Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

John Milne Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I can guarantee my hon. Friend that there will be meaningful consultation with local communities about airspace changes—this Bill does not change the processes around that. I also appreciate the impact that noise has on local communities, and nothing in the Bill changes the process that will take place, for example, in the case of expansion at Heathrow. My hon. Friend will be aware that the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, which we have consulted on, includes a proposal for a night-time ban for 6.5 hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am. I guarantee that I will continue to work with her and other London colleagues on these important and sensitive issues.

Airspace modernisation is important, both to tackle noise issues and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft—if we can have planes pursuing simpler, more direct flight paths, that will reduce the amount of time that those planes are in the air. However, the truth is that if we do not act on airspace modernisation, it will be passengers and businesses that end up paying the price, with up to one in five flights estimated to face significant disruption by 2040 unless we act. That is why we have wasted no time in setting up the UK Airspace Design Service, which is already getting on with the job. This Bill strengthens the Government’s ability to ensure that airspace changes that have been properly consulted on and approved are delivered. We are also updating the rules on who can be charged for air traffic and air navigation services, so that costs can continue to be recovered fairly as new airspace users emerge. Finally, we are making it easier for the Government to respond quickly and proportionately to pressure on the aviation sector.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

With regard to noise specifically, the Government recently reduced the height at which noise is considered an important factor, from 7,000 to 5,000 feet. Noise between 5,000 and 7,000 feet now has less impact on decision making. That change was not meaningfully consulted on; it was just made and enforced on everybody. It has an impact in my constituency, and perhaps in many others. Will the Secretary of State comment on how that decision was reached and whether it is changeable?

[Heidi Alexander]

It is not the case that noise above 5,000 feet will not be considered in airspace design changes. This is about the relative balance between noise considerations and greenhouse gas emissions. We need to find a simpler way of making these changes, because the previous mechanism was too cumbersome, and I believe that this is a sensible and proportionate change.

I was talking about some of the changes that this Bill will enable the Government to make in future, so that we can be more responsive and flexible as a Government. As Members will know, there has been significant uncertainty for the aviation sector, given the conflict and crisis in the middle east and the impact of that on jet fuel. A few months ago, my Department introduced temporary changes to relax slot usage requirements and reduce disruption to passengers. However, some of those measures relied on powers that were introduced after we left the European Union, and the power that I had to act in that way expired in June, which was why we made our decision before that point. The Bill will introduce permanent powers, and will therefore support a more agile and resilient approach to the regulation of airport slots. That means that the UK can continue to act decisively when appropriate, safeguarding passengers and maintaining airport capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In my constituency, people understand the importance of Gatwick to the local economy—not least because many of them have a job there. However, the way that public consultation has been handled over the last decade has created deep anxiety about what changes to airports and airspace will mean for them, their families and the communities they live in. It is on their behalf that I am asking for the introduction of a dedicated aviation ombudsman, especially in the context of the need to lay out new flightpaths.

I am wholly supportive of the need for airspace modernisation, which is being carried out across the whole of Europe. It will bring welcome improvements in both emissions and safety. As part of that process, Gatwick Airport Ltd is looking for a change to a particular currently agreed flightpath, such that planes leaving west and turning south to Europe will be able to do so almost immediately after take-off, instead of building up height first. In doing so, Gatwick will inflict major noise pollution over north Horsham and three rural villages that are not currently overflown to a great extent.

When the same route, known as ADNID, was trialled 10 years ago, it provoked an explosion of public distress. The then CEO swiftly withdrew it and promised never to introduce it again. However, lo and behold, in the last round of public consultation—subsequently cancelled—Gatwick gave Horsham people a choice of three airspace plans, all three of which contained that identical route. It was less Gatwick’s choice, more Hobson’s choice. Why did Gatwick do that: simply because it would enable it to increase the number of take-off slots, which are potentially worth millions. That is a clear conflict of interest, and I have great difficulty believing that the financial incentive had no influence whatsoever on Gatwick’s thinking. Either way, at the very least it risks the perception of bias.

What is particularly aggrieving is that the route is not necessary. Given all the other changes going on at the same time, it would make a negligible contribution to efficiency, emissions reduction or even capacity, seeing as Gatwick is heading for a huge increase in capacity owing to a second runway and other measures.

Unfortunately, the voice of the consumer plays such a small part in the process that no one is able to add up the pros and cons. It is all on the side of industry. I therefore asked the then aviation Minister to include an independent member as standard on airspace review panels. He declined, and now the whole process has been restarted anyway, but we still have a situation where the citizen has no power to challenge major changes that will affect their lives.

Another CAA reform further illustrates my point. The Department’s new air navigation guidance, published last month, lowers the altitude up to which noise must be prioritised over efficiency from 7,000 feet to 5,000 feet—I referred to that in a previous question to the Secretary of State. That means that fewer people will be able to argue against such a route on noise grounds. That happened in the same year that the CAA’s own new research—the aviation noise attitudes survey and the aviation night noise effects study—found that the noise level at which people become highly annoyed is 43 dB, rather than 54 dB, as previously advised.

Communities are more sensitive to noise than the Department’s own evidence said a decade ago, yet the response has been to shrink, not extend, the altitude band where noise takes priority. Where is the voice of the resident in that? It will have a material impact on decisions in my area, as well as at other airports. Why is the CAA allowed to mark its own homework when no one else is? There already is an alternative dispute resolution available for consumer complaints—such as a refund for a delayed bag or cancelled flight—but it is not a usable tool for regulatory decisions, such as where a flightpath goes, how the noise is distributed or which homes end up underneath it.

The Government’s written answers confirm that dissatisfaction with a CAA regulatory decision cannot be pursued through the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; it can only go to internal or judicial review. For the great majority of residents, neither of those is a realistic option.

We have been here before. Water is another industry that touches growth, employment, the environment and people’s daily lives, and where trust has been totally destroyed. The Government’s answer to that issue was that there should be a new legally binding water ombudsman. Like campaigners the length and breadth of the country, I believe that aviation deserves the same treatment.

The Minister has written to me arguing that there is already a consultation process, but most residents will be left completely unaware of major changes, and, even if they were aware, they would be unable to do anything significant about it. As proposed, the process is so completely dominated by the industry voice that even a modest request, such as not repeating the same mistake on flight paths around Horsham, can never get any kind of hearing.

I think that the Minister is wrong to assume that the industry always knows what is best in all circumstances. Fairness and objectivity should be offered on CAA regulatory decisions and on consumer and passenger rights alike. I therefore ask the Government to look again and to shore up this Bill with an independent ombudsman for aviation.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I understand that Chiltern Railways is leading negotiations on this important issue, but the hon. Gentleman is right to be impatient about the need to get people where they need to go in his constituency. The Government are committed to trying to deliver at pace in collaboration with stakeholders, and I will ensure that he is kept abreast of any developments.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

4. Whether she is taking steps to incentivise summer rail travel.

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

While we bring passenger services into public ownership, we have frozen rail fares so that passengers can travel for less this summer—the first fares freeze in 30 years, saving passengers £600 million. Alongside that, our £3 bus fare cap and free bus travel for children in August will help families make the most of the holidays. For road users, we are also keeping costs down by continuing the freeze on fuel duty for the rest of this year.

[John Milne]

Train travel to the south coast increases significantly in the summer months, but Horsham sits on a line to the south that faces severe delays and cancellations. Govia Thameslink’s forecasts show demand continuing to rise sharply. Without a resolution to the notorious Croydon bottleneck, we risk undermining economic growth and confidence in public transport. Where does Croydon sit in the Government’s priorities, and will the Minister commit to finally advancing these long-promised, endlessly postponed works?

[Keir Mather]

I understand that some of these temporary changes reflect lower summer demand, which falls by around 6% overall and 15% in peak periods. Aligning services to that reduced usage enables a more cost-efficient timetable. It reduces taxpayer subsidy and it unlocks savings. The hon. Member is right to point to where that might be causing an impact for his constituents, so I would be glad to pick that up with him to see what more we can do to advance the pace of works that affect his constituency.

UK Bus Manufacturing

John Milne Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for bringing this important industry to the attention of the House.

The latest figures tell us that just 17% of buses used in the UK are manufactured here, which of course means that 83% come from abroad. Those figures are very much the wrong way round. What can we do to reverse them?

A number of trends have come together to make what was always a challenging market much more difficult. In particular, we have seen the shift to low emission vehicles on environmental and pollution grounds. That has created a major inflection point in the market. It is an opportunity for companies if they can get ahead of the curve—a chance for them to displace established players—but potentially a major setback if other companies get there first. In this sector, the competitive advantage clearly lies with Chinese manufacturers.

Research published in 2024 by the professional services firm KPMG on the economic impact of local bus services found that the sector invests over £180 million each year in UK buses. KPMG also estimates that around 53,000 people are indirectly employed through the industry’s supply chain, including those working for manufacturers, fuel suppliers, maintenance, parts companies and technology providers. That amounts to a major contribution, both to the economy and of course to employment.

However, the only solution to a long-term strategic problem lies in a long-term strategy. Under the previous Government, there was no industrial strategy worthy of the name. One arm of Government did not seem to know, or care, what another was doing. The need for environmentally friendly forms of public transport was clear a long time ago, but the move towards such transport and the subsidies to support it seems to have been carried out in isolation from policy relating to UK manufacturing. The Liberal Democrats welcome the present Government’s move to a more strategic approach, and I hope the Minister will tell us more about those plans today.

As Liberal Democrats, our approach would be, first, to establish a comprehensive industrial strategy in partnership with business, civil society, including trade unions and academia. Secondly, we would ensure that the principles of tackling the climate emergency, boosting living standards, spreading prosperity everywhere in the UK and growing the economy are at the heart of that strategy. Thirdly, we would seek to provide a strategic framework for effectively addressing the needs of economically disadvantaged remote or rural areas by collaborating with local, regional and devolved authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Fourthly, we need to work towards four key business priorities: a positive business climate; leveraging technology to supercharge the green economy; empowering small businesses to create prosperity in local communities; and boosting trade. Finally, we need to enable businesses to achieve these priorities by enabling the workforce of tomorrow with a training and apprenticeship programme, investing in key infrastructure, scaling digital innovation and technology adoption, and creating financial markets that work for all businesses.

Although the solution has to be long-term, there is the short-term challenge of keeping the bus industry that we already have afloat in the meantime. The businesses at Wrightbus and Alexander Dennis play a key role in their local economies, as we have heard from the local Members. I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of how we can bridge the gap between what has worked until now and how we need to operate in the future. We have a fantastic workforce and an amazing history in automotive manufacturing. Let us make sure that the industry continues to prosper in the future.

Airport Drop-off Charges

John Milne Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim McMahon]

Many people ask their loved one to send them a message when they land or when they pass through the terminal ahead of collecting their baggage, but in Manchester airport there have occasionally been delays in getting the luggage off the plane and sent through to the terminal, or the conveyor belt has not worked in sending the luggage through, so faults with the airport or airline delays can lead to a penalty.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Jim McMahon]

I will make some progress, because I am mindful of the time.

On reasonableness, of course an app can be used if it is a convenient way to pay, but why not have a simple contactless payment system at the lay-by where the luggage is taken out, so that people can tap in there and then? Then they would not have to wait 24 or 48 hours to pay online. With a lot of these things, if the lived experience of those using the system had been thought about when it was brought in, it would have been designed very differently.

In November, we met the managing director of Manchester airport, Chris Woodroofe. We raised those points and put forward a number of requests. The first was for payment on site, so that people can pay not just on an app, but when they are at the airport.

Secondly, we asked for an end to the system that allows charges to be racked up. For example, there may be separate lay-bys for arrivals and departures, so it is very easy for someone not familiar with the airport to pass through the arrivals terminal drop-off point, realise that is the wrong place to be, drive around the block and eventually get to the correct location. If they do that, the system charges them twice because they have passed through one before they get to the other. That could be easily resolved using technology.

These organisations do not have the legal powers that local authorities have, but rely on contract law in enforcement. Many airports have confusing road networks that rely on roundabouts, with one-way systems through the terminals to drop off. In contract law, for a contract to be fair, those entering into it must have the right to decline it. How can they have the right to decline if they are charged at the moment they enter the place where the signs advising them about the contract are, with no way to reverse or pull out? Those dropping off should have the ability to say, “Now that I am aware of the charges, I don’t agree and will find a different way of dropping off.” Some airports have a bus that enables drop-offs further afield. Some people may not have been aware of that before they arrived, but may choose to use that.

Although I am personally sympathetic to the idea that charges can be realistic, Manchester should not follow Gatwick airport and go from £5 to £10, or even close to it. Most people would find an airport’s charging £10 to drop off completely unreasonable and unfair.

[John Milne]

Gatwick is precisely the airport that I was going to raise. It jumped to £10 in very short order, over a couple of years. That is an enormous amount of money for something that takes a couple of minutes. The objective is allegedly to cover the increase of business rates and to fund airport expansion. Does the hon. Member agree that the public should not have to bear the cost of an airport’s expansion? It benefits private companies financially, but puts pressure on public services, trains and transport and means that people are parking all around the airport. Does he agree that that is unfair?

[Jim McMahon]

Logic says that business rates are derived from the commercial value of the asset. The opposite is true of Gatwick—if it commercialises a lay-by, the business rate liability probably goes up—so I am not sure that that quite solves their problem.

This debate has been important, and I express my appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for securing it. We are very proud of Manchester airport and the airport group that it operates, but we are determined to see a revision to the ability to pay, how to pay and the grace period—from 24 hours to 48 hours—and I hope that we see progress.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

John Milne Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Olly Glover]

Global demand for aviation continues to grow; it is projected to be two or three times bigger by 2050. In 2024, there was a record rate of increase in carbon emissions, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, and there was a new daily record for global aviation emissions in July 2025. Nearly half of all the carbon emissions to date from aviation have occurred since 2000.

Sustainable aviation fuel has been talked up for years as the solution, yet there has been a poor track record of unambitious targets not being matched by delivery. For example, in 2010, Boeing announced the target that 1% of aviation fuel globally should come from SAF by 2015, and in 2019, the International Air Transport Association set out hopes of reaching 2% by 2025, but today, globally, the figure is just 0.3%. The UK’s published figure this year of 1.29% is better, but it nevertheless shows how far we have to go.

The Conservative Government promised back in 2022 to have five commercial UK SAF plants operational by 2025, but there is still only one. It is therefore right of the Government to have introduced legislation to attempt to make sure that the latest set of SAF targets move from fantasy to realistic, credible and deliverable plans, although these will ultimately need to transition us towards the development of truly zero-carbon flight technology. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for their contribution to the Bill Committee, and I hope that Members from across the House will consider the Liberal Democrat amendments.

New clauses 1, 2 and 3 all increase the chances of the intention behind the Bill being realised. New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to assess and report on the potential for disused oil refineries and similar industrial sites to be used for the production of sustainable aviation fuel. New clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to assess the measures being taken to encourage the supply of materials for production of sustainable aviation fuel, and has a focus on bioethanol plants. That is especially important in the context of the expected closure of the Vivergo bioethanol plant near Hull, following the Government’s decision not to provide it with financial support.

New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the development of a strategy for analysing and maximising the potential of sustainable aviation fuels to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

I also speak in support of two new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), both of which would improve the Bill by providing greater rigour and scrutiny of progress towards sustainable aviation fuel targets. New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State the power to increase SAF production obligations where necessary, and to ensure that reports on progress are laid before Parliament and relevant Select Committees. New clause 5 would introduce requirements for air travel providers to report on their use of sustainable aviation fuel, and to provide annual reports to the public via their websites. Collectively, new clauses 1 to 5 would strengthen the Bill and increase its credibility when it comes to SAF production and reporting on progress.

The Government’s SAF mandate requires just 22% of aviation fuel to be sustainable by 2040. That compares poorly with the European Union’s target of 32% by 2040. It is hard to square an objective of net zero aviation by 2050 with just 22% of fuel being sustainable a decade earlier, unless we put in place measures alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate-friendly flight a reality. We urge the Government to clarify their plans for achieving their targets, particularly as hope for SAF progress is being used to state that Heathrow and Gatwick expansion are compatible with our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend says, sustainable aviation fuels are being used by the Government to justify major airport expansions. One such expansion would be at Gatwick, adjacent to my constituency. A target of 10% SAF by 2030 is optimistic in the extreme, as the Climate Change Committee said. If the Government’s own advisers do not believe in this target, why should we?

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about what the Climate Change Committee has said. That is why I hope the Government will consider these Liberal Democrat amendments, which are intended to strengthen the Bill, so that its provisions become reality this time, and contrast with the many missed targets in the past on sustainable aviation fuel.

Making aviation genuinely sustainable will require the Government to go beyond securing investment in SAF, and to ensure that in the longer term, the SAF measures complement, rather than detract from, investment in zero-carbon flight technology. I hope that the House will support our amendments, so that our country makes a bigger and more rapid contribution to decarbonising aviation.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend has championed Prestwick airport and the aviation sector in his constituency, and I agree with him that aviation is vital to the UK’s industrial and regional prosperity. In 2022, air transport and aerospace supported around 240,000 jobs nationwide. The Government remain committed to backing the sector to deliver high-quality, well-paid jobs from Prestwick to communities across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

12. What recent progress she has made on the development of policy on pavement parking.

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

The previous Government consulted on pavement parking rules back in 2020 but failed to take any action. We have had to pick up the issue from scratch since we came into office last year. A lot has changed in the UK political landscape in the past five years, and this Government’s genuine commitment to devolution has shaped our thinking on pavement parking. We will be able to say more about that, and finally publish a response to the consultation, soon.

[John Milne]

Will the Minister assure us that any enforcement powers will be extended to local authorities, not just the police, in order to make any regulations effective? Alongside that, will he reassure us that local authorities will have the power to make exceptions in areas where such restrictions would be impractical, as is the case in many streets in my Horsham constituency?

[Simon Lightwood]

We of course continue to engage actively with local authorities in the development of this policy. Local authorities already have the power to restrict pavement parking wherever there is a need by introducing traffic regulation orders, and we are exploring additional measures to help them to tackle the issue.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

John Milne Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

My constituents are already seeing the benefits of this Government’s choices on transport. The Bill will bring better bus transport closer to home. Equitable access to transport connectivity is the golden thread that weaves our urban and rural communities together, that keeps our families and friendships close, and that ensures that people growing up and growing old in my constituency can fulfil their potential.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I will speak mainly to new clauses 32 and 33 in my name.

There is a lot to like in the Bill, but it is at its weakest where it touches on rural areas. That is a great shame, because if we could solve transport, we could also solve the rural productivity problem. Economic inactivity is nearly two-and-a-half times higher in rural areas than it is in urban areas, and that is directly related to transport issues. If we could boost rural productivity to urban levels, it would fix the Chancellor’s Budget deficit in one go.

The key freedom that the Bill brings is to support local authorities that want to establish a bus franchise or to set up their own municipal service. If we stand back to look at the scale of the challenge, however, do we really think that that will be enough to reverse the long-term decline in rural areas? The answer must be no. Given how cash-strapped and under-resourced most local authorities are, it is clear that most will be unable to take advantage of that freedom without additional support.

In my previous life as a West Sussex county councillor, I served on a committee considering a bus improvement plan, but the measures we were given to look at were all small and tactical. No one on that committee believed that the plan would change the curve. Too many local authorities long ago surrendered to a tacit acceptance of managed decline. That has to change—hence my new clause 33, which would set out a new duty actively to promote and increase bus usage.

The key paradox that must be solved is why, if public demand for bus services is so high, usage is always dropping. Clearly, price is one issue, but the service has also become increasingly mismatched with local need. In West Sussex, a 2021 survey found that 80% of residents had stopped using buses because of a lack of a suitable route or infrequency of service—that is a huge percentage of the potential market to give away. The problem, especially in rural areas, is that what we have left today is a legacy service—the ghostly outline of routes and frequencies that existed years ago. We have fought a long defensive war of attrition, and we have been losing. Individual routes have been salami-sliced to destruction. That is why I have tabled new clause 32 to require local authorities to consult in advance on significant service changes.

In my constituency of Horsham, residents of Partridge Green discovered they were losing their direct No. 17 service to town only when they saw the new timetable. In Slinfold, the No. 63 was removed altogether, also without any warning. The county council says that the changes are nothing to do with them, and they are the responsibility of the commercial operator, but the operator says that they are up to the council. There is simply no one left at the wheel of our local bus service.

When I looked at the huge public reaction as villagers fought to save their services after the axe had already fallen, I could not help but wonder what might have been. What might have happened if we could have harnessed that enthusiasm to create a service that met people’s transport needs? We have been beaten down, over many years, into accepting that it is impossible to fix the problem, yet Switzerland, Austria and Germany, in areas with far lower population densities than many areas of the UK, are providing all-day, every-hour services, seven days a week. We can do that too, if we have the will.

It is good to see bus services getting legislative attention, and I appreciate that, but I hope that the Government do not think that this Bill will be nearly enough by itself. I urge the Government to make a special study of the needs of rural areas, which have been a recurring theme during the debate, and work out what it would take to genuinely reverse decline.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I support new clause 22, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who is temporarily not in his place. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.

What Members notice when they come to London from rural constituencies, such as my constituency in Suffolk, are all the red buses, all over the place. Routes run from early in the morning until late into the evening, in no small part because of the years of excellent Labour administration that Londoners have enjoyed. Out in Suffolk, we certainly do not have a fully integrated bus service. For a start, there are simply not enough buses. From 2010, a decade of declining public funding left the interwoven jumble of local bus maps looking decisively threadbare. From 2018 to 2024, 18% of bus services in my county council area simply vanished.

In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I have been supporting residents fighting to save local bus routes, and I am sure that many hon. Members will have been doing exactly the same in their areas. In Bury St Edmunds, we managed to get the 73 and 73A bus routes retained, which are essential for getting children to school at the Thurston community college. At Marham Park, where residents were in danger of being fully cut off, we did the same, thanks to £8 million of funding from the Government. In the years to come, we will further undo the loss of bus services: some 17 new or improved bus routes are rolling out just this month across Suffolk.

If people are lucky enough to live on a route that survived the last 15 years, the problem is that they will be hard pressed to find a bus that goes anywhere after 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Imagine a lady from the village of Honington, in my constituency, who has to attend a 4.30 pm appointment at the West Suffolk hospital about her dodgy knee. The 332 bus runs from Honington to Bury St Edmunds four times a day, so she catches the 2.40 pm bus and arrives in Bury St Edmunds with an hour to spare. She has her appointment and she gets out of the hospital after an hour, so at 5.30 pm she is standing outside the hospital and she cannot get home. She has missed the last bus and she is stuck in Bury St Edmunds. She cannot march 10 miles home, because she has a dodgy knee, and she has no friends, so she gets a taxi. A taxi is £35, but our imaginary lady has no choice—she has to pay that £35.

We capped the cost of a bus fare at £3, but we all know that for lots of real people in rural areas, inadequate bus service means that transport costs easily spiral out of control. That is why we need to critically examine the minimum bus service standards required across communities in England. Many Members have spoken about CPRE, which has mentioned that some countries such as Switzerland legally mandate public transport frequencies for communities of different sizes. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire —who still has not returned to the Chamber—will ensure that progress is made towards undoing some of the inequalities that have built up in transport, and will move us much closer to the unified transport model that we all know we need.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

John Milne Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

For many years, rural bus services have been dying a slow death by a thousand cuts. In my constituency of Horsham, we have lost about a third of our services since 2010, and funding has fallen by as much as 43% in some areas. This is how it works: we cut the timetable, which means fewer people use the service, so we cut the timetable again—rinse and repeat. In many villages, it is simply impossible to live without a car. Even if we did put a bus service back into those villages, no one would use it because the only people who live there are car users. It is no wonder that economic inactivity in rural communities is nearly 2.5% higher than in urban centres. Good jobs and an education are literally out of reach. How can we reverse this downward spiral?

It is clear that if local authorities step back and rely on commercial operators to decide routes by themselves, it is not going to work, but that is exactly what we are seeing in West Sussex. Commercial operators have to keep to their timetables or face a fine, but to achieve punctuality on the No. 17 route meant that the village of Partridge Green had to be dropped altogether at certain times of day. Pensioners now have to walk over a mile to the nearest stop or pay for expensive taxis. Residents were not consulted about the cuts, and they found out only a few weeks in advance, with no time to make other arrangements. Half the village turned out to a church meeting to protest, and if only we could have harnessed that enthusiasm in time, we might have saved the service, but of course it was too late. Now the same thing is happening all over again, with cuts to the No. 63 bus through another village, Slinfold, which will make it impossible for local commuters to link to Horsham station. Again the excuse was punctuality, again there was no consultation and again residents had just a few weeks’ notice.

This gets to the heart of why our rural bus services have been in terminal decline. County councils, the bodies we would expect to have residents’ interests at heart, can all too easily hide behind a commercial bus operator and say that it is all out of their control. No one wants to admit responsibility. We all keep saying that we want to take traffic off the roads and cut pollution, but in reality, local councils such as West Sussex have been presiding over a policy of managed decline. Will the new Bill do enough to reverse it? The Bill certainly moves in the right direction by empowering local authorities to franchise routes, run their own bus companies and trial demand-responsive transport schemes, which are good building blocks for a more flexible, responsive system.

However, when I look at West Sussex, it is clear that these freedoms by themselves will not be enough, even if there was more dynamic leadership in the council. Setting up its own bus service is a high-risk, high-investment strategy for a council. I can see how big urban centres may have the wherewithal to take advantage of these new rights, but more rural authorities such as my own are already on budgetary life support and there is no way they can take on such a gamble. This is going to take something more from the Government, and that something is more funding to kick-start a revolution. So let us fund bus services properly, empower local councils to make the right decisions and ensure that affordable, accessible transport remains a lifeline for all our communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

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

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Airports across the country are participating in the airspace modernisation review. However, there is a clear conflict of interest between environmental imperatives and profit motives. Will the Secretary of State undertake to introduce an independent member on each airspace review panel?

[Mike Kane]

The Government are pressing on with airspace modernisation and have set up the UK Airspace Design Service. I recently met the hon. Member in my office to discuss this issue. We continue at pace on this work and will be consulting widely.

Airport Expansion

John Milne Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I have to say, my hon. Friend is so tenacious on this matter that I sometimes go pale when I meet her in the Division Lobby, because every day she asks after it. She is such a campaigner on it. I saw her go around party conference lobbying the industry and airlines to do what her constituents sent her to Parliament to do and to try to come up with a solution for her local airport. I can only commend her tenacity to the House.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm what compensating measures the Government will take, if airport expansion is to go ahead, to ensure adherence to carbon budgets? They must have already been agreed on by now.

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered approach in all these matters. I was pleased to receive him at the Department the other day to talk about a particular constituency issue that related to Gatwick. We do not have a development consent order, but noise and pollution are the tests to meet our climate commitments, and they will remain the tests. It will be up to the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and Members across this House to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on this matter.