Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

I speak in the context of devolution within an overarching set of values. I will not go into the specifics of what level a bus fare should be, but the overall ridership and the sustainability of the bus system are a key objective. I know the Minister will say that with devolution, how that happens is up to the local transport authorities.

Returning to the evidence we heard in Committee, as everybody here knows, buses remain the most used form of public transport, yet the number of bus journeys in England outside London has dropped from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024. Alongside the declining number of journeys, the need to improve services and increase ridership speaks to the evidence received by the Committee about the impact on social isolation of a lack of access to buses. Transport for the North told the Committee that in 2024 some 11.4 million people across England faced transport-related social exclusion, and there was evidence that the problem was worse in towns than in cities.

The Minister told us that the Government intended the Bill to deliver services that were more affordable and reliable, faster and better integrated. However, when pressed on whether people in England would see more buses to more places by the end of this Parliament, he said that that is certainly their intention and they are doing everything possible to make it happen. My contention is that without that being baked into the body of the Bill, there is a risk that in many places there could be a continued decline in bus services over time.

Amendment 66 to clause 14 relates to socially necessary services. It seeks to insert in line 5 of page 10 after the word “services”:

“along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.

It would be for the local transport authority to define that, but in a publicly visible way. The amendment asks that local authorities be required to produce a transparent methodology for how they determine these socially necessary services.

The North West Surrey Bus Users Group made the argument to the Committee that a clear and consistently applied definition was essential for holding local authorities accountable for maintaining basic service levels on loss-making routes. It warned that in the absence of sufficient guidance to date, some authorities had, to a greater or lesser extent, abdicated their responsibilities. As a result of such evidence, the Committee’s report recommended that the Department should mandate local transport authorities to publish their own transparent methodology for how they determine which bus services qualify as socially necessary to ensure public accountability—hence the reason for this amendment.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

North East Surrey College of Technology in my constituency is not accessible by bus, leaving students having to travel even further for their education because local bus services are simply not serving young people. Does the hon. Member agree that the Bill must expand the definition of socially necessary local services to explicitly include schools and colleges?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which goes to the heart of what I am saying: it is not for this Bill and this Government to define whether or not colleges, schools and so forth should be included—one would hope they would be—but it is for the local authority to define their socially necessary services according to the needs in their area. They should publish it, and a requirement to do so should be in the Bill.

I am pretty sure that the Minister will say, “Don’t worry, Chair of the Select Committee, it’ll be in the guidance.” My concern is that guidance is to some extent discretionary and can be changed over time. I, Alex Mayer and others would like to see the need to have a definition and methodology for socially necessary services stated in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister and commend him for his constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill on the Floor of the House, in Committee and via the usual channels.

Let me make it clear from the outset that my party supports the basic tenets of this Bill. The Tories’ ideologically driven decision to deregulate the bus network in the ’80s and allow private operators to cream off the profitable routes paid scant regard for many unprofitable, mainly rural, routes serving small communities, which unless subsidised by an increasingly hard-pressed local government were simply abandoned. Since 1985, as a direct consequence of their meddling, the number of bus journeys taken in this country has fallen by over 2 billion—a decline of almost 40%—and more than 8,000 services have been cut or withdrawn entirely. In counties such as Shropshire and Devon, and across the country from Cornwall to Caithness, entire villages lost daily services, and some areas were reduced to one bus per week or none.

The Bill represents a bold attempt to reverse that decline. If implemented properly, which will require more funding than currently on offer, it could be transformational, returning control over local bus networks to local communities. It would remove bureaucratic barriers to franchising, enabling local authorities to design routes, timetables, fares and branding that meet the needs of communities, while allowing profitable routes to cross-subsidise the unprofitable ones, rather than lining the pockets of big business, opening up the possibility of a more reliable, integrated and affordable network, which is so crucial for rural and deprived areas that are currently facing steep service declines.

Liberal Democrats want to ensure that this legislation fulfils its potential by empowering local communities, protecting vital routes and driving the shift to greener, fairer transport. We know how important buses are to people’s daily lives. If this Bill is to succeed, it must put passengers first. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled so many amendments. I acknowledge that many of them will not be selected for a vote, but even at this late hour, I ask the Minister, please, to cast his eye over them to see which ones he might still accept.

It is worth highlighting that no fewer than 42 amendments were accepted on Report in the Lords, 30 of them from the Government and a further six from Lord Blunkett which the Government chose to support, after some intensive behind-the-scenes lobbying by my Lib-Dem colleagues. I thank them for amendments that we re-tabled in this place to address bus fare affordability, disabled passenger access, decarbonisation of the bus fleet and the protection of socially necessary routes.

[Helen Maguire]

The E5 bus service for Langley Vale in my constituency has a woefully inadequate timetable and a route that does not stop at the local hospital. Local bus routes are simply not servicing my residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill must tackle poor services and restore the £2 fare cap, reversing the devastating effect of route cuts administered under the Conservatives?

[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.

Pavement Parking

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of pavement parking.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is long overdue for a solution.

Every day people are forced into the road, into moving traffic, because the pavement is blocked by a vehicle. Parents with prams, wheelchair users and people with sight loss must choose between risking the road or turning back. These are not minor inconveniences but moments of danger, frustration and exclusion. Pavements are meant to be for the safe, independent movement of older people, disabled people, families with young children and everyone who simply wants to walk without obstruction. When pavements are blocked people are not just delayed; they are put in harm’s way, their dignity diminished and their right to use public space denied.

The law is clear in London and Scotland: parking on the pavement is prohibited unless the council has judged that it is safe and necessary on that street. But in England, outside London, there is no such national prohibition and the result is a patchwork of inconsistent rules, limited enforcement and pavements increasingly blocked by vehicles. The Government have already consulted on the issue. The consultation entitled “Pavement parking: options for change” closed on 22 November 2020, nearly five years ago. It set out three options: first, improving the current process under which local authorities can ban pavement parking; secondly, giving local authorities civil enforcement powers to act against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement; and thirdly, banning pavement parking throughout England.

My position and that of many of my residents and campaign organisations is that a default national prohibition with local exceptions, where needed, is the right choice. That would bring the rest of England into line with London, provide clarity for drivers and restore our pavements to the people they are meant for.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful argument. I hear all the time from constituents concerned about pavement parking on their streets. I also hear from constituents who live in areas of Bracknell where there is no choice but to park on the pavement because of the nature of the estates. For me the right approach is to give local authorities the power to make decisions on a street by street basis. Does she agree?

[Helen Maguire]

Yes, I absolutely agree that councils should have the power to decide where cars can be parked on pavements.

Despite cross-party agreement in the Transport Committee’s 2019 report, clear public support and the examples already in place across the UK, the Government have still not published their response. Each time the question is raised we are told only that the Department is considering all the views expressed. After five years, that is simply not good enough. Inaction is leaving our most vulnerable residents at risk every single day.

The impact is undeniable. Living Streets found that 62% of over-65s in England are worried about obstructions on the pavement. According to research from Guide Dogs, four out of five blind or partially sighted people say pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week, and 95% have been forced into the road because of it. Among wheelchair and mobility scooters, that figure rises to a staggering 99%. Vehicles blocking pavements creates both a physical and psychological barrier, discouraging those with disabilities from leaving their homes. At a time when the Government are claiming to support more disabled people into work, it is essential that they tackle the issue.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a strong case that pavement parking is dangerous. I hear regularly from constituents who are forced to walk their young children into busy roads or from those in wheelchairs who must go back home because they cannot get past the obstruction of cars. Does the hon. Member agree that pavement parking decreases active travel and prevents the most vulnerable in our society from safely accessing their own community?

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree. We need to be encouraging active walking and encouraging people to use local businesses, and they cannot do that if they cannot access them by walking or being in a wheelchair on a pavement.

Parents also face the same challenges, with 87% of parents saying that they have had to walk in the road because of pavement parking. They would be more likely to walk their child to school if there was not pavement parking. They are not simply statistics; I have heard directly from residents about delivery motorcycles on Epsom High Street riding up on to the pavement in front of pedestrians, blocking footways outside fast food outlets and creating a hazardous obstacle course. On one evening earlier this year, a constituent reported 23 mopeds and motorbikes clustered on the pavement, forcing pedestrians into the road and creating congestion as they pulled in and out without warning.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. A lot of my constituents have written to me to say that we should have one system that does not confuse people, and that applies whether someone is living in London or outside London. More needs to be done to give the councils the power to take tougher action in respect of those that cause the nuisance, obstructions and safety hazards for many vulnerable people.

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree. My constituency is just outside London, so for my constituents, it is even more confusing because many of them will drive in and out of London on a regular basis.

One visually impaired constituent, Russell, told me that when food delivery riders choose to park their vehicles, such as motorbikes, on the pavement it makes the simple task of walking down the street difficult and hazardous.

We also cannot ignore the damage that pavement parking does to the pavements themselves. Driving on to and parking on them cracks and breaks paving slabs, leaving trip hazards long after the vehicle has gone. In England, nearly a million older adults suffer outdoor falls each year, and Living Streets’ “Pedestrian Slips, Trips and Falls” report estimates that the resulting healthcare and personal injury costs could reach £500 million annually. Just the other day, I did a walkabout on Epsom High Street with Russell and Tracey from Swail House, a property in Epsom that is run by the Royal National Institute of Blind People. As we walked, they pointed out many potential hazards on the pavement, including many broken and uneven paving slabs that could easily cause an accident. Poorly maintained pavements also deter walking: 48% of adults over 65 say that they would walk more if pavements were in better condition.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

Whether it is wheelchair users in Wheldrake, children walking to school in Skelton or Mrs Charters pushing baby Louis, does the hon. Lady agree that pavement parking pushes vulnerable road users on to the roads? Does she also agree that we need to look at local councils fining those persistent pavement parking polluters?

[Helen Maguire]

I welcome the intervention. It is an absolute hazard that pedestrians or individuals pushing wheelchairs are continually pushed into the road, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we also need to talk to the troublemakers. In my case in Epsom, those are the many companies running fast food delivery services and so on. We need to talk to them.

The poor condition of the pavement is fuelling physical inactivity and social isolation. Because the pavements are not in great condition, individuals cannot walk on them and they are not getting out as much. Making our high streets more walkable also boosts local businesses, and Living Streets’ research shows that people who walk or wheel to the shops spend more overall. They bring increased footfall, spend more time at the shops and spend more money, which is what we want for our local businesses on our local high streets.

The current legal framework is fragmented and confusing. Driving on to the pavement is in fact already illegal under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, but enforcement is inconsistent and largely reliant on police resources. In some cases, parking on a pavement can be treated as obstruction, but that too is a criminal offence enforced by the police, not a civil contravention enforced by local authorities. Local councils struggle to tackle pavement parking, although they can use their existing powers to make traffic regulation orders. Those are largely restricted to specific streets, and due to the requirements for advertising consultation and signage they are a costly and impractical way to tackle this problem.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate, which has clearly raised concerns across the country. It is clear that pavements should be for pedestrians to walk on safely. That benefits businesses and local authorities. However, many streets were designed in an era when we did not have two or three-car families. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to ensure that, as well as consistent regulation, we have good public transport so that we have better use of that and less dependency on cars?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree. We need to invest in better public transport for our constituents. According to the 2023 YouGov polling, 74% of councillors in England supported a national law. As it stands, just 5% of drivers know all aspects of the laws that put them at risk of a fine. A national default prohibition would give the power and clarity to act to remove the ambiguity for drivers. That system would also allow for local exemptions so that streets where pavement parking is genuinely unavoidable could be identified and signed accordingly.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

We are having an absolutely important debate today. It is important to make sure that we have accessible pavements for all, for all the reasons that the hon. Lady has outlined. In Fife, we have seen the implementation of the pavement parking ban just this week. Although it has been broadly welcomed, there are some challenges with implementation. Starting with a blanket ban and then allowing exemptions has been challenging for local authorities, which are under a lot of pressure with resources both for management and implementation. Does the hon. Lady agree that to make sure we have an effective parking ban, resources must be in place to make sure that exemptions in rural areas and other parts are effective, and that enforcement is done correctly? Otherwise, we will lose the support of drivers and the effect we are hoping to achieve.

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree that councils need the support to implement this if the Government should wish to introduce it, which is what I am pressing for today. We are not asking for something radical; we are simply asking for safe and accessible streets. MPs have raised this issue repeatedly, and charities such as Living Streets, Guide Dogs, RNIB and Transport for All support a new law with clear guidance.

It is time for the Government to listen. The steps are clear. Today I am asking this Government to put the safety of pedestrians first. I ask them to, first of all, publish the long overdue response to the pavement parking consultation before the fifth anniversary of its closing, which is this November; secondly, commit to a default national prohibition on pavement parking in England, with exemptions decided locally; and thirdly, back this up with a public awareness campaign so drivers understand both the law and the reasons for it.

Every day that we delay, more pedestrians are put at risk, more pavements are damaged and more people are excluded from moving safely and independently in their communities. If we cannot guarantee that the simple act of walking down the street is safe, we are failing at one of the most basic duties of public life. Today I am asking the Minister to end the wait, end the excuses and end pavement parking once and for all.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Cost of Rail Fares

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Affordability is one of our six key objectives, so that prices, wherever possible, are kept at an affordable point that works for both passengers and taxpayers.

We are supporting LNER to offer its Simpler Fares trial tickets between London and stations around Newcastle, Berwick-upon-Tweed and Edinburgh from 30 September this year. Naturally, we will evaluate carefully before taking further decisions. LNER has published on its website the opportunities the trial offers, including the new 70-minute flex tickets between Newcastle and London, priced at £45 subject to availability. The ticket offers a degree of flexibility at nearly £40 cheaper than the old super off-peak. LNER sets out that, overall, around half of standard class 70-minute flex tickets sold have been cheaper than the old super off-peak, according to its latest figures.

In addition, those and the vast majority of other tickets on LNER are now sold on a single-leg basis, where a single costs approximately half the price of the previous return ticket rather than being priced within a pound of the return, as was often the case. That allows passengers to pay only for what they need by mixing and matching the right ticket for them for each leg of their journey, for example advance tickets with flexible tickets, or peak with off-peak where those exist.

There is a large range of railcards available to make rail travel more affordable for some, with at least a third off the cost of most rail tickets. Once established, I would expect Great British Railways to take a fresh look at the railcard suite, so that we can encourage the highest possible number of passengers to use our railways.

Woking is part of South Western Railway’s critical corridor between Woking and London Waterloo, and is therefore key to ensuring strong operational performance. South Western Railway recorded an 87% overall satisfaction rating in the Transport Focus rail user survey in September this year.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Many of my constituents commute into London for work, and they complain that since the pandemic the number of trains has halved. They express their dread at the prospect of squeezing on to yet another train. Despite the reduction in service and the subsequent overcrowding, prices have increased. Residents tell me that they pay extraordinary prices for sub-par service. Does the Minister agree with me that as a principle—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I made the point earlier this week that interventions need to be short. They are not mini speeches, they should be spontaneous and they should not be read out. Perhaps the hon. Lady has finished her comments.