Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

I welcome the Minister’s constructive engagement as we have discussed setting standards to increase ridership through statutory guidance on stopping places. We have also discussed franchising guidance and being clear that it is not enough just to consult current passengers—we need would-be passengers, too. After all, we need more people on buses, and everything we do has to be about encouraging more passengers. More farebox means better services overall. On that note, I thank Grant Palmer for what it did in Dunstable recently, and I also thank the Dawsongroup for bringing a bus to Parliament as part of Catch the Bus Month. This September, I wish all Members and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy Catch the Bus Month.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Two weeks ago, the No. 61 bus made its final journey—yet another bus service my constituents relied on has been lost, with no apparent thought given to how people are supposed to get to work, school, college or hospital appointments, or simply from A to B. The withdrawal of the 61, which took residents directly to Winchester hospital, will make life significantly harder for many of my constituents. That is why I support new clause 37, which would guarantee every town a regular bus service to hospitals and GP surgeries, and amendment 2, which would ensure that socially necessary routes include those serving hospitals, schools and colleges.

As well as the 61, we have seen the withdrawal of the 461, the major route that served Peter Symonds college, and the 46, which was an important service for the residents of Valley Park. They were cut because they were not considered commercially viable, but healthcare and education are essential services. No one should be left isolated from a school, college or hospital simply because a bus company cannot turn a profit.

In addition to cuts to bus services, Conservative-controlled Hampshire county council’s decision to withdraw discretionary top-up enhancements to the English national concessionary travel scheme has increased challenges for my disabled constituents. I support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), because disabled people must not be unfairly restricted in when they can travel.

The removal of the companion bus pass and the restriction of free travel to between 9.30 am and 11 pm creates fresh barriers for many disabled people, including the 55,100 visually impaired residents in Hampshire. Last month, I visited the Guide Dogs community team centre in Chandler’s Ford, where I spoke to constituents who are deeply worried about the cuts. One told me she now struggles to reach medical appointments, while another, due to her disability, prefers early morning buses to avoid bright sunlight, which causes her severe eye pain. I have been supporting Guide Dogs’ campaign to make sure that people with a visual impairment can travel independently and with confidence.

Many visually impaired constituents understandably require assistance to travel safely, often relying on friends and family to accompany them to work, school and medical appointments. I have heard from constituents that losing access to the companion pass has meant that they are travelling less and resorting to costlier methods of travel, including taxis, to get around. The savings to the council are minimal compared with the cost to my constituents’ quality of life. That is why new clause 2, which would remove time restrictions on disabled concessionary passes, and new clause 9, which would extend free travel to carers, are so important. They would help restore independence and dignity to those who need public transport the most.

I hope the Government will accept the amendments that I have addressed and ensure that socially necessary routes are protected, because my constituents need affordable, reliable buses now.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the Bill back before the House. Although it does good work, it simply does not go far enough in its ambition or its delivery of the change we need—that is apparent from the number of amendments tabled on Report.

One of the really important amendments for me is new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). I spent the final week in August visiting dozens of North Norfolk’s villages as part of my summer tour. I heard about a huge range of issues, but a consistent theme across my area was frustration with our buses. Shirley and David in Hindringham told me that two buses a day just is not enough to get them to the places they need to go at the times they want to get there. They are right: that is indicative of a system that serves nobody in rural areas like mine.

It is not just anecdotes that back up that feeling; the numbers do, too. Those of us in the east of England get less than half the spend per head on transport as those in London. We accept that the transport system in our capital is different and that, overall, more money ends up being needed to accommodate the millions who need it, but to spend on each individual Londoner more than double the amount that is spent on my residents is patently unfair—and that is before we consider the advantage that urban areas have. They are set up for carrying out public transport. Running a bus network through a busy, well-populated area will always be easier and cheaper per head than having to dart around country lanes, picking up at small villages a handful of times a day.

I am excited about the prospect of franchising, which could bring real benefits to Norfolk’s bus services. However, rural areas like mine are embarking on the unknown. Franchising has a track record in big cities such as Manchester and London, but how we make it work in other areas with different characteristics remains unknown. That is why new clause 12 is so important. We should not be prescriptive, and nobody wants to force areas into pre-designed templates, but we have to offer them suitable support and off-the-shelf models so that they do not go through it totally alone.

As the Transport Committee, of which I am a member, found in its “Buses connecting communities” inquiry, there is a lot to learn from elsewhere when it comes to running successful bus networks, especially in rural areas. Without providing some of that knowledge in the form of clearly researched and defined transport model options, I worry that we are setting up another postcode lottery, whereby the quality of how these new powers are used depends on whether a transport authority got lucky in trying to make a new scheme work.

I spoke in Committee about how one such model should be a rural bus hub-and-spoke network, which would give the most coverage possible to as many areas as possible. Trying to reach every single village all the time just is not feasible, and we have to accept that. What is feasible is making sure that every village is near to a rural bus hub that is accessible through walking, cycling or a short drive. These hubs, if connected to one another, will finally create a rural network. We have to start challenging old ideas about how rural public transport works, and to be bold in the solutions we take forward.

I am very supportive of new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). To its credit, Norfolk county council has voluntarily expanded the times when people can use a disability bus pass, and I have heard positive testimony of how this has helped many people in my area. People across the country should be able to benefit from that equally, so I hope the Government will support new clause 2 tonight.

I make no apology for constantly banging on about buses. It cannot be beyond us to build a rural bus network that takes people where they want to go, when they want to go there. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking, but I urge them to seize the opportunity before them. They should not let this Bill go through as an unfunded damp squib that creates some new powers, with no help in their delivery. I hope they will take the suggestions of Members on board tonight, and make this the best possible Bill to drive forward the much-needed rural bus revolution.