Road and Rail Projects

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend was in contact with me directly a couple of days ago about mobile connectivity improvements on GWR that improve services in her constituency. I know that an integrated bus network in Cornwall is absolutely vital to her constituents, and through our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, we want to give local leaders more powers to shape the bus networks that communities like hers need and deserve.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State knows, the biggest connectivity issue for the Isle of Wight is its ferry services. I welcome her engagement on that issue. Might she consider cross-Solent ferry services to be part of the UK’s road and rail network? The Isle of Wight’s roads and rail are connected to the rest of the UK only via entirely privatised, very expensive and completely unregulated ferry companies.

[Heidi Alexander]

I understand the importance of a reliable and affordable ferry service. The Isle of Wight’s ferry services are obviously provided privately, and our road network, and our rail network especially, will increasingly be in public ownership in the future. While I cannot commit to doing what he asks, I can commit to working with the hon. Gentleman and his colleague on the Isle of Wight, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), to try to improve this situation for their residents.

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

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry]

Let me clarify. Absolutely not: the hierarchy starts with people who are on foot or wheeling, and it moves down, via cycling, with motor vehicles at the bottom.

I would like to read out the evidence from the London Cycling Campaign. Its design solutions would ensure that the roads are safe, and many of them involve having extra space. The evidence sets out that

“extra space could also mean wider pavements, better sightlines”,

for cyclists who need to give way and

“less fraught interactions at floating bus stops between different mode users.”

The London Cycling Campaign argues that we should

“ensure bus services, walking, wheeling and cycling all get appropriate priority and capacity in funding, design guidance and on the ground in terms of physical space. And that likely means being more willing to reduce space and priority for private motor vehicles in more locations.”

That hierarchy is what I referred to. Where things are really difficult, it may be the right solution in a lot of cases to keep the bus on the main carriageway and make the other vehicles wait. However, that is for the design guidance. None of us is a traffic engineer—unless a Member wants to interrupt and point out that they are. That guidance must be produced in consultation with disabled people, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted, and it must also have the hierarchy in mind. Those designing the guidance should be much more willing to take space away from vehicles and to keep buses on the carriageway, if that is necessary to provide sufficient space to ensure that the roads are safe and accessible.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I rise to talk briefly about floating bus stops and therefore new clause 47. Floating bus stops exist not least to help with the flow of cyclists, and I support that aim, but they present challenges for the safety of pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities. As ever when it comes to sharing the highway, pavements, and areas in and around bus stops, everything is a balance. It is about satisfactorily mitigating the risk.

The challenge with floating bus stops relates particularly to people with disabilities. Of course, cyclists have a responsibility not to hit people, and the vast majority of cyclists are safe users of roads and cycle lanes. Some people, not everyone, have a slightly old-fashioned—I might say ignorant—assumption that somebody with a disability will be very visible, and that it should be obvious to cyclists that they need to take special care. That is simply not the case. That is an old-fashioned, outdated and, as I say, in some cases ignorant view. Disabilities, including physical disabilities, can be very hard to identify.

I would support the prohibition of new floating bus stops, and I support all the elements of new clause 47, which is about safety and about recognising the challenges, particularly for those with disabilities. We need to get this right. I urge the Government to support the new clause.

[The Chair]

Perhaps I should declare an interest: tomorrow morning at 10.30 am, I will be having a meeting about floating bus stops with representatives from Transport for London outside Colliers Wood tube station. Should any Member wish to join me, they would be most welcome.

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

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is very hard to add anything to that. I fully support the comments of the hon. Member, and of the hon. Member for North Norfolk. Clause 38 is excellent. It is a great addition—it was introduced by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in the other place—because it requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of, essentially, the impact of the Bill within two years of its passing. The meat of the clause is in subsection (2), which states that the review must assess

“the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,”

and

“the number of villages in England not served by bus services”,

as well as the

“demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of business services available”,

and finally,

“the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.”

It is the review of, “What have we achieved today?” That report will be useful, because it will kick-start discussion of solutions to rural transport.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk has already referred to Sanders, which is a family-owned regional bus company—I think it has grown such that I can properly call it regional. We also have First Bus in Norfolk. We have a radial approach. We know the impact of the £2 bus fare on ridership in our county: it was very useful, including by enabling residents of Fakenham, in my constituency, to get down to Norwich—that is a bus journey of three quarters of an hour for £2. It has been an effective policy to increase ridership. We will see what impact the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will have on ridership and provision in the country as a whole, especially in rural areas. I suspect that the answer is that it will have absolutely no impact.

A review would expose the Bill for what it is: virtue signalling without any funding at all to support the supposed ambitions of local transport authorities. If the Government vote against clause 38 standing part of the Bill, that will clearly demonstrate their concern that the Bill is performative, that it will not actually make services better, and that it has in fact been a monumental waste of time, without funding.

Time and again, throughout consideration of the Bill, I have said that the Conservative party is not against franchising; in fact, it is a Conservative policy development. In the right circumstances, it is a good solution—it is progress—but we have to accept that it is expensive. The Government are pretending that they are facilitating a whole load of local transport authorities to franchise, but are not giving them any money to do it, so we are left with a meaningless shell. The review mandated by clause 38 would hold the Government to account. If I were proven wrong by the report, and it lists a huge number of additional services that have been supplied as a result of the Bill, I would happily come back here and eat my hat.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I will make a point that I have made before, following on from the shadow Minister’s description of clause 38 as revealing, and of the Bill as transparently not providing funding for anyone. The clause would also be helpful to demonstrate to small local authorities and local authorities that provide over large rural areas, such as my own on the Isle of Wight, the gulf between trying to realise the objectives behind franchising and having responsibility for delivering them, as a small local authority taking on all that financial risk. So, like him, I support the clause standing part of the Bill, if only to reveal to local authorities some of the issues behind it, and that it is not the all-singing, all-dancing solution that they might think.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for the intervention. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.

Moving on, new clause 53 would require a review of the minimum level of bus services required for communities, within a quite ambitious six months. I leave it to the Minister to respond to that.

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

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

I agree with everything that the hon. Member for North Norfolk said. As I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, this would undoubtedly improve the service provided not just for people with disabilities but for all of us. I will not speak to amendment 43, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; others may wish to do so.

Amendment 55, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff, which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The training would have to be made available to bus operating companies. I support the intention behind the amendment, as guidance alone will not deliver accessible infrastructure unless staff understand and implement it. Training will help to embed best practice among bus staff and improve disabled passengers’ safety and confidence. There is again a “but”, though.

One reason to hesitate is money, but there is also a lack of detail about training providers and the additional financial burdens on local transport authorities. Where will the money come from to conduct the training in franchise bus systems? We have already seen how costly franchising alone can become, with the Bee Network. I would love to have another crack at those numbers and get the Minister finally to admit that he is wrong and I am right, but I will not, as I have tried it three or four times already. The amendment would add even more financial burden on local transport authorities, with a lack of detail about funding.

Clause after clause, we are seeing, first, how expensive the proposed changes are, and secondly, how financially risky they are. Those are two different things. Something can be expensive but the risk is adopted by another organisation, or it can be expensive and the risk lies with the taxpayer. The Bill as a whole, and these clauses in particular, create more financial risk for the taxpayer, particularly in local transport authorities, and a more expensive process, because all these good things are expensive. We want to achieve all of them, but we are not seeing Government money following their ambition.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for highlighting the cost risk for local authorities. He referred to the greater risk for small local authorities, of which my own Isle of Wight council is a very good example. It is dwarfed by other transport authorities, and on cost risk alone would be unable to make use of the so-called freedoms in the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is quite right, but in partial defence of the Government’s position, they are not requiring a change; they are facilitating a change should a local authority choose to go down the franchising route. None the less, concerns remain, and my hon. Friend is quite right to highlight them. Many local authorities will wish to pull the levers of state, and this looks like a shiny new lever. They are being led by the charismatic mayoral combined authorities—well, charismatic to some; I couldn’t possibly comment. Transport for Greater Manchester is now being followed by Liverpool and Transport for West Midlands. Those are the trailblazers. They are all going for what we have described as full-fat franchising.

I am concerned that for many local authorities, being seduced by this new opportunity, as they might see it, will be a terrible mistake, and they will come an absolute cropper. Think of the cost of running a franchise service: even if a local authority has not created a municipal bus company and is just contracting out the franchise services, the commercial risk stays with the local authority. That could easily bankrupt a local authority of the size of the Isle of Wight. It is a very significant concern, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it.

Amendment 30 was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who is not in her place. The amendment would, in clause 30, after “place” insert

“from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route”.

When we consider the usability of a bus stop, whether it is a floating bus stop or a shared use bus stop boarder, we should have it in mind that that the vast majority of people who take a but journey will want to come back in the opposite direction. The interrelationship between the bus stop on one side of the road and the bus stop on the other is important. The amendment highlights that and includes it in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Where boarding a bus once meant stepping from the pavement into the vehicle, these new designs now ask passengers to cross an active cycle lane to reach an island stop, relying on the good will of cyclists to be cautious and to stop as and when required at those crossings. We have to accept that often that simply would not happen. As I have previously said, Guide Dogs, the RNIB, Transport for All and a host of other disability rights organisations have warned us in good time, for the opportunity to improve the Bill is now, that these bus stop designs are not merely problematic—a tweak will not suddenly make them okay—but inherently flawed. The design is inherently inaccessible and dangerous.

[Joe Robertson]

Does the shadow Minister agree that it is slightly ridiculous to expect cyclists to be able to recognise that somebody disabled is seeking to cross a cycle lane? That seems to assume that people with disabilities are instantly recognisable, which is a very old-fashioned view of disability. It is plainly ridiculous to expect cyclists to make such a recognition. It is bad for them as well as being plainly bad for people with disabilities.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend is right. I do not want to demonise cyclists. Cyclists are not out there actively trying to mow down pedestrians seeking to cross at floating bus stops; they are doing their best in the vast majority of cases, but we have created, with the best of intentions, a conflict between foot passengers and cyclists. I would submit that we have the balance of convenience wrong, and we should be brave and bold enough to admit where we have made a mistake and should take effective steps to improve the situation.

Floating bus stops are inherently inaccessible and dangerous. They compromise the safety of people with visual impairments, who potentially cannot see or hear cyclists. They confuse wheelchair users and those with mobility impairments, who are put off using public transport. New clause 12 would strengthen democratic oversight by requiring proposals to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

New clause 13 was also tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; in her absence I shall set out what it does. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared use bus boarders to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England. I made clear in my earlier remarks the dangers caused by floating bus stops to the safety of disabled, partially sighted, blind and elderly people, and I support the new clause, as it would add further checks and balances to clause 31 and strengthen the Government’s stance on the issue.

The requirement on the Secretary of State to commission an independent safety and accessibility review and to undertake that review in collaboration with groups representing disabled people would not only help to ensure that the Government’s response to floating bus stops was evidence-based and centred specifically on safety concerns and the lived experience of people trying to use such bus stops, but accommodate consulting the wider disabled community, not just the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

New clause 40 was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon and he will be delighted to hear that he has my support. I will leave it to him to rehearse all the details of the drafting, if he wishes to; suffice it to say that that the new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops—not future ones, but the ones that are already there—and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure that they are fully accessible and safe. I welcome any amendments that add checks and balances to the Bill to help to ensure the safety of passengers and nullify the safety issues with floating bus stops. My new clause 47 accommodates the aims of new clause 40(2), but goes one step further by prohibiting any new floating bus stops after the day on which the Bill becomes an Act. I fully support the Liberal Democrat new clause.

Members will be delighted to hear that my new clause 47 is the last clause in this group, so I will sit down in a moment. Were the new clause to be adopted, it would do three important things. Subsection (1) would establish an immediate prohibition on the construction of new floating bus stops by local authorities—so we would stop digging. That is the first thing: we would stop making new floating bus stops. Subsection (2) would compel the Secretary of State to review existing infra-structure to assess compliance with accessibility and inclusive design principles—that is, to see what we have and to analyse it to see whether it is accessible. Subsection (3) would require a clear and public statement to Parliament setting out what changes would be made, what steps the Secretary of State would take to ensure that they were delivered, and what guidance would be issued to local authorities to support that work.

The new clause is designed to be a pragmatic response to persistent and credible concerns raised by the disabled community, charities representing blind people and elderly bus passengers who have to struggle with the safety challenges that persist with these bus stop designs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

As we have seen in so many areas, the previous Government may have made promises about this station, but they allocated no feasibility or development funding to get the project moving. Through the spending review and infrastructure strategy, this Government will provide at least £445 million of rail enhancements over the next 10 years to deliver long-term infrastructure needs in Wales, including new stations. Details of how this funding will be allocated will be announced in due course.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

My local economy on the Isle of Wight is entirely reliant on ferry services for the movement of people, the delivery of products and, in the case of tourism, for customers. Will the Minister acknowledge just how important unregulated ferry services are for the entire economic wellbeing of the Isle of Wight?

[Heidi Alexander]

I do recognise that issue. The hon. Member and his colleague on the Isle of Wight have raised this matter with me previously, and I am meeting his colleague directly after this question time to talk further. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), hosted a meeting recently and we are considering what further we can do as a Department to support local leaders in finding a satisfactory resolution for his constituents.

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

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

On my hon. Friend’s point about rural areas such as his constituency and my constituency on the Isle of Wight, it is difficult to move between towns. On the Isle of Wight, we have a radial system that makes it easy to get in and out of Newport, which sits in the middle of the island, but it is less easy to go anywhere else. I am at a slight loss as to how we get over that fundamental issue in bus franchising—this is geography, and the market for moving between villages is clearly smaller. I am concerned that the entire franchising model and, indeed, this clause are overselling a solution to a fundamental problem. If we are to get over that hurdle, it would ultimately require a lot of public money.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is no commercial case for large-scale, frequent bus services to every small rural community. I have certainly not come across such a case, even if one does exist. The solution—if there is a solution—will be one of a number of things. Under a franchising scheme, it would be open to a local transport authority to invest in and design a scheme that provides for frequent bus services to every rural community. It would be possible to do that, but it would be phenomenally expensive.

Already, one of the key criticisms of the Bill is that it has no money attached to it, so we are going to spend the next two and a half weeks virtue signalling about how wonderful franchising could be. It is not mandatory, and no one is actually going to do it—outside of the big mayoral authorities that are doing it anyway under the Bus Services Act 2017—because there is no money supporting the Bill. It would be incredibly expensive.

There is an alternative, hybrid solution: a combination of scheduled bus services on the key arterial routes from big villages into their major towns, such as from Norfolk going into Norwich, a rural hub-and-spoke system for the more remote villages, as suggested by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, and demand-responsive public provision.

On Tuesday, I described this as the “Uberfication” of public transport. It still is unlikely to make sense on a purely commercial basis, but it is the kind of focused provision of public sector transport that could work in a highly rural area where the aggregate cost would be less than the blind provision on frequent, full bus services to every community, which would be monumentally expensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady is bending over backwards to think of hypothetical instances in which it is possible that something like that could exist. The fact remains that we must ask—this comes down to the philosophical difference between us, perhaps—whether we are looking after the passenger or the supplier. From my perspective, the Bill should have services for passengers squarely in its sights. If passengers will benefit from a new service, the local transport authority should allow it. After all, the aim of the Bill is to maximise general utility for the wider bus service. Amendment 47 would therefore prevent local authorities from sitting on their hands, as the hon. Lady suggests they might.

Amendment 48 goes one step further. If the previous two amendments were red meat to some members of this Committee, this one will send them over the top. It would scrap entirely the convoluted assessments about balancing benefits and adverse effects in proposed new subsections (5A)(a) and (b). The authority would simply take a view on the benefits for persons making journeys on the proposed service—what is wrong with that? If the service has benefits for customers, why should we not just go for it? It is a straightforward process where applicants are in the driving seat. The amendment would provide higher certainty for applicants and therefore encourage additional service providers.

I anticipate that hon. Members may say, “What about the web—the franchise service—that the local transport authority may be trying to design?” But I seek to remind them about the incentives of providers. Again, I speak as a former businessman. We sometimes forget something in this place. We make lots of rules and we deal with processes ad infinitum, and we think that everyone will be incredibly logical. We say, “Oh yes, they have to go through this process, then that process and the other one, and then the local authority may decide to help them or not.” That ignores the basic maxim of private enterprise, which is that time kills deals. If a process is convoluted by design, it is also, by design, time consuming, and therefore expensive and uncertain in its outcome.

Let us think of a potential service provider looking through these provisions. They would say, “I’ve jumped through the hoops of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), and I’ve demonstrated the evidential basis for this application,” but then there is the discretion at the end where the local authority may, for whatever reason, choose not to award the deal based on some plan for some date in the future that we have not even heard about. Is the provider even going to bother doing it in the first place? This is an important issue of practicality. Commercial organisations respond to incentives, and if we make something long-winded, expensive and complex, they are much less likely to bother doing it. They will employ their capital, their time and their creative energies elsewhere.

[Joe Robertson]

The more I hear the shadow Minister unpicking all these issues, the more it transpires that the whole franchising model that the Bill offers to local authorities is really rather unattractive. Particularly for smaller local authorities, it is complicated, and there is a huge risk that when the new service is implemented, despite the best of intentions, it will not run in the way that the local authority or commercial provider thought it would. All the while, the local authority—I am thinking in my case of the Isle of Wight council or the potential combined mayoral authority with Hampshire—is taking on that risk of things going wrong. The shadow Minister is getting to the heart of a fundamental problem with the Bill: it will not sort out bus services country-wide, particularly in rural areas. It is really just a model for the big cities.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is right. In broad terms, the Bill facilitates additional opportunities for local transport authorities, which is a good thing. As I have said, allowing franchising is in fact a Conservative concept. It goes back to the days of Mrs Thatcher, but more recently, the 2017 changes allowed franchising without consent for mayoral combined authorities. In fact, any local transport authority was allowed to apply for franchising operations, but with the safeguard that it required the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport, because of the huge commercial risks associated with franchising for local transport authorities, particularly smaller ones. That was an eminently sensible safeguard that I have spoken about previously, so now we have that risk.

Even if the local transport authority is capable of managing that risk, of developing the expertise to design these complex systems in-house, as is anticipated, and of starting a municipal bus company on top of designing the franchise operation, we cannot get away from the conclusion that is expensive. Whichever way it is designed, if it is going to improve services, it will be expensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

The shadow Minister makes a valid point, as is always the case, but it takes us into the philosophical domain again. I gently point out that there are other perfectly profitable industries where the cost-plus model is the industry norm, and where it is possible for investors to make a return.

Nevertheless, to bring us back down to earth, I want to mention a couple of scenarios. One is from my own experience—in fact, from the shadow Minister’s constituency, which I travelled through growing up, where we had two providers leapfrogging each other from Aylsham to Norwich on commuter journeys. It was literally the same service, but if someone happened to get on the wrong bus, they could not get the same route back on the other operator. That is a fine example of why it would be appropriate to refuse a cross-border permit.

Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) sent me an example:

“We also have an issue of cross-county boundary bus routes. For example it takes maximum 10 minutes to drive from Malmesbury (Wiltshire) to Tetbury (Gloucestershire) but up to 2 hours on the bus as there is a huge diversion to another big town and then on to Tetbury through the small villages”.

These measures are about the practicalities of cross-border permits. With more rural areas likely to enter into combined mayoral authority arrangements, that will reduce the need for cross-border permits. Although I am grateful to the shadow Minister, I do not see the equivalence with open access in rail. This is, to me, what validates the franchising model overall, as well as providing for necessary moderation in common-sense, cross-border issues.

[Joe Robertson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amanda Hack]

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

[Joe Robertson]

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

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

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

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond.

The Bill recognises that commercial operators can play a key role in providing commercial services that complement franchising schemes and add value to the overall bus offer for local transport users. That includes cross-boundary services, which provide crucial links between communities. That is why we are legislating to introduce new tests that franchising authorities can use in determining whether to grant service permits. The tests allow authorities to consider a much wider range of benefits that services proposed by commercial operators could provide. The new tests will also allow authorities to tolerate some adverse effects to franchised services if they are outweighed by the benefits. Overall, franchising authorities will have greater scope to grant service permits and harness the additionality of the market in delivering great bus networks.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham would, however, undo many of the improvements we are making, and undermine the service permit regime as well as local transport authorities’ ability to franchise. The amendments would largely remove franchising authorities’ ability to even consider whether a commercial service would have an adverse effect on franchised services, while compelling them to grant service permits in the vast majority of cases. In practice, that would mean that commercial services could compete directly with franchised services, undermining the service finances and goals, and ultimately making franchising unworkable.

In direct response to the hon. Member’s comments, the Bill gives greater scope for authorities to grant these additional services. However, as he acknowledged, it cannot be a free-for-all, which is what the amendment would in effect cause. We understand that in Greater Manchester the vast majority of service permits have been granted under the existing test, and the Bill’s measure will allow franchising authorities even more flexibility to grant service permits with applications from operators or in the interest of passengers and local people.

Addressing the claim of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East that franchising is unattractive to smaller rural local transport authorities, the Bill aims to give local leaders greater flexibility to determine how best to plan and deliver bus services to meet the needs of local transport users. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Consideration has been given to rural modes of franchising, and there are plans to pilot models better suited to rural areas, as I have touched on in the past.

While it is for local transport authorities to decide the best option to manage their services, franchising can be an attractive option in a rural setting. It can be used to support a fully integrated network, combining core franchise routes with commercial services operating under a service permit awarded by the authority, ensuring strong branch connections to main corridors.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am going to try and make some progress. We have spent a significant amount of time on this.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham once again raised Manchester’s experience with bus franchising. He again quoted figures on the cost of franchising in Manchester. On the first day of the Committee I explained that the figures referred to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network. The adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester has resulted in little additional cost, and evidence to date shows that the model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.

Another franchising model in Jersey encourages both operators and local transport authorities to reinvest into the bus network. The operator keeps fare revenue, and profits that go over a certain set limit are shared between the LTA and the operator. Money is then reinvested by the LTA to improve services. The model adds flexibility and actually supports innovation and draws on the experience of the operator. This model has been tested in other areas through our franchising pilot programme.

The Bill makes some limited changes to the role of traffic commissioners in England, including changing the default position for the registration of services operating under the service permits within a franchised area. The traffic commissioner will also have powers to act against operators who breach the Bill’s mandatory training requirements; we will come on to that later in the Committee’s debates.

The presence of traffic commissioners across the regions and countries of Great Britain means that they are well placed to make decisions about the operation of bus services in different places. The responsibility of traffic commissioners extends beyond buses. To mention just a couple, it includes the licensing of operators of heavy goods vehicles and other service vehicles, and the granting of vocational licences. These responsibilities clearly extend beyond the Bill’s purpose; this Bill is not the place for a wider debate on the role of traffic commissioners.

I reiterate that passengers are at the very centre of this Government’s bus reform agenda. This is about delivering better buses, and people taking the bus more because they offer better connections and are reliable, safe, affordable and integrated into the transport network. Given that, I would ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to press his amendments.

Government amendments 4 and 5, tabled in my name, are intended to provide clarity on the type of services considered “cross-boundary” under clause 7. This means that any service that has at least one stop in an area with a franchising scheme, and at least one stop outside of the franchised area, will be considered a cross-boundary service. This change is logical, simplifies matters for franchising authorities and operators, and will ensure that the benefits of cross-boundary services to multiple communities can be considered, regardless of where the service starts and ends.

Clause 7 gives local authorities greater flexibility in how they access service permit applications from operators. These permits allow bus operators to run services into, or within, a franchised area on a commercial basis, rather than as a franchised service. The Bill introduces new tests that local authorities can use when deciding whether to approve a service permit. These tests allow them to consider a wider range of factors, such as whether the proposed service would benefit passengers outside the franchised area in the case of cross-boundary services.

It is important that franchising authorities are able to benefit from the opportunities that the commercial sector can provide in franchising areas, including for cross-border services, which are those serving a franchising area and nearby areas. These services are important, as the bus journeys that passengers want to make are not necessarily defined by scheme boundaries. This measure aims to give franchising authorities greater flexibility to provide better overall outcomes for passengers.

Clause 8 reapplies the requirement for bus services operating under a service permit in a franchised area to register their routes and timetables with the traffic commissioner. For cross-boundary services, the section of the route outside the franchised area already needs to be registered. The Bill clarifies that the part inside the franchised area also needs to be registered. This keeps the requirements consistent and easier for bus operators to follow.

In addition to the registration requirements, cross-boundary services and any services operated, under permit, wholly within the franchised area, such as sightseeing tours, must also still comply with the conditions of their service permit. This lets franchising authorities maintain control through existing regulations. However, the Bill also gives franchising authorities the power to exempt certain services from registration inside the franchised area if they would prefer to manage them solely through the service permit. Overall, these changes provide clearer rules for operators and authorities, and greater flexibility for authorities, helping to improve service delivery for passengers.

Clause 9 automatically exempts temporary rail and tram replacement services from the requirement to obtain a service permit when operating within a franchised area. As I am sure Members will understand, these services often need to be introduced quickly and to adapt to changing circumstances, so flexibility is essential. By removing the permit requirement, this measure reduces administrative burdens and saves both operators and franchising authorities the time and costs associated with applying for and issuing permits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak to my new clause 36, but I will first touch briefly on my concerns about new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham.

I can see the case that the hon. Member and his colleagues are trying to make about the importance of periods of stability for bus operators. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon says, the timeframe proposed does not strike the right balance. Five years would be longer than the term of a metro mayor or local authority, meaning that the bad work of a previous mayor or administration could tie the hands of their successor and, most importantly, could leave residents stuck with the same problems for half a decade. Given the timeframes at play, I think a better compromise could be found. It would be bad news for democratic accountability if a previous administration’s botch job—or even intentional mismanagement, perish the thought—of a franchising assessment could prevent its newly elected successor for taking action over the entire course of its term.

I also have concerns about the impact of local government reorganisation under the current drafting of the new clause. It says that

“the same area, or a substantially similar area”

could be covered by a whole new authority or administration within the timeframe, where a franchising assessment is prevented. That means that a body that has been wholly abolished could leave its successors hamstrung.

I appreciate the intention behind the clause, and I am grateful to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham and his team for raising the concerns of the industry about the timeframes. However, I wonder whether a compromise could be found on Report that better balances operators’ concerns with democratic accountability.

My new clause 36 would make a very simple addition to the assessments for franchising schemes, ensuring that we look into how a new scheme can lead to better integration for different modes of transport. People feel that there is a lack of joined-up thinking between our bus and train networks in many rural areas. Arguably, that is down to the current set-up, with two private companies responsible for services but under no requirement to consult or collaborate on delivering more linked-up services.

[Joe Robertson]

I take the hon. Member’s point about joining up buses and trains. As I am on the Committee, might he also include ferries in that analysis?

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his astute point. I would be glad to include ferries. After all, the new clause proposes better-integrated transport across all modes and modalities. We do not have any ferries other than river-crossing ferries in my constituency.

My constituents have found the issue of lack of co-ordination so frustrating that they have carried out research into it themselves; I thank David and James for furnishing me with the statistics. The first bus to arrive misses the first train of the day from Sheringham by a mere six minutes. For those who are not familiar with the Bittern line, it does not quite have central London regularity, which means that it is roughly an hour until the next possible train arrives. At other points during the day, there is either a 45-minute wait or hoping for a delay so that the bus arrives before the train departs.

A more joined-up approach would benefit both bus operators and train companies, allowing seamless integration of travel and reducing the miles in the journey to be carried out by car. My new clause would add to the franchising assessment the ability to see how franchising could make that transport integration a reality.

I do not think that franchising is a silver bullet to create integrated transport, which is why we will later consider an amendment that I have tabled that would add the enhanced partnership model. However, while we are expanding how franchising works, it would be remiss of us not to add common-sense thinking about integrated transport for those who are embarking on franchising for the first time.

I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said about amendment 57. We have got to fund it, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I was planning to say a few words about amendment 39, but the shadow Minister has really said it: it not necessary to include healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes in the definition. Of course, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that those things are important. I can think of dozens of important and socially necessary places where buses might go, but I would not propose to add them all to clause 14(2)(c), not least because when attempting to make an exhaustive list, it is always possible to leave things out, and there is great scope for argument over issues on the periphery that some people think are important and others do not.

The measure’s wording is broad. A “social necessary local service” is defined as one that allows passengers to access: “essential goods and services”, which is very wide; “economic opportunities (including employment)”, which is very wide; or “social activities”, which is also very wide. Plainly, healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes fall within those definitions, so the amendment is unnecessary. However, I welcome the hon. Lady’s highlighting those things, because healthcare and schools plainly rank very highly.

[Mr Kohler]

The Liberal Democrats strongly support amendment 39, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. As has been said, it is remarkably similar to, if not the same as, an amendment that we tabled in the House of Lords. It rightly proposes to expand the definition of “socially necessary local service” to include routes that serve healthcare facilities. I recognise the argument that the existing definition already covers them, but we think it is important to explicitly include hospitals, GPs and clinics. Accessing healthcare is a social necessity that should be explicitly recognised in law.

The same is true of education. From conversations with my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), to name a few, I know that there are growing concerns about school and college bus routes being cut, leaving students unable to travel independently to their places of learning.

The Government may argue that such services are already included under the definition but, if that is the case, why not make that explicit? Clarifying it in statute would only strengthen the Bill and provide clearer guidance for local authorities.

Department for Transport

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The hon. Member talks about £100 million being available for mayoral combined authorities, but is she confident that that is genuinely new money, rather than money reallocated from other pots for mayors to distribute?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member asks a good question and the answer is that it is a mixture. It is the philosophy of devolution that is important because mayoral combined authorities in particular can deliver in ways that will be different according to their specific priorities and needs.

There has been a potential challenge to the Department in achieving national priorities. It is also worth noting that the main estimate for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provides additional funding for the West Midlands and Great Manchester combined authorities, so there are other pots of money from other Departments that mayors can pool together to put to best use for their authorities. Will the Minister set out what happens if a devolved institution diverges from departmental priorities, for example by opting not to fund active travel despite the Department’s objective to increase active travel?

The future introduction of place-based business cases, as set out in the spending review, has the potential to transform how Government think about the value and benefit of transport interventions and outcomes. When business cases are reformed along those lines, we look forward to seeing a difference in how the Government draw and think about those connections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on one thing, which is the importance of transport for connecting communities. I then diverge from her a little, because if this Government are serious about unlocking and delivering economic growth, particularly across the west midlands, they would be serious about funding transport.

This Government’s commitment to £10.2 billion for rail enhancement is welcome, but, as ever with the Government, it lacks detail and leaves unanswered questions. Take the example of the midlands rail hub, for which the previous Government not only committed to the initial £123 million, but pledged £1.7 billion to deliver the hub in full under Network North. However, today, through the spending review and responses to my written questions, it has become clear that the hub is funded not to delivery, but only to the next stage. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will clarify once and for all whether the new Government are committed to fully funding the delivery of this project. If so, when will it be completed? It is critical to the infrastructure of the west midlands and beyond.

Staying on the topic of trains, I cannot let this debate go without mentioning Aldridge train station. The city region sustainable transport settlements are also covered in these estimates. It was thanks to the hard work of the previous mayor, Andy Street, working with the then Conservative Government that we secured and set out a fully funded CRSTS programme. That included £30 million to deliver Aldridge train station in my constituency. The funding for the delivery of the station was earmarked for 2027, providing rail connectivity for the first time since the 1960s. Sadly, it was the decision of the Transport Secretary, together with the Chancellor, to approve Mayor Parker’s decision to convert the capital funding to revenue. The funding had been ringfenced for our station, but it has now been moved away from Aldridge train station—I suspect that it has been moved to fund the mayor’s vanity bus project.

The 2025 spending review also confirmed £15.6 billion in funding to provide transport for city region settlements for nine mayoral authorities, including £2.4 billion for the west midlands. The mayor could have chosen to get Aldridge station back on track, but no, he has chosen to keep it in the sidings. This is despite the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicating in this House on 4 June that the mayor had not spent all his money, and even encouraging colleagues to lobby him on how he might wish to spend the rest. Suffice it to say, the Mayor of the West Midlands knows my views and he knows my ask, and I will continue asking.

Let me turn now to bus services, which are key to connectivity and to opportunity, particularly for communities such as mine which find themselves still without a train station. We have seen in the estimates that the national bus fare cap, which was increased from £2.50 to £3 in January 2025, is being extended to March 2027. That is fine, but the Transport Secretary claims that this is a measure to reduce the cost of everyday journeys for working people, yet for those of us in the west midlands, it is yet another hit on top of what we have already seen from the mayor, who has hiked fares and monthly and annual bus passes by more than 8%.

In the debate on the Bus Services (No, 2) Bill earlier this month, I asked the Transport Secretary about how the so-called “socially necessary” services referenced in the Bill would be protected and how they would be defined. She told me that it is down to individual local authorities to define what is socially necessary, but gave no assurances about how they would be supported to continue to provide these vital services. As we saw, £750 million per year announced in the spending review is to maintain and improve bus services. It would be really helpful to understand what allocation from the spending review will go to fund these services in the west midlands.

[Joe Robertson]

My right hon. Friend talks about the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which is now in Committee. Does she share my concern that the franchising arrangements that that Bill offers have little attraction for small local authorities such as mine on the Isle of Wight, because if it were minded to go down the route of franchising, it would take all the risk and could end up with a very large shortfall that perhaps metropolitan boroughs can swallow, but certainly smaller local authorities such as mine could not?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point on franchising. He is right to highlight the potential impact and the challenge for smaller authorities, but there are also challenges for the bigger authorities. My constituency is part of the West Midlands combined authority, and also part of Walsall metropolitan borough, but I am equally concerned about how this new model that our mayor is pushing will be sustainable. I fear that, in the future, my residents might find either a reduction in services, or increases in cost. For constituencies on the edge of a large combined authority, there is always that feeling that services are sucked into the centre and that we are left out on the periphery.

Transport is vital to people and communities, and it is vital in accessing employment and opportunity. From the Government’s plans, it is quite clear that they have simply used reviews to move money around to their pet projects, and they are not joining up communities—simply another missed opportunity. For as long as my constituents continue to raise with me the question of Aldridge station, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue to raise it in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank speakers who have taken part in the debate, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, for her comprehensive speech.

Transport is a huge priority for residents of Dartford. The constituency contains the only Thames crossing east of London, as well as a stop on High Speed 1. My constituency has several key railway stations and bus services that need major investment. It is fair to say that Dartford provides some good examples of Government policy starting to get it right, as well as of challenges that we all face.

I will start with roads, and I put on record my appreciation for the announcement in the spending review that the Department for Transport will create a £1 billion structures fund to repair the rundown transport infrastructure—roads, bridges and the like—that this Government inherited, and for which there is no other available funding. Nowhere will that be more welcome than in Swanscombe, where the collapse of Galley Hill road more than two years ago has left residents unable to use the main road out of their town. They are also blighted by heavy goods vehicles that are using roads that are far too small for them. I particularly thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for visiting soon after her appointment following last year’s election. I look forward to more information in the coming months about how Kent county council, and other councils across the country, can apply to that structures fund.

I warmly welcome the development consent order, and the funding announced for vital work on the proposed Lower Thames crossing, which, when finally built, will relieve the traffic overspill that regularly brings Dartford to a complete halt. Residents in Dartford and beyond eagerly anticipate further news on the funding package. We saw £690 million announced in the comprehensive spending review, but they want further funding in the months ahead—private sector funding, as well as more public sector funding. I look forward very much to working with Ministers to make that happen. The jobs, training and new business opportunities that the construction and operation of the crossing will offer will help to drive economic growth across the Thames estuary, and in the wider region beyond.

Money for potholes, including £54 million for Kent this year, is incredibly welcome, after our roads in Kent became a visible sign of decline under the Conservative party. Residents will be looking to the new Reform county council to make a real improvement to our roads with that money, so let us see it properly spent.

[Joe Robertson]

It sounds as if the hon. Member is placing his faith in his new Reform county council. Is that really the case?

[Jim Dickson]

Having seen the DOGE unit turn up in Kent on day one—people with no knowledge of Kent, wearing baseball hats—I am not hugely confident that the council will spend the money well, but let us give it a chance. I throw that challenge out to them. Our community needs Kent county council to put the £23 million of funding that the Government have provided to good use. It must also use the new franchise powers that will be available through the Bus Services (No.2) Bill to improve bus services in Dartford and across Kent. Again, we will be holding the council to account. I also want to say a quick word about welcome developments in rail.

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

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am a serving councillor on Norfolk county council.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I am a councillor in Merton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I will certainly benefit from your guidance on the particulars of the proceedings.

In general, I am a big fan of the Bill. I am a bus person at heart. Wherever I go in the country, I make a point of taking the buses—I take notes and sometimes write to local councillors. That is how passionately I feel about this. The good measures in the Bill need to be backed up by clause 1, which was added to the Bill in the other place. The Bill has come from the other place in very good shape, and the clause is part of that.

I worry about what the move from the Government to strike out the clause portends for the rest of the Committee proceedings. Is it the sign of real commitment that the bus services deserve? Is it a sign that we will see high-quality, reliable, frequent, high-performance, accessible bus services for the whole country? The Government should explain more why they want to remove this very good clause.

I support new clause 22, tabled by my Lib Dem colleagues the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk. It would extend a stronger duty, including an accountability, to local transport authorities. Empowering local authorities is great, but those who need buses—those who struggle with car dependency and cannot reach essential services—need the good measures in the Bill to be backed up by both those duties and real funding as soon as possible.

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger.

I rise to endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and to draw further attention to an issue with new clause 22: placing duties on local authorities without money coming in. Central Government are very good, and have been for decades, at requiring things of local government, which naturally leads to increased costs on councils to deliver the relevant duties and comply with the law, but councils do not automatically—in fact, very rarely—get money to go towards complying.

The duties set out in the new clause seem obvious. Subsection (1) says:

“It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.”

Subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (g). I will not read them all out, but paragraph (a) says that authorities may consider

“the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options”.

There is also a requirement to report every two years. That looks laudable. One would hope it would lead to better bus services, but it would place a cost burden on local government without money coming to every local authority. That is my concern: placing duties without accompanying finance in all cases. That is why I have difficulty with new clause 22, although I appreciate the intention and sentiment behind it.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I said in my opening remarks, clause 1 does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. The shadow Minister talked about incentives; I think the incentives for local authorities are really clear, if not the clearest. They know what is best for their local areas. They are driven by the desire to tackle the social and economic challenges within their areas, and I do not agree that the clause would add anything to that.

The shadow Minister’s reading of “quality” to include safety is subjective. I do not think it is as clear as he made out. The franchising guidance states that an LTA must

“explain how far it will deliver improvements”

if it franchises. The guidance also has a chapter to ensure that an LTA articulates how it is putting people at the heart of franchising assessments. Although it is not in the legislation, the guidance is clear about driving improvements.

New clause 22 would create an additional reporting burden on local authorities and local transport authorities, which are already operating under resource constraints, while potentially undermining their devolved powers to determine transport priorities in line with their local transport plans. I am not able to support it.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

The concern raised by many stakeholders about this Bill is not about its contents. We all agree with its contents, but the money and expertise are lacking. Local councils do not have either. As I said on Second Reading, although this Bill

“hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 97.]

We have great sympathy with Conservative new clauses 14 and 18. It is important that we ask local authorities to list the objectives and evidence. It is also be important to go through the costs. Those constraints and disciplines are crucial and will avoid ideological decisions. We have seen that already with rail nationalisation, where a Transport for London model, which the industry and many Labour Members supported at one point, would have been a better approach than concession contracts. New clauses 14 and 18 are a useful brake on letting ideology, rather than pragmatism, take control. They are not impediments; they are things that surely should be done and are good practice. We will support new clauses 14 and 18.

On new clause 30, we want to make it easier for local transport authorities that do not have the expertise. Having a number of off-the-shelf approaches to franchising is surely a good thing. There are specific issues in rural areas and villages, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk will speak to, but in urban areas we have real issues with bus routes that do not keep to local authority boundaries, but cross them. There are problems of co-ordination when bus routes cross boundaries, and an absence of buses because of those problems. Having a number of off-the-shelf ways to help authorities would surely be a good thing. I will leave it to my hon. Friend to take on that matter.

[Joe Robertson]

All the comments I was going to make have already been made by the shadow Minister. He was so complete and comprehensive that he leaves no space for any additional comment. However, I will briefly give my slant on some of the points. When I rose at the beginning of this sitting, it was to talk about the costs that would be put on to local authorities by the general duties in new clause 22. That has been dealt with. This clause will put much more significant costs on to local authorities that choose to go down the franchising route—after all, franchising is a choice available to a transport authority. Those are costs incurred by transferring a risk from commercial operators to local authorities and the taxpayer if the business does not go in the way of the business plan.

The shadow Minister has already spoken about the huge cost subsidy, effectively, to the services operated in London and Manchester, where there are huge economy of scale advantages. My view is that the franchising model, if it works at all, works for high population densities—cities, large local authorities and those that can swallow bad years—and offers nothing at all for smaller authorities other than the option to take a step into the unknown for no obvious benefit. I think of my local authority on the Isle of Wight—it is fanciful to think that that unitary authority could in any way take a step towards franchising. Even if we end up with a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire county council, which has a big budget deficit, it seems highly unattractive to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight to go down the franchising route and take on all those risks.

I have no direct experience of the Manchester model, but if Manchester really is the shining beacon, it is one that has cost a huge amount of money. However, that is a huge amount of money that the taxpayer in Manchester may be able to swallow. For a transport authority with a significant chunk of rurality—Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is an exception only in that it has an island attached to it, not in terms of how rural it is—I cannot see the figures adding up because no money goes with franchising.

The Government may talk about money being available for bus services and the £3 fare cap. Those are welcome things, but they are not sums of money that naturally flow with an option to go down the franchising route. Although that does not go against having franchising as an option, I feel that it is going to be attractive only to a fairly small proportion of England—areas with high-density populations and those with metropolitan authorities. In this country, franchising is for the few; it is not a mass model that all local authorities will find attractive. It could lead to a more uneven quality of bus services across the country, and to a two-tier system.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I want to challenge the suggestion that franchising is an obligation. It is not; it is a power that is given to authorities to use if they wish. However, in those communities that were so poorly served for the past 14 years under the previous Government, should we not inspire an ambition for better bus services?

[Joe Robertson]

I was not suggesting that it is an obligation. Plainly, franchising is an option. My point is that it is an option that is unattractive to smaller local authorities, which cannot benefit from the economies of scale of franchising bus services. It is much more attractive for city areas. Of course I want rural bus services to be improved; my constituency is a rural area and we want better bus services. I see absolutely nothing in the franchising option that will deliver that, because I cannot see a local authority—in my own or other rural areas—looking at it and thinking, “This is helpful.” That is because it does not, as a right, bring money with it.

HS2 Reset

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I understand the importance of the Ely area scheme in terms of rail infrastructure, and I hope to say more about rail investment in the weeks before the summer recess.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State set out the steps she is taking to ensure that infrastructure like the £100 million bat tunnel will not be included in future projects, such as East West Rail?

[Heidi Alexander]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill includes proposals to reform species and habitats protection. The proposals for environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund enable a shift to protecting the whole population of a species, rather than focusing on purely local considerations. That will ensure better outcomes for nature, without causing us to incur unreasonable costs, as happened with the HS2 bat mitigation structure.