Draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Luke Myer and Simon Lightwood

Wednesday 10th June 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. The draft regulations make two amendments to the Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) Regulations 2020. First, they extend the period during which local authorities may be charged for using the clean air zones central services website from 31 March 2027 to 31 March 2031. Secondly, they increase the fee that local authorities pay to use the services from £2 to £4 per transaction, as a step towards full cost recovery. The regulations are due to take effect from 1 September 2026.

It may benefit hon. Members if I provide some context. As many are already aware, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting vehicles a fee to enter the zone. They have been introduced selectively, only where evidence shows that they are the quickest way to reduce nitrogen dioxide concentrations in a local area, and where other options would not deliver the same results as quickly. Seven clean air zones are currently operated by local authorities in England: Bath and North East Somerset; Birmingham; Bradford; Bristol; Portsmouth; Sheffield and Rotherham; and Tyneside.

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

My understanding is that there are no plans to introduce such zones in either Middlesbrough or Redcar and Cleveland, but is the Minister able to confirm that for the record?

[Simon Lightwood]

At this time, the Government have no plans to introduce further clean air zones to additional cities. Our focus is to work with local authorities to support them in meeting their legally binding obligations to improve air quality in their localities.

Let me be clear that these clean air zones are working. Between 2019 and 2024, in the city areas that have clean air zones, annual average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide reduced by between 18% and 46%. They dropped by about a third in Bristol, by 40% in Bath and North East Somerset, and by more than 40% in Tyneside. However, it is more than just lines on a graph; these results matter. In the UK, it is estimated that exposure to air pollution has an annual impact by shortening lifespans equivalent to 29,000 to 43,000 deaths.

The impact of air pollution is felt most acutely by the most vulnerable in our society, including older people and younger children. This is about children breathing cleaner air, building healthier communities, preventing illness and protecting our NHS. As a Government, it is one of the most important things that we can do for the public, and it is the least that they deserve. In 2021, the then Government built the “drive in a clean air zone” central services website to support local authorities to introduce and operate clean air zones. The website lets drivers check whether their vehicle meets the air-quality standards for a particular clean air zone and, if not, pay a daily charge to drive in it. A call centre supports people who do not use digital channels to make payments, and it helps local authorities with enforcement.

The 2020 regulations support the implementation of clean air zones. They establish a legal framework for the Transport Secretary to charge local authorities a fee of £2 for each proposed payment through the central services website. The regulations ensured that the £2 fee was payable until 31 March 2027, which is the date by which it was estimated that all local authorities with a clean air zone would have achieved compliance with air quality requirements and exited the central services. The previous Government were not able to achieve that, and some areas are now not expected to meet their air quality target until the early 2030s. Therefore, clean air zones will need to remain in place for longer than envisaged by the 2020 regulations. This instrument, which extends the charging period, is necessary to continue operating the central services.

The legal framework supporting the 2020 regulations has also changed following the UK’s exit from the European Union. As a result, it is no longer possible to rely on the same powers to amend the original regulations. The draft regulations presented to the Committee are therefore made under updated powers introduced by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

These draft regulations are an important step to ensuring that the costs of providing the central services are recovered fairly and transparently, rather than falling to the taxpayer. I make it clear that raising the fee to £4 will increase cost recovery to an estimated 90% of the lifetime of CAZ central services from financial year 2020-21 to financial year 2030-31. That is higher than the 69% cost recovery we estimate for the period if the £2 fee were to remain unchanged. It leaves the Government subsidising transactions at 10% of the overall cost, as opposed to 31%. It is a sensible move towards full cost recovery.

I reassure the Committee on the potential concerns that the fee increase will be passed on to motorists. Our expectation is that that will not be the case. Ministers wrote to councils in December last year, strongly urging them not to pass the transaction fee on to motorists through increased clean air zone charges. Tackling the cost of living is this Government’s top priority, and we are ensuring that this change does not add to the challenges that many people are now facing.

To be clear, this is not a war on motorists. This Government are backing drivers and businesses through a range of measures, including extending the 5p fuel duty cut and introducing a 12-month road tax holiday for hauliers. The extension to the 5p duty cut is keeping taxes at a 16-year low and saving the average driver £120.

We are making record levels of investment in our road network, including a £7 billion commitment to tackle potholes and improve local maintenance. Alongside that, we are supporting the transition to cleaner transport, including through the £2 billion electric car grant, which is helping drivers move to zero emission vehicles. It has already helped 120,000 UK drivers to do that since July 2025.

Returning to the statutory instrument, the Government’s understanding is that the fee increase to £4 is manageable, as most of the schemes are currently running in surplus. It is not right that taxpayers across the country should be subsidising surpluses in these few authorities, generated from a scheme that is designed to clean up our air, not generate income.

For example, from the information published by Bristol city council, we understand that its clean air zone surplus has been running to several million pounds a year. This fee increase could reduce that by between £400,000 and £1 million a year in each of the coming three financial years. Should any local authority fall into a shortfall with its clean air zone operating costs, that will be covered by the Government under new burdens rules.

When clean air zones were established, the Government informed local authorities that the transaction fee would be reviewed once costs and income were clearer. Clean air zones have been in operation for several years, and we now have the necessary data from the past 12 to 18 months on costs, revenues and the expected duration of clean air zones to review and amend the fee.

Local authorities are expecting this fee change from 1 September, and officials continue to help them prepare. The Department for Transport will work closely with its delivery partner, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to ensure that the new fee is reflected when the regulations come into effect on 1 September.

The regulations will ensure that central services continue to operate effectively in a sustainable and transparent way, while supporting ongoing improvements to air quality. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Luke Myer and Simon Lightwood

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I have met Go Ahead, which is working with the council to pick up services that otherwise would have been lost. The Government are providing long-term investment for bus services, totalling £30.2 million for Cornwall, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about bus services in Cornwall.

[Luke Myer]

I have raised many times in this place the state of our bus services in rural east Cleveland. I am grateful to the Government for the powers and funding that have come to Tees Valley for public transport, but we are still not seeing the benefits in east Cleveland. On 20 March, Tees Valley combined authority will vote on the next stage of bus funding. Does the Minister agree that it should prioritise our rural villages, which have been left behind for far too long?

[Simon Lightwood]

The Tees Valley Mayor has all the powers and funding from the Labour Government to fix the buses, so it is disappointing, if not surprising, that he is choosing not to do so. In the meantime, I applaud my hon. Friend’s efforts to ensure that east Cleveland is not forgotten, and I support his call to ensure that the available funding is used to better connect its villages.

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

Debate between Luke Myer and Simon Lightwood

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Luke Myer and Simon Lightwood

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.