Birmingham.
Most public transport journeys are by bus and half the industry’s income now comes from public funding, yet public accountability lags behind. This summer, National Express announced major changes to the X20 and 61 routes. People in Allens Cross and parts of the New Frankley estate lost their direct connection to Birmingham, and some older residents no longer have direct bus access to the Queen Elizabeth hospital. I am grateful to the hundreds of people who signed petitions, including one that I organised. I have met National Express and Transport for West Midlands, and I hope that we can find a way forward.
Significant investment has been announced for commuter rail. I have spoken frequently in this House about rebuilding Kings Norton station as part of a midlands rail hub. In the interest of time, I will only say how grateful I am that Ministers listened; I hope that we can make progress on restoring that service’s frequency.
Finally, we must be ambitious. Birmingham Corporation Tramways once ran services to my constituency. The original 1984 vision for a revitalised metro included a loop serving Northfield, Longbridge, Frankley and Rubery. That vision was right, and I hope that we can find funding for a feasibility study for a south Birmingham extension.
Regional transport inequality hinders economic growth and denies opportunities to my constituents. I am glad that the House has had the chance to debate this issue. I think this is my stop, so I will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his timekeeping and the speed with which he included all that. That brings us to the Front Benchers, remembering that we would like to leave some time for the Member who introduced the debate to wind up. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I was all too conscious at Transport questions this morning not only to ensure that I did not, after last night’s scolding, repeat the heresy of “you” or “yours”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to keep my questions brief. Consequently, I did not have time to put on the record—for the third time in less than a year—a formal welcome on behalf of my party to the new shadow Transport Secretary. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is no longer in the Chamber, I formally congratulate him on his elevation.
As former Transport Minister, the right hon. Gentleman knows all about the transformative effect of transport, having only recently hopped aboard the overnight shuttle from Durham to Basildon. On that tortuous journey from the north of England to the south-east, he would have glimpsed the huge inequalities in transport provision across our country. Be it trains or buses, roads or air travel, where people live or their business is situated has a massive effect on their mobility. Mobility—the ability to move from A to Z and all points in between—is key to a modern economy and a cohesive society.
The statistics paint a stark picture of, to coin a phrase, a two-tier system. Last year, for example, transport spending in London was over £1,300 per head, compared with under £400 per head in the east midlands. New research from Transport for the North reveals that over 11 million people in England face a high risk of social exclusion specifically because of inadequate transport systems. That represents a 14% increase—an extra 2 million people—since 2019. In the north-east, well over 30% of residents face a high risk of transport-related social exclusion, compared with below 3% in London. And who are the excluded? It will come as no surprise that, as Transport for the North has highlighted, it is disproportionately low-income households, unpaid carers, the old and the disabled. The very people our transport system should be helping the most are the ones facing its greatest barriers.
It is not just the north of England suffering from these inequalities. Minehead in Somerset, for example, is virtually cut off. The railway station closed in 1971, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) tells me that the No. 28 bus appears to run on a whim. In Stratford-upon-Avon, Stagecoach has stopped running buses in the evening and at weekends, and there is no direct train service between the home of Shakespeare and London, undermining the town’s tourist and cultural economy. Transport is, of course, key to our tourist industry. That is why in Cornwall, the new Lib Dem council has cancelled the previous Tory administration’s plans to sell off Newquay airport, but it now needs more help than is currently being offered by the Government to make the critical investment the airport so badly needs.
Investment in transport is key. Even in London, where Transport for London is the envy of the rest of the country, more investment is needed. Repeated disruption on the District line is caused by some of the infrastructure being up to 130 years old, according to TfL. It sounds grim, but as my constituents are getting tired of hearing me say, we in Wimbledon and the rest of London do not know how lucky we are. Just imagine living in a region where services are sparse or non-existent, bus routes are cut, stations have been closed and the few trains running are routinely delayed.
I am addressing my remarks to the Minister, for whom I have high regard and no little sympathy, because the problems with regional transport inequalities are clearly not of his making, nor his Government’s, but of the past Tory Administration’s. Take buses, for example, where deregulation allowed private operators to cream off the profitable routes and abandon the rest. Between 2015 and 2023, over 1 billion passenger journeys were lost. In the north-west alone, bus routes were reduced from nearly 3,500 in 2015 to half that number in 2024.
Sadly, however, the problem still continues. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) in the south-east of England tells me that three bus services have been cancelled since last summer. In the south-west and north-east, 56% of small towns are now identified as transport deserts or at risk of becoming so.
I do not doubt the Government’s good intentions, evidenced by the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, but in some respects, things are getting worse. The Government’s decision to increase the bus fare cap from £2 to £3, for example, will only accelerate the decline in bus usage, hitting those who are already struggling the most. The Minister will rightly point to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill and its many excellent provisions but, as with the soon-to-be-published rail Bill, no amount of legislation will solve the issue of regional transport inequality without the necessary investment. As we saw with High Speed 2 and, more recently, the spending review, those moneys are not forthcoming.
The electrification of the midland main line from London to Sheffield has now been cancelled, while at Dawlish, the critical work to protect the vital Paddington to Penzance main line from the sea has been put on hold despite the very real risks to regional connectivity. The same is true of our road network, where, for example, the promised widening of the A12, which would have supported the creation of 55,000 new homes in the Chelmsford area, has been cancelled.
As the Minister is fond of telling me, there is no magic money tree, which is why the only way to address regional transport inequality is to grow the economy—a growth that is impeded by the very inequality that growth would help to address. That is why the pump must be primed with more investment in our transport system and a far more ambitious approach to growth, which can be achieved not by wishing on a star or by the PM tying himself in knots with his red lines over Europe but by boldly re-engaging with the EU and thereby completing the virtuous circle of an integrated transport system driven by and driving a dynamic and growing economy.
I end by thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this important debate and all Members for their excellent contributions.
Jerome Mayhew
I will not, because I am running out of time. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
What is the big plan? It is one of nationalisation for railways. We must look at the Government’s motive—what do they think it is going to do? It is not about unifying track and train, because that was already in the Williams-Shapps review; that was going to happen without nationalisation. Is it about reducing fares? If so, it is backfiring, because nationalised train companies’ fares are rising above inflation. Is it about increasing efficiency? One would hope so, but through the Government’s nationalisation process they are decapitating the management teams that drive efficiency in the individual rail companies.
Is it about increasing passenger numbers? The inconvenient truth for Labour is that under privatisation passenger ridership on the railway doubled, because the companies were incentivised to chase ridership. That was driven by increased open access routes, yet the Government have opposed every single application for open access since the election. Is it to save money? If so, they are not doing a very good job. On South Western Railway—one of the first to be nationalised since the election—they wasted £250 million on infrastructure overspend with the rolling stock leasing companies due to Government negotiating incompetence.
The truth is that the Government are doing it because it is an article of Labour faith—faith in the big state—and also a key demand of the unions. How has it gone for them? As we have heard, ASLEF has already got a 15% pay rise, and the RMT is striking now. Next time, when GBR is finished, that strike will be national.
The Government are one year in. We have heard in the debate of cancelled scheme after cancelled scheme. We have also heard that prices have increased and that money has been diverted from passengers to union pay. That has done nothing for regional inequality, save for the industrial action that is spreading from London and engulfing the rest of the country. It is why passengers are so disappointed in Labour. They deserve better.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Caroline Nokes ExcerptsWednesday 10th September 2025
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2025 View all Bus Services Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Report Stage Amendments as at 10 September 2025 - (10 Sep 2025)
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Stephen Morgan)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to report an error in the announcement of the Division results for the first vote this evening, which was on new clause 2. I can confirm that the correct numbers were 69 for the Ayes and 300 for the Noes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Teller for that point of order and for correcting the record. I hereby direct the Clerks to correct the numbers and confirm that the Ayes were 69 and the Noes were 300.
Third Reading
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Government believe that reliable, affordable and accessible transport is not simply a luxury to be enjoyed by some, but that it should be everyone’s right to access essential services, travel to work or school, fulfil aspirations and expand horizons. Today we take a step closer to that vision, because after 14 years of failed deregulation, seeing services cut, routes axed and fares rise, we are finally taking our lifeline bus services off of life support. This vital legislation ushers in the biggest change to our buses in a generation. It means improved services for passengers and protection for socially necessary routes. Greener buses will be rolled out faster. Accessibility and safety standards will be raised across the board, and buses will be integrated across local transport so that it is easier and simpler to get around.
Ultimately, this Bill is about where power lies. It transfers control away from private interests and towards the public good, and away from central Government and towards the local leaders who know their areas best. They and they alone will choose how best to meet local transport needs, be it through franchising, enhanced partnerships or locally owned bus companies. My message to the public is simple: buses will get better.
I thank hon. Members for the scrutiny and support they have provided throughout the Bill’s passage. I specifically recognise Opposition Members including the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for holding the Government to account and for their considered questioning. It has been a respectful and constructive process, which I must say has been refreshing.
Many of the measures in the Bill build on the national bus strategy, which I know the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), played a role in implementing, particularly in Greater Manchester. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for his excellent work and dedication in steering the Bill through the House. I know that the genesis of the Bill stretches back a long time, so I also acknowledge the passion and foresight of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), in making the case for the Bill and her advocacy for a better bus network for all. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to all the parliamentary staff, including the Clerks and Chairs, as well as to my officials, who have worked at pace to help deliver this landmark legislation.
Buses connect us to the things that matter most, yet for too long they have been a symbol of decline. That changes now. After committing substantial funding for bus services, we are now getting on with fundamental reform, fixing the faults of the industry, transferring power to the local level and putting passengers and local communities first. Change is coming to our buses. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Holden
What bus passengers really want is reliable, affordable and cheap bus travel on a growing network. That is what was guaranteed under the last Conservative Government’s £2 fare cap. It was a commitment in our manifesto, and one that worked. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may jeer, but the National Audit Office said—they might want to listen—in praise of the DFT that the
“DFT’s £2 bus fare cap achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage”.
That is a policy abandoned by Labour but stood up for by the Conservatives. This Labour Government scrapped it, and they keep on pretending that a 50% increase to £3 is actually beneficial to taxpayers.
There is zero indication of how the Bill will improve passenger numbers or ensure rural coverage. Indeed, the Bill creates an even more fragmented and inconsistent service across the country. Labour has scrapped a national fare cap and failed to replace it properly, and now it expects local councils to pick up the bill without any extra funding. The last Conservative Government delivered real investment for passengers, backing bus services and improvements in the west midlands, and Greater Manchester with £1 billion. I was there with Mayor Burnham, and anyone would think it was all down to him. I am sure Ministers are finding dealing with Andy as interesting as I did. We also did so in West Yorkshire, delivering bus service improvement plans, and working with local authorities to get real results.
The Bill is the opposite of that. It will drown councils in process, drive up costs and threaten rural connectivity while ignoring what passengers really need. Without significant subsidies, councils will naturally prioritise cities and towns over villages, leaving our rural communities even further behind. Just as we have seen in our courts and our prisons, the Government risk creating yet another two-tier system—this time for buses—where city regions are supported and everyone else is simply forgotten. How else to explain forcing operators towards zero emission bus registration without any plans to help make that transition for them?
After hammering rural communities with attacks on family farms, the Government will do exactly the same all over again with reduced services because they are not providing extra funding. To make matters worse, they are undermining the very infrastructure that buses rely on by cutting roads funding in road investment strategy 3 by 13% in real terms and delaying or cancelling critical projects. The Government cannot promise better bus services while cutting the very roads that they and all other users depend on. In tearing up the safeguards around the Secretary of State’s oversight, Ministers are giving councils free rein to set up municipal bus companies without ministerial sign-off or competitive tendering. Let me be absolutely clear: if those companies fail, the responsibility lies squarely with the Secretary of State, with taxpayers left to pick up the Bill.
Moreover, the Bill has completely ignored the shortage of bus and coach drivers across our country. We have called time and again for 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to be allowed to drive buses beyond 50 km a day. Fifteen months ago, the consultation ended. This Government have had 14 months, yet last week, in answer to a written parliamentary question, they said that they are still considering their response to the consultation. It is a straightforward and common-sense change that would help tackle driver shortages, boost businesses and tourism, and get more buses back on our roads. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor have told this House repeatedly that they will pursue growth by any means necessary, yet when an opportunity clearly presents itself, as this has done, they do not seem to want to move at all.
In this week of hugely damaging and disruptive strikes in our nation’s capital—we will see further bus strikes across the country next week—the Government are putting ideology ahead of delivery and siding with the unions over passengers, with a Bill that fails bus users, fails rural communities and fails to guarantee value for taxpayers. That is why we on the Conservative Benches will vote against the Bill tonight, and I urge all hon. Members to do the same.
Mr Kohler
My party supports this Bill. After decades of failure, with the deregulation orchestrated by the Tories, this is clearly a move in the right direction. It is not ambitious enough, and I regret deeply your failure to reinstate the £2 bus fare cap, the failure to remove the time limits on concessionary travel for disabled people and your failure to address—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly used the words “you” and “yours” throughout this afternoon’s proceedings. Please can he do better?
Mr Kohler
And the Government’s failure to address the awful scourge of headphone dodgers. Most fundamentally, the Bill will not work unless it is properly funded. At the moment it is not, and the Government cannot hide behind localism when it needs proper funding. However, we will support the Bill.
Road and Rail Projects
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I remind the Transport Secretary that it was always open to her to ask for more time for her statement. There is a 10-minute limit—so if the shadow Secretary of State would like more time, he too will get it.
Heidi Alexander
Sometimes I wonder what alternative reality the hon. Gentleman is living in. Network North may have promised everything to everyone, but not a penny of it was funded, and promising local areas schemes that the Conservatives knew would never materialise was no way to run a Government and no way to run a country. This Government are now providing certainty to those areas, giving the green light to important road and rail schemes and being honest about what we cannot afford.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman caught what was said by the former Rail Minister Huw Merriman to the Transport Committee last week, but he had this to say about the record of the last Government:
“A lot of promises were made to MPs and others as to the ambition, but it did not match the amount that was actually being set down. By the time I came into post I ended up with a list that was much longer than could be funded.”
I rest my case.
The hon. Gentleman talked of nothing being new. Let me give him some examples of new projects that we are announcing today. We are upgrading the Tyne and Wear metro, replacing a signalling system that dates back to the 1970s and enabling the extension of the metro to Washington. We are providing new railway stations: Wellington and Cullompton in Devon, Portishead and Pill with connections to Bristol, and Haxby in North Yorkshire, which will connect tens of thousands of people to the rail network. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which Conservative Transport Secretary committed funds to those schemes? He cannot, because none of them did.
Let me also give one of the new roads as an example: the Middlewich bypass in Cheshire. The previous Government rejected the business case for that scheme, but this Government are funding it. New infrastructure, new railway stations and new roads connecting every part of our country—that is the difference that a Labour Government make.
Heidi Alexander
I can assure my hon. Friend that the schemes that are going ahead have been subject to a very robust business case appraisal. We believe that they offer the taxpayer value for money, and can unlock the connectivity that is so critical to driving economic growth across the country. My hon. Friend also asked—I think I understood her question correctly—about capacity on the west coast main line. We are aware of capacity constraints between Birmingham and Manchester, which are predicted to last into the next decade, and although we have made it clear that we will not reverse the decision to cancel phase 2 of HS2, we are reviewing options for addressing those capacity issues in the future.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
People around the country have been plagued and let down by a transport system that was completely neglected by the last Conservative Government. The problems have ranged from potholes to cancelled bus services, along with entirely fictional budgets for rail and other transport projects.
Given that a safe, reliable transport system is vital to economic growth, this capital investment is of course welcome news. We are pleased to see the Government answering the calls of Liberal Democrats and other campaigners for vital upgrades such as new rail investment and improvements on the northern trans-Pennine route. Given the hard-fought campaign by local people in my constituency, I particularly welcome the confirmation of new stations at Wellington—first proposed in the House by my predecessor Jeremy Browne—and Cullompton. I cannot go quite as far as the Secretary of State in agreeing to relocate Wellington in Devon—it remains in Somerset—but both those rail projects are long overdue, and I thank the Secretary of State for engaging with not just me but my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and others on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), who I see is present, on the vital importance of those stations to the regional economy. The long overdue funding for the west midlands rail hub is also welcome.
Let me now turn to the road infrastructure projects. Many of the schemes announced today have been sought for many years. We are pleased to see investment in the A66, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has consistently campaigned, as well as investment in infrastructure in Manchester, Derby and Nottingham. However, we still need clarity on exactly how the funds for these projects will be spent. After years of delays, broken promises and mismanagement—not least on HS2—public confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver major infrastructure is understandably low.
Given the effects of inflation during the 12-month delay of the Wellington and Cullompton stations project, among others, can the Secretary of State confirm that that project will be fully funded and completed in the two years that it will take to construct the stations? When will the Government finally publish detailed plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail? Can the Government give the country a firm assurance that all these projects will be delivered on time and on budget, in a cost-effective manner?
Heidi Alexander
I would expect all road schemes that we are announcing today to contribute to our public transport objectives and improve the walking and cycling environment. As I said in my statement, roads are used by everyone and for many different modes of transport. On my hon. Friend’s point about biodiversity net gain, I am assured that all schemes have gone through a very thorough environmental assessment. I will write to him on the other issue he raises.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Markus Campbell-Savours to ask the final question.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Like many Cumbrians, I am delighted and relieved that the Government have agreed funding for the A66 trans-Pennine project. It never should have been in doubt, and it is clear to me that it would not have been were it not for the financial legacy of the previous Government. Ministers can now look forward to me lobbying for a new roundabout at Brigham and Broughton in west Cumbria—a project rejected by the previous Government. Can the Secretary of State set out what assessment she has made of the benefits to my constituents of the A66 trans-Pennine project?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my 33 years in this House it has always been the practice that a statement of this nature would be made alongside a White Paper, which would be available in the Vote Office to Members as soon as the Secretary of State sits down. There is no White Paper in the Vote Office to explain the detail of the Government’s decision making. Is there anything you can do to elucidate from the Secretary of State whether a White Paper will be forthcoming and when that will be?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure the Secretary of State will have heard his comment.
Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
Caroline Nokes ExcerptsFriday 4th July 2025
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry (Indemnities) Act 2025 View all Space Industry (Indemnities) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane
Today is 4 July and there will be fireworks across the pond, but we want rocket boosters under our space industry. Most of Europe is landlocked—or I should say space-locked—which provides the UK with a unique opportunity to be a launchpad for satellites produced all around Europe. That is the market that we are going for.
The industry has made it clear that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK spaceflight industry. If the Government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors might move to jurisdictions that have more favourable liability regimes where operator liability is limited, or that provide guarantees to meet all claims or those above the operator’s limit of liability, such as the US or France. For those reasons, we are pleased to support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With the leave of the House, I call John Grady to wind up.