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

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, for what may be the final time on this Committee. I thank you for guiding us—particularly those of us who are new to the world of Bill Committees—through this process.

I would like to speak in favour of the Minister’s approach to clause 38, which, though clearly well intentioned, perhaps would not have achieved what it was aiming to for England’s villages. On Tuesday, hon. Members heard me mention two of the villages I am proud to represent, Slitting Mill and Norton Canes, and what clause 14—regarding socially necessary services—would mean for them. However, not wishing to have favourites, I am grateful to now have the opportunity to talk about what this Bill will also mean for Brereton and Ravenhill, Brindley, Littleworth, Rawnsley, Hazelslade, Prospect Village, Cannock Wood, Bridgtown, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury.

Like so many parts of England, particularly in rural and semi-rural areas such as mine, bus routes in our villages have been shrinking for many years, while fares have risen. However, I would like to highlight a rare piece of good news, which is that, from 20 July—a successful tender permitting—the No. 60 between Cannock and Lichfield, and the No. 74 between Cannock and Stafford, will begin to run on Sundays once again, and hopefully later into the evenings. The No. 60 in particular is the only service for many of my villages, so that extension will be very welcome.

My constituents have sadly become used to bus services stopping at 7 pm and not running at all on Sundays. From listening to the debate, that is a world away from the experiences in the constituencies of some members of this Committee, but it is the reality in much of our country. When growing up in a village, like I did, or living in a village, like I still do, a bus can be a lifeline—something that I am glad to say we on this Committee have discussed extensively—so the withdrawal or reduction of services means more cars on the road, more people isolated within their homes, and, of course, less cash to invest in, or even preserve, routes. That is why I am pleased to hear the Minister’s assurances on this matter.

I do hope that a review of the benefits of this Bill to England’s villages can be carried out in time, but when the time is right, not by an arbitrary timeframe. By that point, the full benefits of things such as franchising and registers of socially necessary services can be properly assessed. For that reason, I urge fellow members of the Committee who represent villages—like I do—to oppose clause 38 standing as part of this Bill, so that the Secretary of State and the Minister can determine the best approach to ensuring that, once again, buses are there for people and communities first and foremost.

[Simon Lightwood]

On new clause 53, legislation to guarantee minimum levels of services for communities already exists in the Transport Act 2000. The Bill’s socially necessary local services measure will provide greater protection for existing bus services from being arbitrarily cancelled or reduced. The Department for Transport is also currently undertaking a review into enhanced partnerships, which is set to conclude later this year. We are looking into the potential of developing a set of minimum standards for enhanced partnerships.

I thank members of the Committee for their thoughts on seeking to review the provision of bus services to villages in England. The Government recognise the need to serve villages, alongside improving service, reliability and punctuality, across England, and the role that buses play in linking communities together. We are seeking to reverse the long-term decline in bus services, partly by ensuring that the impacts of any changes to bus networks are fully assessed and that options are fully explored before a service is changed or cancelled.

An evaluation of the Bill, including the impact on rural services, will be completed as part of a wider evidence review of bus franchising. The Government do not want to undermine that analysis by presenting findings before franchising and local authority bus companies have been established. That would not reflect the true impact on passengers.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will actually press both this new clause and new clause 35 to a vote. When discussing the Bill, there is an elephant in the room: the Government’s decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3, which is no less than a bus tax on communities across the country. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs to passengers, supported struggling households and, crucially, helped to bring people back to the bus network after years of decline. It was precisely the kind of bold, inclusive transport policy that we need more of, not less.

Fares that have been raised by £1 per trip might not sound prohibitive to some, but for those on a low income or families making multiple journeys each week, that represents a significant burden. Many people who rely on buses are running a household budget without much wiggle room, and an increase of £10 a week, which adds up to hundreds of pounds a year, is not money that some of my poorest or most vulnerable constituents have to spare.

[Josh Newbury]

I question the logic of the hon. Member’s statement that the increased cost is £10 per week. He is assuming that somebody travelling two journeys per day buys a single fare each time, but most people who use the bus regularly will invest in day savers, weekly savers, monthly savers or even longer season tickets. Perhaps he would like to revise his estimate.

[Steff Aquarone]

I imagine that there are many different calculations in different parts of the country; mine is based on casework inquiries. A limited number of fare options are available to people in my constituency, as is the case in many rural areas, and I think that £10 is a reasonable approximation.

New clause 19 would ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of the Bill, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to reintroduce the £2 fare cap. It would restore a measure that was working, that passengers appreciated, and that delivered wide social and economic benefits. I urge Committee members to join me in supporting the new clause, axing the bus tax and putting money back into the pockets of our constituents.

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

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Clause 14 is so important, because it is about socially necessary routes—those that are critical to the community. It explicitly includes employment and, as the Minister conceded last week, also catches things such as hospital appointments, GP appointments and education.

Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister has hidden behind localism. Now, I am a Liberal, so subsidiarity is part of my DNA; I believe in devolving power, but national Government must not wash their hands of their responsibilities. It is reminiscent of the old Conservative trick from the Thatcher era, of Government distancing themselves from their responsibilities. Funding is crucial, but as we heard in the debate last week on amendment 54, the Minister says it is not for Government to decide what to do with it. They have given a bit of money, and now it will be up to local authorities.

The Minister even quoted other Tory lines about how there is no “magic money tree”, and I agree—there is not. So we need growth. We do not get growth by wishing on a star, taxing jobs by increasing employer’s national insurance contributions, or tying ourselves in knots with red lines over Europe rather than meaningfully re-engaging with the EU customs union. That is the way to grow the economy; that is the way we pay for these things. The Government cannot talk about growth, do nothing about it, and say to local authorities, “We have given you almost a billion pounds, and you can now go and sort out buses,” because local authorities do not have the finances.

I am straying from the Bill. I have thus far referenced the omissions from the Bill, such as money. By inserting subsections (5) and (6), the House of Lords sought to focus attention on the Government’s commissions—namely, the end of the £2 fare cap, and the disastrous effect of hiking employer’s NI costs on the provision of special educational needs and disabilities bus transport. The Government’s decision to table an amendment removing those subsections is plainly a mistake, one that threatens to undo the constructive and necessary work undertaken in the Lords. The provisions were added to ensure that Ministers are held accountable for the consequences of their decisions—specifically, the rise in national insurance contributions and the short-sighted decision to increase the cap on bus fares.

As the National Audit Office made clear in its report published last Friday, bus services are lifelines, not luxuries. They are essential for the young, for older people, for households without a car, and for those on the lowest incomes. The Government’s decision to scrap the £2 fare cap is not just wrong, but an outrage. It is a direct hit to the most vulnerable. The NAO report revealed that the lowest-income households—those in the bottom 20%—take more bus journeys on average than any other income group, at 42 journeys per household per year. Those are essential journeys to work, school, the shops or the doctor. Removing the fare cap would mean those people—the poorest in our society—paying more to do the basics of daily life. Subsection (5) rightly sought to introduce a review to assess the impact of increasing the fare cap on people’s ability to access socially necessary routes. Scrapping the review removes transparency, accountability and the Government’s responsibility to understand how their decisions impact real lives.

The same principle applies to subsection (6), which calls for an assessment of the impact of changes to national insurance on SEND transport. Transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities is not a side issue; it is central to an inclusive, accessible education system. Without that form of transport, many children cannot get to school. Increasing employer’s NI contributions risks undermining the viability of the services, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made clear last week. The operators who run them are under increasing financial pressure. Without proper assessment and oversight, we risk sleepwalking into a situation where routes are cut, service levels fall, and SEND pupils are left without reliable transport. That would be an unforgivable failure of not just policy, but basic fairness.

Including a requirement to review the impact does not bind the Government’s hands; it simply asks them to look at the evidence, consider the consequences of their actions, and take responsible steps to mitigate harm where needed. We must protect these services for their users and uphold the principle that no one should be left behind due to financial pressures beyond their control. I urge the Government to reconsider and not shy away from scrutiny. They should own their decisions and be prepared to measure their impact. That is what responsible government demands.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to make my first speech in Committee with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, particularly on a matter as important to the residents of towns and villages in Cannock Chase, which I represent, as socially necessary local services.

When I first read the Bill, clause 14 was one of the measures that I was most delighted to see, along with the extension of the option of franchising to non-mayoral areas, such as mine in Staffordshire, and the scrapping of the ideological ban on council-owned bus companies, which could be an important part of the picture when restoring routes in areas like mine. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to attend its first sitting, when rural bus services were discussed.

The reality for many rural communities including some of my villages, which face reductions in services or being completely cut off, is that they mourn the loss of bus routes because they are now unable to take the bus to access vital facilities and services. Residents of the village of Slitting Mill, just outside Rugeley, have no bus service at all. When I go door-knocking there, I always hear from residents about the opportunities and freedoms that they have lost as a result. One resident told me, almost wistfully, as if she were speaking of a bygone age, of when she used to be able to catch a direct bus from her little village to the centre of Wolverhampton, where she worked. She told me that she does not blame young people for moving out of the village because of that lack of connectivity, or for not returning if they want to start a family. If someone in Slitting Mill does not have a car, their prospects for employment and training are very limited.

In my home village of Norton Canes, residents in the most deprived part of our community, on and around the Norton East Road, have been cut off for many years because the No. 3 bus skirts around the bottom of the road, and the No. 60 around the top. Although the walk of 10-ish minutes is no bother for residents without mobility issues, many of the residents who made best use of the services that went down Norton East Road are older. Many have told me that they do not even bother to catch the bus now. That is just one example of how shrinking services are exacerbating the decline of ridership.

Many residents use the bus to get to their GP appointments, and to scans, tests and secondary care services at Cannock Chase hospital. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have heard from constituents who often have to spend huge chunks of their income on taxis—accessible taxis are like hen’s teeth in my neck of the woods—or have to rely on relatives to drive them. Such relatives are hard to come by during working hours, but that is when most health services are open. Had clause 14 been in place when the withdrawal of services from Norton East Road was proposed, we would have had some back-up in opposing that on the grounds of its impact.

I am sure that we have all heard accounts of children and young people not being able to get to school or enjoy social time with their friends because of a lack of bus services, especially in rural and suburban areas. That restricts the horizons of the next generation. Such matters should be, but often are not, taken into account when proposals are made or services are slated for withdrawal.

Those three examples from my constituency show what the Bill means to communities such as mine, which have been let down by the broken bus system for far too long. Buses should work for people and communities, first and foremost. Clause 14 puts that aspiration at the heart of the Bill; I hope it will stand part.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank hon. Members for their further comments on socially necessary local services. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke at the last sitting about devolution and local decision making. Of course I support the principle of good decision making at the local level, and that is what the Bill is seeking to achieve by empowering local leaders.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked how local transport authorities’ decisions on socially necessary local services could be challenged. My Department included clause 14 to deliver greater protection for socially necessary local services and transparency for passengers. Members of the Committee have remarked that the definition given in the clause provides scope to reflect local passenger needs and the specific circumstances of different local areas. It will be for an enhanced partnership to make decisions based on those needs. Mandating an arbitrary level of service takes power away from communities and local leaders and could harm the overall long-term financial sustainability of local bus services.

Local transport authorities will need to vary their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to include a list of socially necessary local services. They must comply with the requirements of their EP schemes to avoid the risk of legal action, such as a judicial review, for not properly implementing the measure. If someone did wish to challenge a decision taken by a local authority, judicial review would be the most appropriate route. Guidance will be published in due course as part of the Government’s enhanced partnership review.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked specifically about proposed new subsection (9A), inserted by the Bill into section 138C of the Transport Act 2000. This is necessary, as it requires an enhanced partnership to set out a process that would be followed if an operator proposed to cancel a socially necessary bus service, or vary one in a way that was likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access the goods, services, opportunities or activities mentioned in the clause.

The hon. Member mentioned the £2 fare cap. The previous Government funded this fare cap until the end of 2024, with some fares likely to revert to more than £10 on the most expensive routes unless a new scheme was introduced to replace it.

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

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

The amendment would extend the Government’s guidance to include enabling disabled people to travel without having to cross a cycle track to board a bus, or once they have alighted. There are significant issues with floating bus stops, particularly in relation to accessibility for disabled people. We will analyse that in more detail when we move on to clause 31, but I support the intention behind the amendment, even though it is not in my name. It is important that we seek, either through that amendment or the others we will discuss in a moment, to solve this very real problem collectively.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I have just looked at how long floating bus stops have been in use in the UK, and I found that they were first installed in London around 2013. That was clearly under the previous Government, some 12 years ago. I also did a quick search of Hansard to see if the hon. Member had mentioned floating bus stops in the House before. Apparently he has not, so can he tell us what he has done previously to address the issue? He has said that he has long-running concerns about it. Why has he not raised the question of floating bus stops in the House before?

[Jerome Mayhew]

What a clever, clever intervention. Floating bus stops were introduced in 2013 under the coalition Government; I fully accept that. I was first elected in 2019, so I could not have spoken either in favour of or against the adoption of floating bus stops. This is the first occasion on which legislation has come before us in which floating bus stops have been an issue. The hon. Member is quite right that I have not mentioned it before.

While I have entered the private Member’s Bill ballot, I have not been successful. If I had been, would I have introduced a private Member’s Bill solely about floating bus stops? Perhaps not—I stand guilty as charged. However, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, while it is always tempting to throw political brickbats around, there are, even in this room today, people who are living with the consequences of floating bus stops. We should be working collaboratively to find a workable solution that helps real people.

Amendment 42, which is also in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, makes mandatory something that is simply advisory, as the clause is drafted. The amendment would require such guidance to include:

“the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places.”

Can the Minister describe a situation in which the Secretary of State would not wish to provide such guidance? I am sure he would accept that there are some very serious problems here that need to be addressed. Given that the Secretary of State will want to do this in any circumstance that either he or I could envisage, why would he object to making the requirement mandatory?

Amendment 65, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would expand the screen information associated with bus stopping places. The amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places could include—or, if amendment 42 is adopted, must include—guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place. Accessibility guidance addresses not just physical infrastructure but information provision, which is equally crucial for enabling disabled people—particularly those with cognitive impairments, who rely on the reassurance of timings, and blind or partially sighted passengers, who require audio information —to travel independently and confidently. Amendment 65 would extend such benefits beyond disabled people to older passengers, tourists and passengers who do not have technology such as smartphones. I support that intention.

As ever, I have concerns about the funding associated with the amendment, because we have to accept that there is a very significant cost to these undoubted improvements. I question whether all local authorities and bus operators have the technical capacity and, most importantly, the funding to install and maintain real-time information displays at every stopping place. I am aware that there is such infrastructure in large metropolitan areas such as London. However, what about rural areas, such as the ones that the hon. Member for North Norfolk and I represent? It is a very different picture there.

Let us not forget that this legislation will apply to every local authority in the country, so some pretty small local transport authorities will be applying whatever comes out of the Bill. Will they have the funds and resources to satisfy the amendment, if it is adopted? I hope that it is adopted, and that the Government say, “This is a very good idea, and we will fund it”, but I am not holding my breath.

Amendment 60, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would beef up clause 30 by replacing the words “have regard to” with

“take reasonable steps to implement.”

The amendment would ensure that the authorities listed in subsection (6) took reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State was implemented. Members will be aware that “reasonable steps to ensure” is a legal term of art, so it is not just about making a list; it has a degree of compulsion to it. An LTA could be challenged, through the judicial review process, on whether such reasonable steps had been taken.

Again, it all comes down to money. I agree with the ambition behind amendment 60, but change costs money, and the Government are not providing the support. This provision would leave LTAs open to costly challenges by rights groups. I say that it is costly because to mount a successful defence against an argument that reasonable steps had not been taken, the LTA would have to demonstrate in its response that it had done so, taking into account its financial position, resources and ability to raise funds. We already know that, under the Bill, a debt-raising ability is being applied to both bus companies and local authorities.

Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

Any way you want to come.

For me, this started out as hearing one anecdote, and then I would hear another and another, until it became obvious that this is a serious issue. It is about not just fatalities—I accept that fatalities are low, thank goodness—but the quality of people’s lives. It is about the fact that too many children are missing out on play, and that too many older people are missing out on social activities, because they do not feel safe crossing their roads.

I have looked at the regulations that these faceless bureaucrats are using when they so regularly say no to people, and it turns out that the Road Traffic Regulation Act came into effect in 1984. That is the year I was born, so it is as old as me, and it does not give powers to parish and town councils—they have no statutory role beyond advisory consultation.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and echo the comments of other colleagues: he is being very generous with his time. I thank him for calling this debate and giving us the opportunity to debate the role of parish councils. It is something that we seldom do, but should do a lot more often.

In my constituency, an issue that is frequently raised with me in the context of road safety is that of parking on double yellow lines. In the face of completely absent enforcement, my local residents are always looking for creative solutions. In my home village of Norton Canes and the neighbouring village of Heath Hayes, both parish councils have asked our highways authority, Staffordshire county council, to allow them to pay for extra enforcement activity. That pragmatic solution was repeatedly refused by the previous Conservative administration. I am encouraging those parish councils to try again now that we have a new Reform administration, to see whether the fresh thinking it keeps promising us will extend to parking enforcement. Does my hon. Friend agree that whether it is traffic calming, speeding or parking, our parish and town councils could play a much greater role in keeping their residents safe?

[Sam Rushworth]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s extension of the debate to parking, which is also a road safety issue. I have lost track of how many times residents in the different villages and towns I represent have talked to me about ambulances that could not make their way up a street because there was no space given that people are not respecting traffic rules. That is just another way in which people feel that they do not have control over the very street they live on.

Parish and town councils operate under the Local Government Act 1972, and have no highway or transport powers unless they are explicitly delegated, so powers could be delegated to them. They can raise local issues, but cannot initiate or enforce any regulatory changes. As such, my asks of Government are simple: first, could we look at primary legislation to grant town and parish councils the power to set enforceable speed limits? If that is a step too far, could we at least provide stronger statutory consultative powers, so that they can force a review of speed limits, and stronger powers to appeal the bad decisions that get made and demand proper explanations for the number of times that the computer says no?

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate.

Just a few weeks ago, I visited Hazel Slade primary academy in my constituency. Pupils there told me in no uncertain terms that each day they are frightened when they walk to school. They told me what they want to see to make them feel safer and asked for my help to make it happen. Parents, children and teachers have all told me that they want to see a road safety assessment carried out and traffic calming measures put in to reduce the risks posed by dangerous driving along Rugeley Road and Cannock Wood Street. Parents should be able to trust that every day their child will get home from school safely.

Between 2018 and 2023, there were a staggering 869 road casualties in Cannock Chase, including two fatalities on the Rugeley Road between Hazelslade and Brereton.

In Bridgtown, where the A5 separates older and newer parts of the village, parents and wheelchair users have told me that they feel they are taking their life into their hands by crossing a major road, and that their county councillor has ignored their pleas for support for a proper pedestrian crossing. Choosing active travel should not come at a risk. Proper pedestrian crossings, school-appropriate signage and enforceable speed limits are all needed to stop those risks. As we lack that in many parts of Cannock Chase, parents often feel that they have no choice but to drive their children to school.

That brings me to roadside parking by schools, an issue that all too often exacerbates those risks to children, as I am sure we have all seen. Many drivers in Staffordshire know that enforcement is limited, so parking on double yellow lines is becoming increasingly common, partly due to a lack of penalty notices and partly due to a lack of parking options. That is the case for nearly every school in my constituency, so to support active travel and to ensure that we are able to keep streets safe, stronger enforcement options are vital. I would like to see the county council take up the offer from our parish councils to work together on that.

For now, it is clear that it is the responsibility of local authorities to take steps to reduce collisions. I once again voice my full support for the residents of Hazelslade, Bridgtown and all the towns and villages that I represent in demanding further action on road safety.

Road Maintenance

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Staffordshire has the worst roads in the country. I do not have definitive proof of that, but it is something that my constituents in Cannock Chase tell me every time I am out knocking on doors—and I agree with them.

As we have heard many times already this evening, the British people are sick and tired of broken roads, which are costing them thousands of pounds when they hit potholes and making their everyday journeys far more dangerous. Fixing the basic infrastructure on which this country relies is central to national renewal and to improving living standards.

I commend the Government for their work to ensure that 14 years of pothole-covered roads are coming to an end. The local authority is set to share in the Government’s record £1.6 billion of highway maintenance funding, which is enough to fill 7 million potholes a year.

However, my constituents continue to share their concerns with me about dozens and dozens of cratered roads, such as Betty’s Lane and Red Lion Lane in my home village of Norton Canes. Here, short-term fix after short-term fix rapidly fails, meaning that residents have to continue waiting for lasting solutions, ultimately leading to higher costs and greater disruption in the long run.

I was a district councillor in my constituency for six years, and although highways were not part of my remit, I spent a huge chunk of my time on the issue, especially as successive Conservative county councillors were all too often missing in action when it came to my community.

In addition to potholes, blocked drains have been a recurring problem, causing localised flooding and subsequently further damage to the roads and—you guessed it—more potholes. Staffordshire county council, which has been Conservative run for the last 16 years, has cut back its highways budget drastically, except of course in one year in the run-up to an election, and for most roads, routine drain clearage is done only once every three years. Even completely compacted drains that are not absorbing a single drop of rain are frequently ignored as the outsourced highways contractor, who I will come to in a minute, says that they are not a priority and will be cleared sometime in the next three years. In reality, that short-sighted approach often leads to localised flooding and further deterioration of the roads—again, a complete false economy.

A common complaint from my constituents is about the highways contractor, Amey, the epitome of profit-driven, service-limiting outsourcing if ever I saw one. It frequently pitches up having travelled miles from its depot, only to sort out one pothole or drain at a time and leaving others nearby completely ignored, even though addressing multiple issues at once would be far more efficient. I am sure other hon. Members can relate to the frustration that my constituents feel, particularly given that in the face of that dire and costly service, the Conservatives at County Buildings in Stafford have not sought to scrap that contract. Indeed, they have repeatedly rewarded Amey with extensions. Other councils have switched to a more preventive approach and have had success, but in Staffordshire we are still on an endless cycle of patch jobs on those potholes deemed the most dangerous. It is a bit like patching up a leaking pipe while ignoring the rest of the plumbing, and we need a proper fix for the whole system.

I commend the Government’s action to ensure that councils are accountable for road maintenance and improvement. I particularly welcome the news that from 30 June this year, councils such as Staffordshire county council will be required to publish detailed reports on how they are spending the £39 million that they are getting from the Government, how many potholes have been filled, and how they are minimising disruption, alongside gathering input on what works and what does not work—something that has not happened in my county for a very long time.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Josh Newbury]

I am happy to give way to my Staffordshire colleague.

[David Williams]

It is telling that in today’s debate we have five or six Staffordshire MPs debating this matter, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree that that speaks to how let down residents and staff have been for far too long, and what happens under a Conservative-led local council.

[Josh Newbury]

I thank my hon. Friend. I think it is no coincidence that in Staffordshire we went from having no Labour MPs before the election to having nine out of 12, and that so many of us are here today to speak up for our constituents about areas of frustration, and about the failings of our county council and our hope for change in the near future.

Roads are critical national infrastructure, and this Government must and will undo the neglected state that the previous Government left them in. I welcome the record funding announced, but I say to my constituents that we must ensure that that record investment has the maximum benefit for our towns and villages. On 1 May we will go to the polls with a clear choice: carry on with a cosy relationship between the county council and an incompetent highways contractor with the Conservatives; deep cuts to budgets through an Elon Musk-style “efficiency” drive with Reform; or common-sense, good value highways services with Labour. I know the choice I will be making, and I hope my constituents will join me in electing dedicated Labour county councillors who will work with this Labour Government to get the potholes fixed.