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

Luke Myer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

The second reason the Minister gives as to why our amendments are unnecessary is that he believes those powers already exist. Even if they do, they are clearly not working and something has to change. In my first 12 months as the MP for Wimbledon, nothing—with the exception of assisted dying and the terrible tragedy in Gaza—has excited more interest in my constituents than our proposal to combat headphone dodgers. At its most basic, the amendment gives the Government a rare chance to do something popular. Let us be frank, they need all the help they can get given their current poll ratings, so I urge the Minister to support it.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I rise to support the clause, and in particular the elements in proposed new section 144A of the Transport Act 2000 on nuisance and antisocial behaviour. In the community of Hemlington in my constituency, there have recently been disgraceful attacks on bus drivers and buses by young people in the community. I commend the work of Cleveland police, which responded using an innovative so-called Trojan bus filled with plain-clothes police officers who then arrested and apprehended the individuals committing those crimes.

I am asking for clarity on how those provisions in the Bill fit with the broader legislative framework on nuisance and antisocial behaviour, including in relation to people who are not necessarily bus passengers but who are outside and may be disrupting transport. I hope that the Minister can give us some more information on that.

I welcome the provisions in the clause, because we have to address antisocial behaviour and the way that it impacts our public transport system. I support this clause, and I am pleased that we have these provisions in the Bill.

[Simon Lightwood]

After the Liberal Democrat contribution, I was missing my headphones—[Interruption.] I say that with love. I thank Committee members for their further comments on the powers to make byelaws contained in the Bill.

The Government are focused on tackling antisocial behaviour. Improving the safety of our bus network is one of the Government’s aims in reforming buses, because that is critical to giving passengers, particularly women and girls, the confidence they need to take the bus. Different powers are currently available for different transport modes, and the powers that certain local transport authorities hold for light or heavy rail are not in place for buses. That has created a situation where local transport authorities rely on a patchwork of powers to enforce against poor behaviour, and some authorities are unable to act at all against those committing antisocial behaviour. The Bill remedies that situation by providing powers to create and enforce bus byelaws.

On the question of what constitutes antisocial behaviour, the Bill lists specific behaviours that byelaws can cover, such as vaping, smoking and interfering with or obstructing services and vehicles. My Department plans to issue non-statutory guidance about the content of byelaws that will take the existing railway byelaws as a starting point, which should help to ensure consistency across different transport modes.

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

Luke Myer Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

However, if the Minister looks under “Net expenditure”, he will see that, in ’24-25, the bus franchising implementation costs were £18.7 million, and the bus franchising net cost—the cost of providing the bus franchise in Greater Manchester absent farebox—were £150,761,000. That is what is sometimes described as the transition phase. If he looks across to ’25-26, he will see that the forecast for this year is a loss—net of revenue—of £226,304,000. Those are not my figures; they are from transport revenue budget of the Greater Manchester combined authority, which is planning on making a loss of £226 million. The Minister corrected me; it was in fact £226.3 million, so I undercut it.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the entire structure of combined authority devolution, particularly in Greater Manchester, which has pioneered much of this work, is about the earn-back or gainshare principle? Early public investment results in economic growth down the line, and higher business rates and tax revenue that then fund some of this work. In other words, in the end, it pays for itself.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that thoughtful intervention. In principle, the answer is yes, which is why we legislated in 2017 to allow that in principle and why we supported Greater Manchester through the implementation of the Bee Network. That happened under not Labour, but the Conservatives. However, it comes with financial risk. There needs to be clarity on where the costs are and an absolute, laser focus on minimising them, just like in any other business.

The hon. Member did not say that the forecast in the Bee Network’s business case, which enabled it to get the go-ahead, was for it to make a profit. I accept that there will be periods where it makes a profit and periods where it makes a loss, but it should break even overall. Over the forecast period, however, the plan was for it to make a profit of £94 million—that was how it was sold. For it to make a planned loss in 2025-26 of £226.3 million and change, given the huge cost overruns that I hinted at in Tuesday’s sitting, is a disaster. It makes me wonder where that has come from.

I remember the hon. Member watching with interest on Tuesday as I talked about the more than £17 million overrun on agency bus drivers, because the transport authority had failed to provide enough qualified drivers having misunderstood the nature of the TUPE regulations regarding their transfer from the previous operators to the franchise process. There was also the massive cost overrun on the purchase of bus depots because it was the only buyer in the market. There was an explosion in costs for the purchase orders for new buses, with a surcharge of £40,000 on every bus that Andy Burnham’s Greater Manchester combined authority buys because of the design requirements that he has put in, including bits of leather on the seats—we will not go into the detail of that.

If we are not absolutely laser-focused on the costs, that is what happens. The biggest overrun, which perhaps I should have led with, was the increase in wages. There has been an increase in unionised power—which arguably could be a good or bad thing—and an increase in hourly rates for bus drivers to £16 an hour, which is above the market rate. There are not just bus drivers in a bus company; there are all sorts of other roles as well.

I should also mention the failure to be efficient with the application of capital. In a private organisation, having bus washers is important, because having clean buses is part of the service and it affects the customer experience. Since the Bee Network has been in place, and the local transport authority purchased the depots, there has been a rather unfortunate occurrence whereby the bus cleaning mechanism—the washers—have been out of action for over a year.

The processes and the efficiency within the new structure have to date proved inadequate to get the funding to repair the washers, because that is capex rather than opex. I am assuming that is what the problem is—that it is an unplanned expense, so the authority has to go through the rigmarole of a public sector procurement process. No doubt it will get there in the end, but the consequence is that the bus depot is sending out buses that have not been cleaned for a year. Is that an improvement in service? No, it is not.

I say that not to denigrate franchising. Franchising can be done well—it is not a necessary consequence of bus franchising that there are dirty buses—but the evidence that we have at the moment is that even a really sophisticated operator such as Greater Manchester, with a mayoral combined authority and the financial resources, but without the experience of running buses, suffers very significant bumps along the road. That needs to be addressed. If that is happening in a large local transport authority, what is the likelihood of it happening in a small one—for example, in Norfolk county council in my neck of the woods? That is one of our problems with the Bill.

Going back to amendment 49, proposed new section 123Q(5B) of the Transport Act 2000 deals with intra-boundary services. I am applying the same logic as I did to amendment 47. Why should local transport authorities have the power to refuse to grant a service permit if they are satisfied that there are benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the area, or to persons living in that area, and that those benefits will outweigh any adverse effect on any existing local service?

All the amendment requires is for local authorities to act in the wider interests of consumers—the passengers. The proposed service might have an impact, but if we are satisfied that overall the net benefit is in the positive column and not the negative, why would we not agree to it? Let us think of the passenger—the consumer—rather than the supplier.

The amendment would be a particularly important safeguard if the local transport authority was also the owner of a municipal bus company, which was the supplier of the local services contract. There would then be an added layer of opacity in the process, because the contractor and contracted would be the same organisation. A challenger brand could then come and say that it wanted to provide additional services, and it could be assessed to be net beneficial to the economy or the people living in that area, nevertheless the local authority could refuse to grant a permit, even though it is the operator that would be adversely affected—let us imagine how that would look.

The temptation, of course, would be to say that the award was refused for wholly improper reasons: a circling of the wagons to protect one’s own. I hope that the whole Committee would agree that that would be an improper reason to deny additional access to the people living in the area, and/or to deny a benefit to the economy, yet there would be a strong temptation. If the authority has built its bus service network, and a little so-and-so comes in and demonstrates that it can go one step better, but that would have a negative impact on the authority’s cosy plans, people in the authority are going to think, “I don’t want to be troubled by this.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I heard the shadow Minister say that, and I understand it. However, there is a contradiction in his analysis. He admits that point, but constantly refers to consumers operating in profit-and-loss markets. He is making a very narrow equation, and I fear that allowing public providers in the way he wants would simply undermine the whole rationale behind what we—or the Government—are trying to do with the franchising process. It is too narrow and simply ends up completely undermining what we are trying to do.

[Luke Myer]

Is it not the case that these are, in fact, not private providers at all? Many are subsidised by other Governments around the world—we see this in our rail and bus networks. Other states are stepping in to make a profit where Conservative Governments have stepped back.

[Mr Kohler]

I fear that is true. I do not think they are subsidising—I think they are coming in and taking a profit, and I absolutely agree.

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

Luke Myer Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Lightwood]

Subsections (5) and (6) of clause 14 were inserted by non-Government amendments in the Lords. This amendment seeks to remove those subsections. Clause 14(5) places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the implications of ending the £2 national fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services, as proposed in the Bill. Assessing the impact of the withdrawal of the previous fare cap on specific routes would be pointless while the current cap is in place. At the spending review, the Government took the decision to extend that cap to March 2027. Moreover, in February 2025, the Department published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 fare cap. That showed that the cap delivered low value for money. Work is already under way to undertake a review of the £3 bus fare cap. Therefore, a legislative requirement for further evaluative work is duplicative and unnecessary. That subsection is also impractical. Socially necessary local services are a new measure introduced by this Bill; they were, therefore, not in place at the time of the £2 bus fare cap and could not, therefore, have any measurable effect on it. It will also take some time for local transport authorities to identify socially necessary local services.

Clause 14(6) places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of how the level of employee’s national insurance contributions may impact on the provision of socially necessary bus services. That includes an assessment of how transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities are affected. That subsection cuts across existing work of the Department for Education, which has committed to reform the special educational needs and disabilities system. It is also impractical because it is seeking to review three months after Royal Assent. Socially necessary local services are likely to take some time to be identified and agreed, making that assessment premature. I have explained why the Government are seeking to remove both subsections. Having explained why the Government are seeking to remove subsections (5) and (6), I turn to the remainder of clause 14.

Clause 14 introduces requirements in relation to socially necessary local services in areas with enhanced partnerships. Enhanced partnerships are statutory partnerships where local transport authorities and bus operators agree on binding goals to improve bus services in their area. This measure will require local transport authorities to identify the services that they consider socially necessary local services as defined in the Bill, and include them as a list in the enhanced partnership plan. Enhanced partnership schemes will need to specify requirements that apply when the operator of a socially necessary local service proposes to cancel or vary the registration of a service in such a way as is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access essential goods and services, economic opportunities or social activities. Schemes must also require local transport authorities to consider whether any alternative arrangements may be made to mitigate the effects of cancellation or variation.

This will not require additional funding. In practical terms, local transport authorities and bus operators will be incorporating the measure into their established processes. Once the legislation has passed, we will be working with stakeholders to implement the measure. Local transport authorities must vary their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to comply with clause 14 within one year of its coming into force. We will be publishing guidance in due course to help local transport authorities and bus operators with the implementation of the measure.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I support clause 14 and the Government’s proposed measures. Good decisions depend on good information, and in the East Cleveland part of my constituency we have seen far too many decisions made in a black hole of information, which has seen many routes disappear over many years. I now have many villages left in isolation.

It has fallen to local campaigners to step up and make the case that such routes are socially necessary, including through protests, rallies and so on, to try to save them. That is exactly what happened in the case of the Stagecoach 1 and 2 in my constituency, which was created as a result of a sustained campaign. However, that route is not sufficient, because it misses out certain villages and does not go down the high street in Brotton, for example. It also misses out several residents, of which one example is a lady called Norma Templeman who I promised I would mention in the House. She lives in North Skelton and is 87 years old. She said a few months ago:

“You have no idea how isolated this makes us golden oldies feel.”

I would never use such language to refer to her, because I think she is full of energy, even if she is 87. It should not fall to an 87-year-old lady to campaign to save and extend routes like the Stagecoach 1 and 2, or the demand-responsive transport service that she benefits from, which, again, runs out of money every few months, and there has to be a sustained campaign to try to save it. The entire model is inefficient.

I hope that the mayor in our region will seek to use the powers in the Bill and introduce a franchising model. So far, he is resistant to do that, so I ask for some clarity from the Minister on devolution—which we covered in the previous debate—with reference to clause 14. The principles set out in the various pieces of legislation on combined authorities, particularly the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, set out that the role of a combined authority is to act as it says on the tin: to be a combination of the local constituent member councils and their leaders. We have an odd situation in Teesside wherein the councils and their leaders want to have a franchising system but the mayor is resistant to doing so.

In the House on 14 May, I asked a Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government whether the Government accept the principle of subsidiarity, wherein power should sit in the lowest possible tier of government and local communities should have the strongest say. The Minister accepted that principle in his response. He said that devolution should not just be

“a shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to a regional or sub-regional body that is far away from communities and the local authority.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 135WH.]

He said the transfer of power is a good, but it is not the “whole job”, and communities should be able to “take control for themselves”. I hope that that is also the case when it comes to these powers. We should not have a mayor sitting above the community—above even the local authorities, which make up the LTA—and not using the powers and the funding that this Government are giving him to act.

For Norma’s sake, and the many Normas in all my communities and communities across the country, I support the clause and the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will deal with this in a slightly different order from that in which the Minister addressed it. I will deal with clause 14 in toto, and then look at Government amendment 6, which removes two subsections from the clause.

Clause 14 amends the Transport Act 2000 by requiring local transport authorities to identify and list services in the enhanced partnership area that are “socially necessary local services”—we have already discussed this at some length this afternoon—and then to specify requirements that must be followed if a bus operator of those services wishes to vary or cancel them. Subsection (2) amends section 138A of the Transport Act 2000, which talks about enhanced partnership plans and schemes, and it requires local transport authorities to identify and list socially necessary local services within their enhanced partnership plans—so far, so sensible.

The term is defined in subsection (2)(c), which inserts proposed new subsection (15) into section 138A and provides a definition of “socially necessary local service” as,

“a local service which—

(a) enables passengers to access—

(i) essential goods and services,

(ii) economic opportunities (including employment), or

(iii) social activities, and

(b) if cancelled, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access those goods, services, opportunities or activities.”

That is not necessarily a problem, but it is worth noting that this definition is quite subjective in its application. It is not easily measurable what such a service is, nor is it standardised between local authorities. The Minister will say, “Devolution will allow a thousand blossoms to bloom,” and I conceptually agree. However, I wonder whether, if we have different interpretations of the same term—“essential goods and services”—in different parts of the country, that raises a question about how the provisions will be applied across the board.

I understand the desire to devolve assessments to local need, but the determination does, after all, have commercial consequences for operators. As ever, where commercial opportunities are challenged or threatened, that brings with it a risk of legal challenge. That is why I raise the flag with the Minister—I am not going to do anything about it—that this is a potential future pitfall, where different local transport authorities apply the same definition differently.

If the Minister recognises that the definition is subjective, is he concerned about the risk of challenge? The route to formal challenge within an enhanced partnership structure would typically be by judicial review. Is there another form of challenge that the Minister would recognise as part of this process? What guidance will be given to local transport authorities in the assessment process? He referred to some guidance in his earlier responses; I saw him glance towards his officials. I would be grateful for more detail.

I think the issue can be dealt with through guidance, so it would be helpful to understand what form it will take for local transport authorities. Has that already been formulated? Either way, do we have an indication of when the guidance will be published? It is clearly an important document when looking to turn these concepts into practical policies.

Clause 14(2)(a) inserts new paragraph (ba) into section 138A(3) of the Transport Act 2000, requiring local transport authorities to identify which local services in their area are socially necessary services and to list those services in the enhanced partnership plan. Clause 14(2)(b) inserts new paragraph (4A) into section 138A of the 2000 Act, requiring local transport authorities to keep the list of socially necessary services under review and amend it as necessary. The idea here is presumably to ensure that the list of socially necessary local services reflects any sudden network changes in an enhanced partnership area. So far, so good.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Luke Myer Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill, particularly the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism, which is not only a sensible intervention but a timely one. It gives investors clarity, it gives producers confidence and it gives communities such as mine a sense that this transition will bring jobs rather than take them away. I thank Ministers for listening not only to the sector but to those of us who represent Teesside.

In our region, we have a number of producers with an interest in scaling up SAF production—principally Alfanar, which has already invested £2.5 billion in our region and wants to go much further by building a brand-new plant that will create 2,300 construction jobs and 300 permanent jobs. Alfanar is not alone, however; we also have Iogen, Willis, Nova Pangaea, Abundia, Arcadia and many active producers or others looking to scale up—serious players with serious plans. I spoke to one earlier this week; it said that the Bill is exactly what the industry is looking for.

May I put just a couple of questions to the Minister? What those producers need now is confidence that enabling work for final investment decisions can begin, ideally before the Bill completes its full legislative journey. Of course, there is a precedent for that in the Energy Act 2023. What engagement will the Minister have with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on the carbon capture track project. I know that a number of the producers are keen to benefit from track 1 expansion, so producing those two things in train seems like a sensible thing to do, and I hope that there is cross-departmental engagement.

Ultimately, I thank the Government and urge them to move at pace to deliver the jobs that we want for the industry in our region. I want to ensure that young people watching from working-class communities across Teesside know that these are not abstract opportunities that are distant from them, but opportunities for them that they can get into—like our expansion in skills training. This sector can be transformative for the Tees valley region—not only for Middlesbrough but for Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton, Darlington and Hartlepool. Our area suffered industrial decline for many decades, but now we are seeing new life and new industry. Finally, Teesside is taking off.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chris McDonald for the final Back-Bench contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I am always delighted to answer questions from the hon. Gentleman, who represents a place that I love dearly. I have responsibility for maritime travel, and we see Artemis Technologies decarbonising our maritime sector. We have refineries in Belfast. I spoke to a major chief executive whose family emigrated to Canada from Belfast and who is very fond of the city. We expect him to talk to his companies about applying for the contracts when we eventually let them do so, and that will be key.

I have a lot of questions to get through. The £1.50 that the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) mentioned could be £1.50 more or £1.50 less, but I am happy to hand over £1.50 to him now, if he wishes. That is not going to have an impact on people’s ability to fly to destinations, as he rightly said. I think people flying for their annual holiday is key to the British way of life, and I do not want to damage that whatsoever. That analysis comes from Department for Transport business team itself.

Many of the questions were about going faster. I must gently point out that we were promised four plants by 2025 by the last Government, but I am not going to get into that. We could not go any faster—this is still the first Session—and we had to introduce the mandate and we are now introducing part 2, which is the RCM. So I would say we are going at as fast a pace as humanly possible.

We are neutral on when the contracts are bid for, so I say to those worried about waste or HEFA streams that these contracts change over time, and we will see what bids come in. The hon. Member for Orpington also mentioned large plants, and he will have seen Members—mainly those Government Members behind me—from our industrial north, south Wales and other places queuing up to get advanced, high-manufacturing facilities with well-paid, trade-unionised jobs. As we advance this, we are working with the industry on the strike price.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), said this is not a silver bullet, and it is not, but it is part of the package—airspace modernisation, sustainable aviation fuels, carbon pricing, carbon capture technology and zero emission flight—that this Government are pursuing to decarbonise aviation in our country, and we are investing £1 billion in the Aerospace Technology Institute to do that.

My hon. Friend also mentioned Heathrow, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has shown great leadership in this space—along with other Members, officials and the industry—has pointed out that the expansion of Heathrow is accounted for in the sixth carbon budget. I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for his thanks to me for getting on with what is part of a package of decarbonisation, as he rightly pointed out.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) is a doughty champion for Bristol airport—he mentions it every time I meet him in the Tea Room—and a champion for hydrogen. I look forward to visiting his airport and to replying to his Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) takes any opportunity he has to plug the Universal theme park. He spoke about his support for Luton airport, and how it will be a gateway for regeneration in his area. On how the approach differs from those of other markets, we are the first ones to do it. If we get this done in the next few weeks, we will be the only legislature on the planet to have done so, and the world is looking to us to move this forward.

Coming to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), there was a bit of an arms race between Members, if they do not mind my saying so, about who loves their airport the most—Teesside, Norwich, East Midlands and on it went. I think we should have an independent competition for who loves their airport—

[Luke Myer]

rose—

[Mike Kane]

I think the hon. Member representing Teesside is about to intervene on me.

[Luke Myer]

Does the Minister agree with me that Teesside International airport is a real gem in our region, and it is absolutely critical that it returns to profitability as soon as possible?

[Mike Kane]

How could I not agree with my hon. Friend. We are proud of our airports—I am proud of mine in my constituency—which provide jobs and services. As everybody has said, they have a great history and provide great innovation, and we should celebrate them.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Luke Myer Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is highly unusual for major legislation on buses to be introduced so early in the life of a Government; in fact, I think it may be unprecedented. Buses are by far the most used means of public transport, but they have traditionally received less political attention than other modes, and Ministers deserve great credit for securing this legislation so early in this Parliament.

It is difficult today to capture the extent of the hostility to bus regulation that existed in Government a little more than a decade ago, when the spirit that animated the Transport Act 1985 was still a moving force in transport debates. Although franchising could boast a successful record in London, there was visceral and ideological opposition to extending it. The coalition Government were actively hostile. Ministers even sought to exclude areas that pursued franchising schemes, then known as quality contracts, from receiving funding—an echo of the bad old days when the Thatcher Government threatened to strip the west midlands passenger transport authority of metro development funding unless its municipal bus operations were sold off.

That lingering attitude changed when George Osborne struck a devolution deal with Richard Leese and the late Howard Bernstein that included franchising in Greater Manchester. That was less a turning point than a complete reversal. In fact, it was widely rumoured at the time that the Department for Transport did not know what the Treasury had agreed. That welcome revolution in thought, which found expression in the Bus Services Act 2017, was, however, imperfect and incomplete. Franchising powers were made available only to mayoral authorities that were picked and chosen in Westminster.

The Act contained a delayed and vindictive sting: clause 22, which sought to bar new municipal operations, despite the great success of surviving municipal operators in places such as Nottingham and Reading. Reputedly, the clause was a very late addition to the drafting of the 2017 Act—so late that it had not been quality assured by Government lawyers. Indeed, Conservative Ministers were forced to concede that the clause would not prevent an authority from

“acquiring shares in existing bus companies”,

nor would it prevent the repurposing of an existing company that was unconnected to bus services. Despite the flaws in its drafting, clause 22, which was born out of spitefulness and political posturing, has had a chilling effect on authorities that might have otherwise pursued a municipal operation. This Bill remedies both failings, and we will have better bus services and better law as a result of its passing.

There are other welcome provisions in the Bill. It will make it easier for operators and authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour and misogyny. It will make services more accessible for disabled passengers and accelerate the transition to cleaner, low-emission vehicles. All these measures will make a positive difference in my constituency, which sits at the intersection of Birmingham and the county of Worcestershire. It is a place where there are relatively low levels of car ownership, where a lack of audiovisual announcements makes it harder for some people to use the bus and where connections between our neighbourhoods are the poor relation to routes into the city centre.

In May, under the leadership of the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, the combined authority made the welcome decision to bring bus services back under public accountability and direction. That will enable better timetables, integrated ticketing and services that better connect the areas of highest unemployment with the business parks where new jobs are being created. It will also mean new powers over fares.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Laurence Turner]

I will not; I am sorry. I do not wish to deny another Member time to speak.

A few days ago, under the version of the nBus scheme agreed by the previous Conservative mayor, Andy Street, operators exercised their legal right to hike seasonal fares, which they did by 8.6%. Low-paid bus commuters deserve better, and that is why we need the new powers that Labour is introducing in this Bill to better protect passengers from such increases in the cost of living.

One of the great pleasures of following other members of the Transport Committee is that they have made points about the forthcoming inquiry report much more eloquently than I can. I hope that that report is published in time to shape the final drafting and implementation of this important Bill, which I look forward to supporting through its later stages.

North Sea Vessel Collision

Luke Myer Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

It is standard procedure to bring on board local resilience forums in any situation such as this. That has been done: the forum is up and running. I am grateful to all elected Members across the parties and hard-working councillors who will be involved in making sure that the best interests of the people of the Humber region are protected. We have currently deployed on site all the resources that are needed to contain the fire and to assess the environmental damage of any spillage. We will continue to make decisions in conjunction with the local resilience forum through the day and, I believe, for the rest of the week.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I wish to add my voice to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) given the very perilous position of the Teesside and North Yorkshire marine ecosystem following the environmental disaster we suffered in 2021. I ask the Minister to ensure that the response is not only around the Humber estuary, but that he reviews the environmental impact for the entire east coast as well.

[Mike Kane]

As I have said, the MCA’s counter-pollution assets are being deployed at the scene. The RNLI, search and rescue and aviation have all been on site, although search and rescue has been stood down. Both vessels were also carrying marine heavy fuel oil. That is a present pollution risk should either vessel sink or break apart.