Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—£2 bus fare scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2.

(2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into a scheme established under this section.

(3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 23 of this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must review the terms of any scheme established under this section every three years.

(5) The Secretary of State may amend a scheme established under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument.

(6) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to cap bus fares at £2.

New clause 2—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—

“The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.

New clause 3—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—

“(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services within their areas.

(2) Any review must assess—

(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;

(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures;

(c) changes which may improve accessibility and increase patronage; and

(d) the potential benefits to bus patronage of the simplification of ticketing systems.

(3) A local transport authority must complete its first review under this section no later than six months after the passing of this Act, with subsequent reviews conducted at least once every three years.

(4) The results of any review conducted under this section must be made publicly available.

(5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, community representatives, and any other stakeholders the authority deems relevant.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services in their areas.

New clause 4—Duty to promote bus services—

“(1) It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.

(2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider—

(a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options;

(b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives;

(c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage;

(d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility;

(e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;

(f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion;

(g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services.

(3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including—

(a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable;

(b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage;

(c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and

(d) plans for future improvements in bus services.

(4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.”

This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas.

New clause 5—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—

“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.

(2) In this section, "relevant authority" includes—

(a) a county council in England;

(b) a district council in England;

(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;

(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.

(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

(4) The report must also include—

(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;

(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;

(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;

(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;

(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.

(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”

This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

New clause 6—Public sector equality duty—

“In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading “Transport” insert—

“A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation.””

This new clause would place bus companies under the public sector equality duty.

New clause 7—Young person’s discount scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a discount on bus fares for people aged between 19 and 25.

(2) Any scheme under this section must provide for a discount amounting to a third of the price of relevant fares.”

This new clause would introduce a discount scheme for young people, providing 19-to 25-year-olds a third off bus fares.

New clause 8—Review of impact of VAT changes on demand-responsive bus services—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of the VAT system on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) whether the current system of granting a zero-rated VAT exemption to public service vehicles with 10 seats or more while subjecting smaller vehicles to VAT on fares—

(i) influences the choice of vehicles used for demand-responsive bus services;

(ii) has any other impact on the provision or operation of demand-responsive bus services,

(b) the potential for VAT exemptions to facilitate the rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives from the intelligent mobility sector, local authorities, bus operators, and public transport users.

(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to support the growth of demand-responsive bus services across the UK.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of current VAT rules on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

New clause 9—Free bus travel for unpaid carers—

“The Secretary of State must work with local transport authorities and operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which—

(a) provides free bus travel to those in receipt of carers allowance, and

(b) supports local transport authorities to expand provision for other unpaid carers.”

This new clause would require the Government to introduce a scheme to provide free bus travel for those in receipt of carers allowance and improve bus provision for carers.

New clause 10—Review of capacity of Bus Centre of Excellence—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—

(a) the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities in establishing and operating franchising schemes under the Act, and

(b) additional resourcing required for this purpose.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of the current operational capacity, staffing levels, and expertise of the Bus Centre of Excellence;

(b) an evaluation of the effectiveness and reach of current training programmes and support services provided to local transport authorities on franchising, and their suitability for authorities able to franchise services under the Act;

(c) an identification of specific additional financial, human, and technological resources required by the Bus Centre of Excellence to adequately deliver comprehensive training and ongoing support for all local transport authorities considering or implementing franchising schemes under the Act;

(d) an analysis of the impact of current capacity limitations on the pace and quality of franchising scheme development and implementation by local transport authorities.

(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, representatives from the Bus Centre of Excellence, and bus operators.

(4) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any steps to ensure the Bus Centre of Excellence is adequately resourced for its role in supporting bus franchising.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities for bus franchising.

New clause 11—Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;

(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;

(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;

(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;

(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—

(a) local councils and local transport authorities;

(b) bus service operators;

(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;

(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and

(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.

(4) Any report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.

New clause 12—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme.

(2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in—

(a) rural areas;

(b) coastal communities; and

(c) suburban areas.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes.

New clause 13—Power to convene for bus service coordination—

“(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England may convene other agencies and public bodies that have transport functions and obligations for the purposes of coordinating bus services within, to, or from its area.

(2) The power under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, the power to convene NHS trusts and other health bodies for the purposes of coordinating bus services with non-emergency patient transport services.

(3) The purpose of convening under this section is to promote the efficient, integrated and accessible provision of bus services across different sectors and to ensure that bus services meet the needs of the communities they serve.

(4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the coordination of transport services with other public services.

(5) Local transport authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the exercise of functions under this section.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish—

(a) any guidance issued under subsection (5), and

(b) any variation or revocation of that guidance.”

This new clause would empower local authorities to convene other agencies for the purposes of coordinating bus services.

New clause 14—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the impact and feasibility of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes.

(2) A review under this section must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of current usage patterns of concessionary travel passes and the impact of existing time restrictions on passengers, particularly persons with disabilities and older people;

(b) an evaluation of the potential social, economic, and environmental benefits of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, including impacts on access to essential health services, goods and services, and social activities;

(c) an analysis of the financial implications for local transport authorities and bus operators of removing time restrictions, and potential funding mechanisms to mitigate any adverse impacts;

(d) investigation of passenger volume at different times and regional variation;

(e) recommendations for any legislative or policy changes required to implement the removal of time restrictions.

(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) local transport authorities;

(b) bus operators;

(c) bus users and organisations representing people with disabilities and elderly people; and

(d) any other persons or organisations whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the completion of the review.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes (such as “Freedom Passes”).

New clause 15—Rail bus links scheme: proposals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing local rail connections.

(2) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance accompanying the scheme on—

(a) the departmental funding which will be available for the purposes of the scheme;

(b) the qualifying criteria which will be used to assess eligibility for the scheme, which may include, but may not be limited to, insufficiencies in funding, vehicles and equipment, workforce or expertise.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing connections.

New clause 16—Bus pass scheme for persons in post-16 education—

“The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a half-price discount on bus fares for persons in post-16 education.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a discount on bus fares for people in post-16 education.

New clause 17—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—

(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;

(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.

(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.

New clause 21—Fare cap for school-only services—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, extend the £3 bus fare cap to school-only services.

(2) Where the £3 bus fare cap is subsequently increased or decreased, an equivalent change applies to the cap for school-only services.”

New clause 22—Minimum bus service standards: review—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.

(2) The review conducted under this section must—

(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,

(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”

New clause 23—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—

“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.

(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.

New clause 24—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops—

“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.

(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.

New clause 25—Franchising authorities: joint forum—

“(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions.

(2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.”

This new clause would require all local transport authorities that introduce franchising schemes to establish a joint forum with trade unions and operators.

New clause 26—Consultation of trade unions—

“In section 138F of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (6)(f) insert—

(fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,”.

This new clause of the Transport Act 2000 would require local transport authorities to consult trade unions when proposing to make an enhanced partnership plan.

New clause 27—National Bus Forum—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Bus Forum.

(2) The purpose of the National Bus Forum is to address issues affecting the provision of local bus services at industry-wide and strategic level.

(3) The membership of the National Bus Forum must include—

(a) HM Government,

(b) trades unions,

(c) bus service operators,

(d) local authorities in England, and

(e) any other body or persons as the Secretary of State deems necessary.”

This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Bus Forum whose membership includes unions, operators and local government, in line with a recommendation by the Transport Select Committee.

New clause 28—Review into floating bus stops—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.

(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a vote on the proposals.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the safety of existing floating bus stops and publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a vote debate on the proposals.

New clause 29—Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess—

(a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,

(b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services,

(c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and

(d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.”

New clause 30—Consultation: bus funding formula—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation.

(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula,

(b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and

(c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted.

New clause 31—Poor performance of franchising—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to take over the management of a service where, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there has been a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.

(2) A statement under subsection (1) must set out—

(a) the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service, and how these circumstances are to be identified;

(b) the actions which the Secretary of State may take to redress the failure to deliver the service;

(c) the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement of when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.

New clause 32—Requirement to consult and notify before service review discussions—

“(1) A local transport authority or bus operator must not enter into formal discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service unless—

(a) notice has been given to parish and district councils affected by the change or withdrawal, and

(b) a period of public consultation has been concluded.

(2) The authority or operator must publish, before giving notice and holding the public consultation—

(a) the date on which formal discussions regarding changes to the service are proposed to commence,

(b) a summary of the reasons why alteration or withdrawal is being considered, and

(c) information on participating in the public consultation or submitting representations on or alternatives to the proposed changes.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities and bus operators to notify relevant councils and initiate a public consultation before entering into discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service.

New clause 33—Duty to promote and increase bus usage—

“(1) A local transport authority must include in its local transport plan a strategy to promote and increase bus usage in its area.

(2) The strategy must—

(a) set out specific, measurable objectives for increasing bus ridership,

(b) establish 2015 as the year against which progress will be assessed,

(c) include measures to encourage modal shift from private vehicles to buses, and

(d) explain how the authority will monitor and report progress.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to include in their transport strategies a specific plan for increasing bus usage, including measurable objectives and assessment against 2015 as a baseline year.

New clause 34—Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services—

“(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility, and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality, and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

New clause 35—Enhanced partnerships: stakeholder forum—

“(1) Every local transport authority in England that has formed an enhanced partnership must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a stakeholder forum to monitor the delivery of the enhanced partnership.

(2) The forum established by subsection (1) must meet at least once every three months, and its membership must include trade unions representing bus workers, passenger groups, and local businesses.

(3) Where two or more local transport authorities are working together in an enhanced partnership scheme, a single forum should be established to meet the duty set out in subsection (1).”

New clause 36—Concessionary travel for 16 and 17 year olds in education or training—

“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 150 insert—

‘150A Free bus travel for 16–17 year olds in education or training

(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons aged 16 or 17 and who are—

(a) in full-time education, or

(b) undertaking training on a course or programme that has been approved by Skills England.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”

New clause 37—Secretary of State duty to ensure services for certain towns—

“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every town in England is served by bus services which—

(a) operate seven days a week, and

(b) serve specified locations.

(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the relevant local authorities for the areas to which the duty applies,

(b) the integrated care boards for the areas to which the duty applies, and

(c) residents, or organisations representing residents, of the areas to which the duty applies for the purposes of determining the specified locations which must be served.”

New clause 39—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Wales)—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—

(a) bus service operators, and

(b) bus passengers,

on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Wales.

(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Wales to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.

(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Welsh Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

New clause 40—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Scotland)—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—

(a) bus service operators, and

(b) bus passengers,

on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Scotland.

(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Scotland to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.

(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

New clause 41—Driver access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—

In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—

‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System for drivers of PSVs

(1) Local transport authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).

(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.’”

This new clause would ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).

New clause 42—Bus safety performance data—

“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—

‘144F Bus safety performance data

(1) Local transport authorities must—

(a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and

(b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy.

(2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor.

New clause 43—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—

“In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).

(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’”

This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers.

New clause 44—Concessionary travel for people under the age of 22—

“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 150 insert—

‘150A Free bus travel for people under the age of 22

(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons under the age of 22.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”

This new clause would require transport authorities to provide free bus travel for children and young people who are under the age of 22.

New clause 45—Minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services—

“(1) It is a requirement for local transport authorities to provide a minimum level of bus services for individuals reliant on off-peak and nighttime transport to local and regional employment centres.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, commission each local authority in England to undertake an audit of the minimum off-peak and nighttime bus services required by those working in key employment centres in their respective areas.

(3) For the purposes of the audit specified in subsection (2), local authorities must consult with bus companies, trade unions, employers and members of the public.

(4) Where more than one local authority is responsible for the delivery, or funding, of local transport services in their respective localities, the audit specified in subsection (2) must be undertaken as a partnership between the relevant local authorities.

(5) Within three months of being commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake the audit under subsection (2), each local authority, or partnership of local authorities, must publish—

(a) the findings of its audit, and

(b) proposals for delivering the off-peak and nighttime services identified by the audit as necessary to fulfil the requirements laid out by subsection (1).

(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) a key employment centre means a city, a town with either a population above 50,000 people or whose economic output represents more than 10 per cent of that local authority’s economic activity.”

This new clause establishes a legal duty for local authorities to ensure a minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services to local employment centres, require the Government to commission local authorities to undertake an audit of local service requirements and produce proposals on providing a minimum level of services.

New clause 46—Duty to consider funding for service enhancements—

“(1) A local transport authority in England must consider whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.

(2) In exercising the duty under this section, the authority must have regard to—

(a) the potential for increased ridership; and

(b) the overall sustainability of the network.

(3) Service improvements under subsection (1) may include—

(a) increasing the frequency of existing services;

(b) extending operating hours;

(c) improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; or

(d) extending the routes of local services.”

This new clause would place a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate public funds to improve existing bus services where this would grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network, and sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions.

New clause 47—English National Concessionary Travel Scheme: Companion Passes—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.

New clause 48—Free travel for uniformed police officers—

“(1) The holder of a PSV operator’s licence must permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local service which has one or more stopping places in England.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, make a statement on options for compensating operators of local services for any costs that arise or revenues lost fulfilling the duty under subsection (1).

(3) In this section—

‘local service’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985;

‘police officer’ means a member of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales or a special constable appointed for such an area; and

‘PSV operator’s licence’ has the same meaning as in section 82 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.”

This new clause would permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local bus service in England.

Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Government amendment 31.

Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).

(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’;

(A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert ‘, and

(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.

(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—

(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and

(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’

(A4) After subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’”

This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.

Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 6, line 33, at end insert—

“(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000.

(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead.

Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 6, line 38, after “2010)” insert “, or with special educational needs (within the meaning given by section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014),”.

This amendment would require local transport authorities wishing to proceed with a franchising scheme to consult bus users with special educational needs, or groups that represent them.

Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, after “fit;” insert—

“(db) relevant train operating companies and other public transport operators, for the purposes of ensuring coordination during peak travel times and tourist seasons;”.

This amendment would add other transport operators to the list of parties who are to be consulted when making or varying a franchising scheme.

Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, leave out line 10.

This amendment would retain the requirement for consultation when varying a franchising scheme.

Government amendments 32 and 33.

Amendment 66, in clause 14, page 10, line 5, after “services” insert “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.

Amendment 5, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert—

“(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must—

(a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities;

(b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities;

(c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models.

(4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting—

(a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area;

(b) users of local services;

(c) NHS providers;

(d) education providers;

(e) local employers and businesses;

(f) people with disabilities; and

(g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.”

This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services.

Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 10, line 20, leave out “and” and insert—

“(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, and

(v) schools and colleges.”

This amendment would ensure that primary health care services, schools and colleges are considered as “socially necessary local services”.

Amendment 60, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, after “activities.” insert—

“(16) A service which was abolished in the 15 years before the day on which the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 was passed may also be considered a socially necessary local service for the purposes of this section and section 138C.”

This amendment would mean that previous bus services could be considered as socially necessary local services.

Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where—

(a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and

(b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service.

(6) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme.

(7) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so.

Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable.

(6) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to—

(a) the scope and nature of the service;

(b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps;

(c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs;

(d) a timeline for the operation of the service;

(e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall.

(7) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (6)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered.

(8) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (7).

(9) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).”

This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established.

Amendment 8, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—

(a) the number of socially necessary local services in England;

(b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled;

(c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services;

(d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation;

(e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and

(f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.

(7) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues.

Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”

Amendment 27, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, after “comfort” insert “;—

(d) identify what, if any, provision is made to facilitate access to child and adolescent mental health services and other community-based mental health services not attached to hospitals.”

This amendment would require bus network accessibility plans to consider access to CAMHS and other community-based mental health services.

Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 17, line 3, at end insert—

“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.

(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.

(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”

This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.

Amendment 28, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“(6A) Guidance issued under subsection (6) must require local transport authorities, when making grants to operators, to take into account factors relevant to the provision of services in their area, including but not limited to—

(a) the rurality of the area or areas to be served;

(b) the age profile of persons in the area or areas to be served;

(c) measures of deprivation in the area or areas to be served; and

(d) the percentage of persons with disabilities in the area or areas to be served.”

This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the making of grants to bus operators to require authorities to consider factors relating to the demographics of the area or areas to be served when making grants.

Amendment 29, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“(6A) The guidance must include information on when and how local transport authorities and mayors may give grants for the purposes of replacing or otherwise providing for bus services in rural or isolated areas when a socially necessary local bus service has been withdrawn, including details of what Government support or funding will be available for such purposes.”

Amendment 61, in clause 23, page 19, line 3, after “environment,” insert—

“(ba) about the operation of concessionary fare schemes by the local transport authority,”.

This amendment would include information about concessionary fare schemes in the guidance about the making of grants by local transport authorities issued by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 9, in clause 23, page 19, line 13, at end insert—

“154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation

(1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it.

(2) In particular, local transport authorities may—

(a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services,

(b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and

(c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.

(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider—

(a) the size of the operator’s fleet,

(b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and

(c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.”

This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.

Government amendments 35 to 38.

Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”.

This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.

Amendment 59, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, at end insert—

“(2A) A local transport authority whose area is in England, or two or more authorities acting jointly, shall have the power to make byelaws prohibiting any person on the bus network from, to the annoyance of any person—

(a) singing; or

(b) using any instrument, article or equipment for the production or reproduction of sound.

(2B) Local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, make byelaws in accordance with the powers provided in subsection (2A).

(2C) Bus service operators, including those delivering services as part of a franchising, concessionary, or other scheme, must work with local police forces to ensure the effective enforcement of byelaws made under subsections (2A) and (2B).”

Government amendments 39 to 42.

Amendment 18, in clause 30, page 32, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places.

Amendment 64, in clause 30, page 32, line 22, at end insert—

“(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,”.

This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section to cover the provision of toilet facilities.

Amendment 11, in clause 30, page 32, line 29, at end insert—

“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.

This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.

Amendment 12, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take reasonable steps to implement”.

This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.

Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).

(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 19, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) The bodies listed in subsection (6) may depart from such guidance only if—

(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and

(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.

(6B) The bodies listed in subsection (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”

This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.

Amendment 20, in clause 31, page 34, line 32, at end insert—

“(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.”

This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.

Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 34, line 39, at end insert—

“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.

(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”

This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.

Amendment 14, in clause 34, page 37, line 18, after “2003” insert—

“(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).”

This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.

Government amendment 43.

Amendment 15, in clause 34, page 38, line 16, at end insert—

“144H Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility

(1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility.

(2) The relevant parties are—

(a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence;

(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England

where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services.

(3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding—

(a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services;

(b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and

(c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation.

(5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed—

(a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five-year period thereafter;

(b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations.

(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.”

This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regularly undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.

Government amendments 44 and 45.

Amendment 62, in clause 37, page 41, line 26, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 27 and insert “1 January 2027,”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 63, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered after 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).

Amendment 1, in clause 37, page 41, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) A vehicle does not fall within subsection (3) if it previously had the tailpipe emissions listed in subsection (3)(c) but has since been converted to a zero-emission drive train.”

This amendment would qualify buses that have repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies to be considered as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of this Bill.

Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 42, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Amendment 30, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, leave out “2030” and insert—

“2028 in relation to vehicles to be used in areas containing all or part of a National Landscape, or 1 January 2030 in relation to all other vehicles, and the Secretary of State may by regulations provide any—

(a) financial remuneration, or

(b) specific guidance (or both)

that they deem necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the deadlines specified in this section.”

Amendment 16, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

“(6) The provisions of this section apply to any mayoral combined authority in England, where “mayoral combined authority” means an authority established under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.”

This amendment would clarify that the provisions of section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities.

Amendment 17, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

“(6) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing how adequately and easily local transport authorities have been, or will be able to, access funding to replace polluting buses with zero-emission buses for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section.

(7) A report under subsection (6) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of current funding mechanisms available for the transition to zero-emission buses, including grants, loans, and other financial incentives;

(b) an evaluation of the sufficiency of available funding to meet the projected costs and timelines for local transport authorities to achieve a zero-emission fleet by 2035;

(c) a review of the barriers and challenges faced by local transport authorities in accessing existing funding, including administrative burdens, eligibility criteria, and capacity constraints;

(d) recommendations for improving the adequacy and accessibility of funding to accelerate the replacement of polluting buses with zero-emission buses.

(8) In conducting the review under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, bus operators and manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles.

(9) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to ensure sufficient and accessible funding for the transition to zero-emission buses.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the adequacy and accessibility of funding available to local transport authorities to transition their bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The report must include an evaluation of current funding mechanisms, barriers to access, and recommendations for improvements.

Government amendments 46 to 50, 34 and 51 to 57.

[Simon Lightwood]

I have the pleasure of opening today’s debate on Report. I look forward to a lively discussion on the Bill and thank Members of the House who are here to offer their views and speak to amendments that have been tabled. Before I move to the Government’s amendments, I will briefly recap why the Bill is before the House, speak to the Government’s wider reform of buses and provide an update on progress since Committee.

The Government are seeking to deliver better bus services. That means growing patronage and ensuring that more people can use the bus. It also means leaders having powers to shape the services in their communities and bus services that help to drive opportunities across the country; and safer, reliable, affordable, inclusive and integrated bus services. The measures in the Bill work towards this vision, as do the wider reforms announced by the Government to bus funding, the recent spending review commitments and the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027. Together, these form an ambitious set of interventions designed to reverse long-term trends and improve bus services.

Consistent with this objective, and following engagement with my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the forthcoming update to the statutory franchising guidance will confirm expectations that franchising authorities consult representatives of prospective users and that the statutory guidance on stopping places will set out the Department’s expectations for how safer and more accessible stopping places can encourage an increase in bus ridership by providing facilities that people can and want to use.

In Committee, there was a wide-ranging and detailed debate across the Bill’s measures and bus policy more generally. I committed to provide an update on Report on how my Department is working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators to raise awareness of certain cyclists’ behaviours around floating bus stops. Active Travel England will share materials with councils to promote awareness of the requirement for people cycling to give way to bus passengers at crossing points. This is alongside existing guidance on how to engage communities and design safe and accessible walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure.

Transport for London is carrying out a campaign to raise awareness of the highway code, with a particular focus on the rules designed to protect people walking, cycling and motorcycling. The campaign highlights five key rules that protect at-risk road users and apply where there is poor compliance and understanding of the rules, including some of the rules that were updated in 2022. This includes materials designed to remind road users, particularly cyclists, to give way at crossings at bus stops. Active Travel England and the Department have been involved in this work with the intention of sharing materials with local authorities outside London in due course.

Furthermore, in Committee, I set out that my Department will ask local authorities to undertake an audit of existing sites, alongside setting out to them our expectation on a pause. Active Travel England’s additional research includes a national audit of floating bus stops. I advise authorities to work collaboratively with ATE, so we can gain an accurate picture of where and what type of floating bus stops are in use, and therefore ensure that future guidance is comprehensive.

The Department will publish statutory guidance on the design of floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent. That will be supported by additional research into the design of existing floating bus stops and how they can be improved to ensure they are accessible. Active Travel England has provided funding to councils and encouraged them to review existing designs against the upcoming guidance and, where required, implement remediation works. Both audits of bus stop bypasses and remediation works can be funded using the active travel funding as an essential maintenance activity.

I now move to the Government amendments. New clause 38 has been brought forward at the request of the Scottish Government. It reflects close collaboration between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It will help provide greater certainty of the future demand in Scotland. I am committed to ensuring that the Governments continue to work together as they move towards the full transition to zero emission buses. The measure effectively replicates the provision in clause 37. It will have the effect of restricting the use of new non-zero emission buses on relevant services in Scotland. Powers provided to Scottish Ministers under clause 38 are analogous to those given to the Secretary of State under clause 37. Amendments 45 to 50 are consequential amendments that are minor and technical in nature or related to making transitional or saving provisions. The measure requires legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and, if necessary, the Government will return with an update during ping-pong.

Amendment 53 is a technical amendment that provides a clarification on the franchising variation procedure in the Bill’s schedule. Specifically, it clarifies the variation procedure that applies when a franchising authority wishes to vary two minor aspects of a franchising scheme—namely the additional facilities, such as depots and ticketing facilities, to be provided in the franchising area, and the description of the authority’s plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness. That will help give franchising authorities clarity on the process and ensure that relevant parties are consulted on such changes.

Amendment 57 provides further detail on who should be consulted when a franchising authority varies plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness included in its scheme, including Welsh Ministers, other affected local authorities, relevant organisations and the Passengers’ Council. Amendments 31 to 34, 51, 52 and 54 to 56 are minor and technical amendments to remove unnecessary wording.

The final set of Government amendments are numbered 35 to 45. These are minor and technical amendments that remove data protection overrides previously inserted into the Bill. The overrides are no longer necessary as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, and these matters are now covered automatically by virtue of that legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I am slightly surprised to be called so early, but I am delighted to speak in the debate. This will be an interesting debate. I am delighted that there is so much interest from Back Benchers. It is interesting to note that the Bill is primarily focused on process rather than passengers. I tried to work out why that was and came to the conclusion that it is, in fact, steeped in Labour’s political ideology—the ideology that the state is better at running things than private businesses—linked with the separate issue that it has a deep suspicion of the profit motive. In some of its clauses, which we will come on to in a moment, the Bill harks back to the 1960s and to municipal bus companies after the second world war. This feels like the happy place of the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I’ll tell you what kind of cut is unacceptable—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

[Dr Tidball]

In my constituency—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Please be seated. I should have to say “Order” only once. You just said the word “you”, so let’s restart that intervention, which should be short.

[Dr Tidball]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only unacceptable cuts were those made to buses by the Conservative Government? In my constituency, 53% of buses were cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Will Members please be seated? Before I go to speeches from Back Benchers, I want to be clear about where we are and what we are debating, because there seems to be some confusion among colleagues. We are debating the remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, and we are on Report. Speeches should relate to the amendments listed on the amendment paper, not the Bill as a whole, so please check the amendment paper; I say that for Back Benchers who hope to contribute.

I know that the next Member knows exactly what they are doing. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, except to say it is no surprise that our first stand-alone inquiry in the Transport Committee was on buses in England outside of London. That issue affects Members in England from across the House and from all sorts of constituencies.

I speak in support of two amendments that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), myself and others: amendment 66 and new clause 46. Since Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the Transport Committee has published its “Buses connecting communities” report, which focuses on potential solutions to the long-term decline in bus ridership in England outside London. If the Government seek the reversal of bus decline in England, I hope the Minister will support our two amendments. They add to the Bill, because they specifically seek to improve bus services in a way that relying on future guidance may not. They provide the context in which local transport authorities can determine their specific bus provision. Merely devolving greater control to local authorities without any kind of overarching values-based vision will not help in areas that have no interest whatsoever in enhancing and extending their services, and could risk simply entrenching inequality and decline.

New clause 46 seeks to ensure that local transport authorities have a duty to consider funding for service enhancements. It is about

“whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.”

The local transport authority must have regard to six principles. These are the potential for increased ridership; the overall sustainability of the network; the service improvements, particularly the frequency of existing services; extending operating hours; improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; and extending the routes of local services.

We know that progressive local authorities are committed to enhancing and expanding the public transport in their areas, and they do that; we have great examples under Labour mayors in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. Having more people on more buses addresses the policy objectives that they and we in Labour seek to achieve, such as addressing congestion, air pollution, carbon emissions, social and economic isolation, and growth. However, I fear that there are—and that there could be more—local authorities that care little for those important objectives, which are central to this Government’s values.

New clause 46 would therefore bake in a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate funds to improve bus services where it would

“grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network”.

It sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. It would also enable bus user groups and others to measure the intentions of their local transport authorities against those basic objectives.

New clause 46 comes from the Transport Committee’s recommendation 117, which says that the Department should

“require local transport authorities to consider using grant or fare box funding to enhance existing local bus services.”

The need to improve local bus services while growing ridership was a focal point of the evidence received by our Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which goes to the heart of what I am saying: it is not for this Bill and this Government to define whether or not colleges, schools and so forth should be included—one would hope they would be—but it is for the local authority to define their socially necessary services according to the needs in their area. They should publish it, and a requirement to do so should be in the Bill.

I am pretty sure that the Minister will say, “Don’t worry, Chair of the Select Committee, it’ll be in the guidance.” My concern is that guidance is to some extent discretionary and can be changed over time. I, Alex Mayer and others would like to see the need to have a definition and methodology for socially necessary services stated in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I talked so highly of the Select Committee Chair and said that she does everything right, but I think she mentioned a colleague by their name, not by their constituency. Can we try and stick to the etiquette?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I have only been here 10 and a bit years; I will get used to it. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill as currently drafted suggests that local transport authorities merely define their socially necessary services. That could mean services as they are now; it does not take into account changes in need. New housing developments might mean that a loss-making route becomes commercially viable. The closure of a major employer might mean that nearby housing loses a viable bus service. The Bill allows for change, but it should require local authorities to have a publicly available methodology, on which user groups, communities and residents can hold their local transport authority to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member is entirely correct.

Our amendments would support local transport authorities to grow their local bus networks actively in response to demographic and economic changes, not just to manage the decline. Without the amendments, particularly amendment 66, the only requirement is for authorities to list their current services. While acknowledging the Government’s rightful drive on devolution, our Committee would not want any local transport authority to walk away from the Bill’s important objectives to promote growth, particularly in towns across England; to promote reliability and integration; and to address social isolation, inequality, traffic congestion and pollution.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Mr Jim Shannon to speak on the accessibility of railway stations in the Dulwich and West Norwood constituency.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) is right to bring this topic forward; I spoke to her beforehand. I believe that the Government need to provide what she is trying to achieve for her constituency in every constituency, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), clearly outlined. There is something wrong when rail staff cannot be in place to help with accessibility without people having to ring 24 hours ahead. Does the hon. Lady further agree that this has to form part of our rail obligations, wherever that may be in the United Kingdom? What is right for her constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood is right for everywhere else, including my constituency. Does she agree that the Government must focus on a strategy that gives equality to those who are disabled in our communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will come on to some of the points about the better co-ordination needed to solve some of these problems.

We need an approach that enables us to join things up to understand which of our stations are most likely to secure funding because of their footfall, because they link up with particular bus routes or because they are relatively lower cost and therefore easier to deliver. The process, as it stands, is not transparent, and there is no support available for communities to prepare for it. As an example, I have been approached by residents in Dulwich in recent weeks who would like my support in moving forward a proposal for step-free access at North Dulwich station. A feasibility study would be helpful so we can all understand where lifts could be installed and the broad costs of doing so. But Southwark council has no land interest in North Dulwich station, and there are no major development sites in the local area. At a time when local authority funding is constrained, it would be helpful to have the Minister’s advice on how to move such a proposal forward.

Another example of the urgent need for more joined-up preparatory support is Loughborough Junction station, currently being supported by a local community campaign called “Lift Up Loughborough Junction”. A tiny station occupying just half a railway arch, Loughborough Junction has a particularly long, steep flight of stairs up to its two platforms. It has seen an increase in passenger use compared with pre-covid levels, likely as a consequence of new nearby housing development. Through that development, some funding has been allocated towards improvements at the station, but there is at present no mechanism to decide how that is to be spent or to deliver the improvements.

Delivering step-free access at Loughborough Junction station is complicated. It cannot be done within the current station’s curtilage due to insufficient space, so the station would need to expand either into adjacent arches or on to a site to the rear of the current station. The ownership of those sites is complex, with the Arch Company responsible for neighbouring arches, Network Rail responsible for the structural integrity of the arches, the train operating company Southern responsible for the station, and private land ownership to the rear. If we are to solve the problem of accessibility at the station, there must be a way of joining up those interests, undertaking feasibility work, creating partnerships that can bid for funding together and moving the project forward. As residential development in the area continues to expand, a station that already feels unsafe at peak times due to the large number of passengers will become more and more dangerously overcrowded, and disabled residents, families with young children, and frail and elderly people will continue to be locked out of rail travel.

In 2018, the then Government’s inclusive transport strategy set out the aim of achieving equal access to the rail network by 2030. That is just a few years away, and we are very far away from realising that goal. In the meantime, Government policy has continued, quite rightly, to seek to deliver continued modal shift from private cars to public transport where possible, but modal shift does not happen by encouragement alone. It requires meaningful levels of Government investment to make public transport an accessible, convenient and attractive option, and accessibility is the basic minimum requirement. The Government can encourage people all they like, but if they are literally locked out of using public transport, it will not make a difference for residents with disabilities, parents who need to travel with young children, the less mobile and the elderly.

I secured this debate to seek help from my hon. Friend the Minister. Is he considering the criteria for future rounds of Access for All funding so that areas such as mine, with many inaccessible stations, will not continue to be overlooked by that funding stream because we do not have the highest levels of footfall, major transport interchanges or nearby development sites. What representations is he making to the Chancellor in relation to the Budget about the overall quantum of Access for All funding, so that future rounds of the scheme can start to deliver the step change in railway station accessibility that is needed across the whole country? Is he underlining to the Chancellor that Access for All funding should be part of the strategy to support disabled people who want to work to get to work?

Will the Minister consider a better approach to pre-bidding support for Access for All, on a locality basis, to help local communities and councils to understand how best to prioritise their stations for Access for All bids, and to create strong local partnerships in which multiple agencies need to be involved? May I ask for his support in relation specifically to the complex situation at Loughborough Junction station, and to the need for a feasibility study for North Dulwich station and feasibility work at Gipsy Hill station, which requires accessibility works to one platform only? Finally, can he tell disabled people in Dulwich and West Norwood, and across the country, when they can expect the equal access to the rail network that is their right?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

This is a very important debate. Minister, you may wish to take this opportunity to reflect on the accessibility funding application of Wadhurst station in my constituency of Sussex Weald.

Road and Rail Projects

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I would be delighted to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend, who is a great champion for Redditch. I know what a transformative project the midlands rail hub could be for his constituents by improving capacity into Moor Street station in Birmingham. I look forward to discussing it more when I visit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Obviously, the Secretary of State has an open invitation to visit Crowborough and Wadhurst stations.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I will follow on from the Secretary of State’s reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the service between Grimsby, Cleethorpes and King’s Cross. The Secretary of State rightly mentioned digital signalling on the east coast main line, which will improve capacity, but five trains a day already run between King’s Cross and Lincoln. All that we are asking is for them to continue the last 40 miles through Market Rasen and Grimsby to Cleethorpes. There would be minimal expenditure apart from, I think, a safer crossing at Market Rasen station, and it would help the economic growth of the north Lincolnshire area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

“Your Department”—anyone would assume that I was running Transport. I was a Minister in that Department once, but not any more. I call the Secretary of State.

[Heidi Alexander]

In the past couple of weeks, we announced Project Reach, which will improve mobile connectivity in a number of tunnels and sidings, and some of those improvements will take place over the Great Western Railway network. On the works at Old Oak Common, the Rail Minister is very alive to the question of how we minimise disruption for users of the GWR service, both in the construction phase and once HS2 is in operation, and is looking in detail at that. Of course, when it is finally open, the station will offer a valuable interchange for GWR customers, who will be able to go to Birmingham without going into central London.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

Supply is constrained at the moment; the UK has one commercial production facility, in Immingham. We need to build investor confidence to commercialise some of the sustainable aviation fuel demonstration projects around the country. More supply and lower prices are good for the aviation sector and, ultimately, good for those who wish to fly.

I think it is worth taking a moment to reiterate what is at stake. When UK production of low-carbon fuels is up and running, it could support up to 15,000 green jobs, contribute £5 billion a year to our economy, and deliver clean and secure energy. What is more, fulfilling the SAF mandate could save up to 2.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year by 2030. Seizing those opportunities will ensure that we deliver on our bold plan for change and that the UK and our world-class aviation sector are leading the way in the race towards sustainable flight.

This country cannot be open for business, open to investment and open to growth yet have a closed mind when it comes to international connectivity. The Bill is a clear signal that we will not accept false trade-offs that pit aviation’s growth against our commitments to net zero. We can and must do both. We have the opportunity of a lifetime and, I believe, a moral mission to future-proof aviation. When the sector succeeds, it is not only a source of growth, through trade, business and tourism, but a source of joy, aspiration and opportunity. It is as vital today as it will be for future generations. Their need to fly, explore the world and do business requires us to act now. That is what the Bill does, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Let me begin by setting out an unambiguous truth: aviation is vital to the British economy. It is a cornerstone of our national infrastructure, our competitiveness and our connectivity.

When it comes to the impact of aviation on our economy, the figures speak for themselves. Aviation contributes £52 billion to UK GDP, supporting over 960,000 jobs across the country. That includes 341,000 people working directly in aviation—from air traffic controllers to aerospace engineers—350,000 jobs in the supply chain, and another 269,000 supported through consumer spending. Aviation also delivers nearly £8.7 billion in tax revenues, and aerospace manufacturing adds a further £9 billion directly to GDP, plus over £10 billion more when including its supply chains. Some 197 million passengers and 2 million tonnes of freight move through our airports each year. The economic case is therefore unanswerable. In short, we must all support this thriving industry with clear benefits to the country.

The Conservative party has always recognised the strategic importance of aviation, but, unlike the current Government, we understand the damage that can be done with poor policy choices—I regret to say that we have seen plenty of that from the Labour Government over the past year. Alongside their national insurance jobs tax, which is putting pressure on businesses and threatens to leave working people £3,500 a year worse off, Labour’s decision to hike air passenger duty threatens the vitality of this thriving industry. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that rises planned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will raise an extra £555 million in taxes over five years, pushing up the costs for businesses and passengers alike.

In a speech that will have a lot of common ground with the Secretary of State’s speech, I regret to say that Labour’s handling of its professed desire to expand aviation raises more questions than answers. The decision to approve a second terminal at Luton airport, which we support, will be judicially reviewed. The proposal for a second runway at Gatwick has been kicked down the road for surprising reasons, to say the least, and the supposed support for a third runway at Heathrow is no more credible. The Chancellor has promised that the latter proposal will be operational by 2035, with spades in the ground in this Parliament, but that ambition looks very far-fetched, and there are substantial logistical and financial barriers to its construction. So far, the Government have provided no solutions on those points, so we will watch developments in the next few weeks with considerable interest.

It is against that backdrop that we come to the Bill before us. When we entered opposition, we made it clear that we would not oppose the Government just for the sake of it. We made it clear that where the Government’s choices would benefit the country or the economy, we would welcome them. That is why we will not seek to divide the House on this legislation on Second Reading. This Bill is a logical follow-on from the statutory instrument passed in September last year that established the SAF mandate, the first stage of which came into effect in January. Having mandated that airlines will be required to use a specified percentage of SAF—2% this year, rising to 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040—it is logical to take steps to ensure adequate levels of locally produced fuel.

While the mandate requires the consumption of SAF, it is a new technology, and its production carries a high risk for investors. Encouraging the development of the plants required to produce this fuel is the purpose of this Bill and, to a very large degree, it is a continuation of the policy of the previous Government. In 2023, it was the last Government who committed to an industry-funded revenue certainty mechanism to support UK-based SAF production. In early 2024 we published the detail, with plans for a guaranteed strike price model to give price certainty to SAF producers. I hear the Minister say, “You didn’t do it!” He is completely correct, because unfortunately there was something called a general election that followed shortly after.

As the Secretary of State has outlined, under this model, producers will be topped up when the market price falls below a guaranteed strike price; when the market price rises above, they will pay it back. The system mirrors the successful contracts for difference model in offshore wind, and the economic benefits could be considerable. A cost-benefit analysis produced by the Department for Transport before the general election suggested that the SAF industry could add more than £1.8 billion to the economy and create more than 10,000 jobs in the country, but, more fundamentally, SAF is a product of what we know to work. As the Secretary of State said in her speech, it can be blended with conventional Jet A-1, used in existing aircraft and refuelled at existing airports. The capability exists. The challenge is not scientific; it is economic. That is why the concept of a revenue certainty mechanism was one of the six pillars in the previous Government’s jet zero strategy, and, as the Secretary of State outlined, the introduction of a revenue certainty mechanism has wide support in the aviation industry.

Let me be clear: while we will not oppose the legislation this evening, we will carefully scrutinise it as it progresses through the House. In that spirit, I will put some questions to the Minister, which I hope he will address in his summing up. The first is about passengers. In the press release announcing the Bill, the Government said that the revenue certainty mechanism would keep ticket price changes minimal:

“Keeping fluctuations to £1.50 a year on average.”

The Secretary of State said the same in her speech. Perhaps in his speech the Minister could outline what this figure is based on. Do the Government stand by it? Is it a commitment, or a rough estimate?

The second question is about what type of SAF the Government favour and how it will be produced. While the SAF mandate permits the production and use of hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids SAF in the early years of the mandate, and also contains a small but increasing requirement for power-to-liquid SAF in later years, the bulk of the SAF to be developed and used under the terms of the mandate is second generation SAF, which is to be made from municipal waste, non-edible crops and woody biomass. The UK is a small island, with insufficient spare land to enjoy self-sufficient food security or to grow new forests at scale. Does the Minister think we will be self-sufficient? If not, what proportion of the ingredients necessary for making second generation SAF does the Minister think we will need to import?

Relatedly, the HEFA cap comes into force incrementally from 2027, despite there currently being no domestic production of second generation SAF in the UK and low levels of second generation SAF produced globally, removing the opportunity to source mandated volumes through imports. This risks making the costs of hitting SAF mandate targets very high indeed, because suppliers will soon be forced to buy out of their mandate obligations—a significant cost that will be passed on to the airlines and, ultimately, to passengers without delivering any decarbonisation benefit at all. Will the Government consider revising the timelines for phasing out HEFA SAF to bring them more in line with the timescales for domestic second generation SAF production, in order to minimise the costs for passengers?

The next area of interest is planning. The plants in which the Government are seeking to encourage investment will be large, and—as the Minister no doubt knows—large developments tend to attract a lot of local opposition, often leading to planning inquiries, judicial reviews, vast expense and years of delay before any construction work begins. If this does not change, the revenue certainty mechanism may not be sufficient to attract investors, so what will the Government do to minimise delays in the planning process?

I turn now to timescales. When will the first contracts be awarded under the RCM? Will there be a timetable for reaching full mandate compliance? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis)—who is no longer in his place—touched on, the issue of the strike price is critical to the success of the proposal. What criteria will be used to set the strike price? Will the methodology be published, and will there be regular reviews? Finally, will the Government commit to regular reporting to Parliament on industry take-up, production capacity and cost trajectory, to ensure that they remain accountable for the Bill over time?

The importance of this Bill is clear. Backing UK production of sustainable aviation fuel is necessary if we are to meet our net zero goals without undermining the competitiveness of the aviation sector. However, let me be clear: as the Bill moves through the House, we will continue to look closely at the detail and press for changes where necessary, where improvements can be made to ensure that the scheme delivers on its promise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I very much welcome this step to push the aviation industry into a sustainable future. I encourage Members to join the APPG and come along to our meetings if they want to find out more about sustainability and the future of aviation. I worked in the aviation industry for 16 years before being elected to this place, and I studied aeronautical engineering for four years before that, so it would have been remiss of me not to come to the Chamber today to share with hon. Members my expertise on the subject, but I will try not bore them.

I welcome the support for future technology and the investment previously announced by the Government. We have massive and historical expertise in aviation here in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and we really must grasp the opportunity to develop those skills and that technology further. It is an incredible opportunity for UK plc and we need to grasp it. I want to pick up on a comment by the Secretary of State in her opening speech about airspace modernisation, because it is relevant to the discussion. We must grasp the opportunities of airspace modernisation, which have the potential, as she mentioned, to deliver shorter, more direct and more efficient flight routes. But as MPs, we must engage with the process. We must understand and learn about how that is happening around us. It is inevitable, but we must get the best for our communities. We must understand and engage with that process as it goes along. It is an incredible opportunity.

Over the past few months, the APPG has been hearing about the technologies that we have today. Of particular interest is ZeroAvia, which is already flying a hydrogen-electric, zero-emission aircraft in the UK—it has a hydrogen fuel cell with electrical propulsion, which offers completely zero-emission flight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) mentioned, this is only a stepping stone to the truly zero-emission flight that we really need to capture.

If hon. Members will forgive me for boring them slightly, the Breguet range equations that I learnt about for my degree are the reason why an Airbus A380 will take off from London at 580 tonnes and land in Sydney at around 340 tonnes. The burning of fuel throughout the journey means that it is able to maintain the range and maintain the flight levels that the burning of the fuel and the reduction in the weight require. That is one reason why liquid fuel will almost always be required for very long-haul flights, no matter how far we progress with hydrogen and electrical power plants for short and medium-haul flights.

That amplifies the need not just for the current second-generation SAF production, but for looking at alternative fuel sources such as algae-derived SAF. Others have correctly made the point about the reduction in residual waste, which is the current fuel source for a lot of biodiesel for the development of SAF. As those sources decrease and the cost potentially increases, we need to look at truly zero-carbon sources of SAF.

I will not bore hon. Members more. In closing, I will just echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and of my party and encourage the Minister to go further and faster to achieve truly zero-carbon and lower-noise aviation technology so that we can continue to enjoy the incredible freedoms and opportunities in both economic activity—jobs, skills and trade—and the broadened horizons that aviation has offered us for more than a century. Long may it continue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 350 and the Noes were 176, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It has been said by the Secretary of State and echoed across the Chamber that the UK has a world-class aviation sector that is key to growth in our economy. I welcome the introduction of the Bill as it will provide certainty for producers of sustainable aviation fuel, allowing the sector to grow and invest.

We all know the benefits that airports have for our communities, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) will welcome the Chancellor’s investment in Doncaster Sheffield. When we think about airports, we may automatically think about Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester. However, as East Midlands airport is in my constituency of North West Leicestershire, it will be no surprise to anyone here that that is the airport I automatically think about.

The airport provides huge benefits to my local economy, as well as making an important contribution to the wider UK economy. As the second largest air freight terminal in the UK, East Midlands serves as the hub for DHL, UPS, FedEx and Royal Mail. This growth is backed by investment in the nearby east midlands rail hub, which transports our goods from port to port. In addition, the airport serves as a base for RVL, a specialist airline that provides support to the Environment Agency and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The transition to sustainable aviation fuel is going to be key if those organisations are to grasp the nettle on net zero.

My airport also serves millions of passengers every year, with the likes of Jet2, easyJet and Tui operating out of it, supporting my constituents and those from those across the midlands to take a well-deserved holiday. Having met representatives of Jet2 recently, I know that there is huge support for the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism, and it will be interesting to hear more about the transitional arrangements to ensure that airlines such as Jet2 have the fuel they need to decarbonise and meet the mandated mix over the short term, as well as to see the SAF industry develop for the future.

As East Midlands airport’s thriving cargo facility extends to meet the demands of exporters from across the UK, cutting greenhouse gas emissions via sustainable aviation fuel will not only have significant benefits for net zero, but will put an estimated £5 billion a year back into our economy by 2050. It will also create additional jobs, securing a long-term sustainable future for the industry. It also puts forward a clear commitment to jobs at the airport, which will benefit my constituents and those of neighbouring MPs in the east midlands. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that North West Leicestershire will see the full strength of these training and work opportunities when they come about, because we have a lot to offer.

I know that the measures in this Bill, alongside the work announced to modernise airspace, will be welcomed by the sector. May I take this opportunity to invite the Minister to the 60th birthday party of East Midlands airport on 21 July?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I notice that that was an exclusive invitation just to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

I would challenge the hon. Member’s commitment to aviation spotting if, during university, he did not take a date to the final approach at Heathrow airport and have her observing the flights coming in for a good two hours. He may be a geek, but he is not quite there yet.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It would rather depend on whether the date ended up marrying him, wouldn’t it?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Chris McDonald]

I agree. Whether it is in Sunderland or, as I mentioned, the north-west and down in south Wales, we will see jobs in the supply chain throughout all this work. It will also benefit Heathrow and our other major airport hubs.

I thought it might be useful to make a few comments about why I believe SAF is the solution. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) gave a great description of why the flight range equations essentially drive us in the direction of sustainable aviation fuel. Electrification certainly would be possible for short-haul flights, but the hydrogen simply does not have the density. As I think the hon. Gentleman also said, infrastructure is important—we heard that from the Secretary of State in her opening statement—because planes take off from one place, but they land somewhere else, and they need to be able to refuel there too.

Sustainable aviation fuel is certainly the right approach, but a couple of Members raised concerns in the debate about the raw materials for feedstock—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised that issue. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) said that he had learned about second-generation sustainable aviation fuels; it is probably just as well that he is not in his place, because I might blow his mind when I talk about third-generation and fourth-generation sustainable aviation fuels.

Essentially, there are concerns about the raw materials and municipal waste. Although the amount of waste per person will decline, a lot of it is put into energy from waste plants, and the new investments are really about future generations of SAF. We have heard about biomass. If that biomass is not from a feedstock, perhaps that verges into the second generation, but it is third-generation and fourth-generation sustainable aviation fuel that will enable us to scale up this industry. That will open it up to the direct combination of carbon dioxide and hydrogen using green electricity, which will enable us to scale it up. An abundant supply of those raw materials is needed, which is why I am so confident that we will see the industry spread around the whole of the UK.

Why do I say Billingham will become the UK and European centre for this work? There is a justification. Teesside already produces 50% of the UK’s hydrogen, and the chemicals cluster there is well-known for producing pharmaceuticals for fertilisers and various other chemicals. We produced synthetic petrol in Billingham in the 1930s, and we produced synthetic jet fuel there in the 1940s for the Royal Air Force during the second world war. I say that not to imply in some way that we still have the skillset—many of those people are quite rightly enjoying their retirement, or have perhaps moved on from that—but to demonstrate to the House that there is not a big technological risk associated with this technology. Third-generation SAF will rely on the Fischer-Tropsch process, which has been around for 100 years.

In fact, when I talk to investors in the industry and ask them what the big risks are, they highlight economic risks—with which the Government are getting to grips right now through this legislation—and political risk, which is about the consistency of Government policy. As I mentioned earlier, the biggest threat to these jobs and to this industry is the ideology of the Reform party. As we see the jobs and investment, I am confident that people in my local community will vote for jobs and investment in the future as well.

As such, I warmly welcome this legislation. I very much look forward to the day when I can welcome right hon. and hon. Members to Teesside international airport, and enjoy a drink with them in the bar before we jet off to Alicante for our holidays.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I know that the Under-Secretary responsible for the future of roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), has visited the Burnaston plant in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I understand what a critical employer it is locally. Toyota will benefit from many of the changes that we have announced today. We are allowing the sale of both full hybrids such as the Toyota Prius and plug-in hybrids after 2030, and Toyota will also benefit from the extension and expansion of the CO₂ transfer caps. Moreover, if it is ever in a position in which it needs to pay fines, it will pay them at a lower level—and we would, of course, reinvest that money in supporting the sector. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she and her constituents want: we will continue to support this vital sector.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for advance sight of it. Let me also congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on his birthday, and note that he is much younger than the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is clear that the Government must take urgent steps to help the car industry make the switch to electric vehicles. Although increasing flexibility in the mandate is welcome, voices across the industry have made it clear that we also need to bolster demand by lowering the barriers for individuals and businesses to purchase electric vehicles. As the Secretary of State knows, the recent surge in demand to which she referred was a result of significant discounting to promote sales. It is crucial that, as well as improving the charging network, we end the inequality between public and private charging by bringing the VAT rate for public charging into line with that for home charging, at 5% rather than 20%. Not only is the present system damaging demand, but it is wrong to penalise those who have no access to private charging. Ministers should also postpone the increase in vehicle tax on electric cars, and explore the possibility of reintroducing the plug-in car grant.

As the Secretary of State made clear on the media round this morning, the spectre of Trump’s tariffs also looms large over the industry. If the Government are serious about protecting car manufacturing in the UK, the Prime Minister must continue to work with our allies in Europe and around the world on a co-ordinated response. The only way to tackle Trump is to negotiate from a position of strength, and to show that the UK is not alone and will not be bullied.

May I ask the Secretary of State three questions? First, what conversations has she had with the Chancellor about lowering the public charging rate to 5%, and what other measures are the Government considering to strengthen EV demand? Secondly, can she confirm that the measures announced today are a response to the ZEV consultation that ended in February, and tell us what, if any, additional measures are being considered in respect of the tariffs that have since been announced? Thirdly, will the Government start negotiations with the EU about the formation of a UK-EU custom union, to cut red tape not only for vehicle manufacturers but for all UK industries?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members with lengthy questions are just preventing their colleagues from getting in, so please keep your questions short.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the leadership she is showing in delivering our manifesto commitments in partnership with industry. The contrast is clear with the Opposition, who are bringing along uncosted ideas for grants, subsidies and tax cuts. I welcome the reaffirmation of the plan to roll out EV charging, but is she sure that that will be able to meet EV demand, and are there any plans for a battery health check to help reassure people buying used vehicles in the second-hand market?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues and the Secretary of State must be much swifter—we have another statement and two further debates. Anneliese Dodds, show us how it is done.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Workers at BMW Cowley have made clear to me their determination to play their part in a jobs-rich transition to net zero. Can my right hon. Friend explain how these changes will benefit BMW Cowley specifically, given its significance for my constituency and for UK manufacturing as a whole?

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on fulfilling his promise to his constituent. We are working closely with local authorities through the local electric vehicle infrastructure—LEVI—scheme to roll out charging infrastructure, and we have issued the guidance that I mentioned earlier to local authorities on improving cross-pavement charging solutions. There are also grants available for householders who do not have a driveway but who wish to install a charge point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Saving the best till last, I call Sammy Wilson.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The statement today is further evidence of the economically damaging and market-distorting impact of the unrealistic net zero policies. The only reason that the Minister is having to impose fines on producers is that demand does not meet the targets that she has set for the production of electric vehicles. Does she not accept that the response from producers will be either to cut back production, reducing jobs, or to reduce the price of EVs, reducing profits and investment in the UK? Are car workers going to be the next group of workers to be sacrificed on the altar of net zero?

Croydon Area Remodelling Funding: Brighton Mainline

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I look forward to hearing how Mr Shannon’s intervention relates to the Croydon area remodelling scheme and the Brighton main line.

[Jim Shannon]

The most important thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to try to help her in some small way. Does she agree that years of underspending on public transport have left railway and bus services drowning in repair work, and that if the Government wish to have a thriving public transport service outside London, local authorities must be given the funding to fix services—be they in Croydon or Newtownards—rather than having to shake a begging bowl for pennies, as they do now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

A successful intervention.

[Natasha Irons]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman: sustainable long-term funding is the only way for any area outside London to grow sustainably.

In addition, CARS would see significant improvement to East Croydon station, Britain’s 21st most used station, by adding two new platforms, a larger concourse to improve facilities for passengers and better connections to local transport networks. It also provides an opportunity to modernise Norwood Junction station, Britain’s 117th most used station, by extending the platforms so that more services can stop there and adding a footbridge with a lift to finally bring step-free access to this much-loved local transport hub.

Despite a consultation with stakeholders and passengers showing that 90% of respondents were in favour of CARS, in 2020 the previous Government shelved these crucial infrastructure plans, turning their back on economic growth in Croydon and across the south-east. However, passenger numbers on the Brighton main line continue to recover well post-pandemic, with station entries and exits at East Croydon station now back up to almost 80% when compared to their pre-pandemic levels and back up to 92% at Gatwick Airport station when compared with the same period.

Given the renewed interest in the expansion of Gatwick airport, the need to look again at CARS is more vital than ever. Gatwick is Europe’s busiest single-runway airport and with the Gatwick airport to Victoria route being the seventh busiest flow for rail passengers nationally—second, when we take out the Elizabeth line extension—even without a second runway, demand for train services into Gatwick are already reaching capacity. The economic case for Gatwick expansion, creating an estimated 14,000 new jobs and generating an estimated £1 billion a year for the British economy, has been well documented and the Government have outlined that any expansion would need to see the number of passengers arriving at Gatwick via public transport increase from its current 44% to 54%.

It is not hard to argue that without the urgent improvements that CARS brings to this line, that ambition is difficult to achieve. Further delays in getting CARS off the ground could not only hold back economic growth for the coast-to-capital region—a region estimated to be the seventh largest regional economy in the country—but it could also hold back economic growth for our country.

Road Safety

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. It is personal to me, as I lost my grandfather in a road traffic accident before I was even born, and my grandmother was left with disability. Shipley experienced 183 road casualties in 2023, one of which was fatal. My hon. Friend mentions vision zero. West Yorkshire has a vision zero partnership that seeks to eliminate all traffic fatalities and injuries by 2040. It brings together the combined authority with local authorities, emergency services and National Highways, as well as victim support and road safety campaigners—speaking to his point about community. Is there still a place—I suggest that there is—for these vision zero partnerships, alongside the community approaches that he is advocating?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the hon. Member responds, I remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point.

[Andy MacNae]

I agree fully with my hon. Friend, and there is no conflict between a vision zero approach and the community-led approach I am talking about. The issue is that while vision zero has been adopted by many local authorities, the implementation falls far short of the intent. It is therefore a question of finding the appropriate implementation and delivery mechanisms, rather than just rehashing the strategy.

As well as the Netherlands model I mentioned, similar preventive work has been pioneered by researchers using automatically collected data from car sensors to identify dangerous sections of roads. That is interesting, because it collects data that key success indicator stats do not highlight. They collate real-world data where cars harshly and suddenly brake. These models have proven effective in predicting areas of danger, and such systems could be used to proactively examine hotspots before collisions occur, taking account of near misses and validation experiences with communities such as ours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy MacNae]

Absolutely. That is the essence of what we are talking about. Given that average speed data is a blunt tool anyway, we should ask ourselves who knows best: the people who live on that road and experience it every single day, or someone sitting looking at an algorithm in county hall far away? As politicians and representatives of our constituents, the answer that we should give is that the community knows best. We should put in systems to support their everyday lived experience, not the other way around.

Secondly—and this point is linked to the first—we have to use the opportunities presented by devolution and local government reorganisation to embed best practice, including improving information sharing between authorities regarding the availability of new and emerging road safety technologies.

Thirdly, we must address the barriers to proactive implementation and enforcement measures, particularly average speed cameras. Fourthly, we have to develop a sustainable funding model based on bringing back netting off. Fifthly, we must make companies fully responsible for the actions of their drivers on public roads. Sixthly, we need a genuine safe system approach to road and pavement design to protect pedestrians and cyclists. Finally, we need to address accentuating factors via advanced safety and vehicle safety regulations and develop approaches to protect young drivers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response, as road safety is a big issue in the Sussex Weald. Before I call her, though, I am told there are three very short contributions from Back Benchers. My worry is that there are more people standing than I have been alerted to—they will need to make their way to the Chair quickly, in the appropriate way, and make it clear what they are trying to do. Contributions will be short. First, I call my fellow Brummie, Paulette Hamilton.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate. The issue of road safety is vital and we need a sustainable funding model. Local councils are a key player in improving prevention-based road safety.

I have heard a lot about rural settings from hon. Members this afternoon, but my constituency is in the middle of a city, and the problems occurring within cities are just as bad. People veer from main roads and go on to side streets. I would like to share an incident that took place this morning in my constituency, where yet another vehicle struck the bridge on Summer Road. This follows a recent incident where a truck collided with the same bridge and overturned. It is the third such occurrence since last November—it is simply unacceptable.

Does the Minister agree that the local council needs to step up and implement measures to address this issue, not only to prevent the severe disruption that is caused by these accidents, but to ensure the safety of other road users and pedestrians? My time as a nurse taught me that prevention is better than cure; it is much better to take measures now than to risk the safety of local residents in areas across this country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you so much—short and sweet.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I will also try to be short and sweet, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on bringing forth such an important subject. He alluded in his excellent speech to the sheer number of fatalities, and it is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that there are three times the number of road fatalities than homicides in an average year, which is something we could all bear in mind as we go about driving on the roads.

I want to draw Members’ attention to the importance of listening to our constituents who have sadly suffered the trauma of losing someone in a road traffic collision. In my constituency I have Giulietta and George Galli-Atkinson, who for 26 years have run the Livia awards, which recognise the professionalism and service to justice of police officers. I had the honour of speaking at the 26th award ceremony at the Metropolitan police headquarters this year. The awards are in memory of their daughter, who sadly was killed by a dangerous driver. I mention that because I believe it is incumbent on us to listen to the voices of those who have suffered the trauma and devastation of such unnecessary, preventable deaths. We need to hear their words and act on them. Community involvement is critical.

In conclusion, we must get the message across to our constituents that road collisions are, in all but the smallest number of cases, not accidents—they are preventable; they are avoidable. We must all take responsibility, including national Government. My hon. Friend the Minister takes these issues very seriously. We must tighten the law wherever we can and I know she is looking at various ways to do that. We must fund local authorities for their excellent work to help increase road safety and empower police forces to enforce our road traffic laws. We must do everything we can to empower ordinary citizens to engage with this really important issue. We must ensure that ordinary citizens are in control of our roads, not those who would endanger us all through their selfishness and criminality through dangerous and reckless driving.

Finally, we must take responsibility as individuals. Our constituents must take responsibility for driving more safely whenever they can so that we reduce the tragic number of avoidable and terrible deaths on our roads and the tens of thousands of serious injuries. We must reduce that number as much as possible.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for giving us the opportunity to reflect on these important matters and to encourage the Government to do everything in their power to ensure that the number of road deaths and injuries is reduced significantly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

To help the Minister prepare, we have three more very short Back-Bench contributions.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this excellent and pertinent debate. All Members come with horror stories from our own constituencies, after families have been in touch with us. I mentioned that in Shrewsbury it was the family of Harvey Owen, who died with three other young children aged between 17 and 18 on a trip to Wales. The driver had been passed for one week.

That story is not unfamiliar in rural towns and areas like mine, where public services have been decimated. We have lost 5,000 bus routes since 2010, which means that 17-year-olds find themselves with no alternative but to learn to drive in order to access education, sport and social activities. That experience is reflected across the country, but particularly so in rural areas. Young drivers, aged between 17 and 24, are consistently over-represented in the statistics. Very distressingly, globally road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 15 and 29, and one in five drivers will crash within their first year on the road.

A national campaign group called Forget-me-not Families Uniting brings together families who have lost young people. One of those campaigners, Crystal Owen, the mother of Harvey Owen, who is from my constituency, put together a petition with 22,000 signatures, asking Ministers to look at measures to protect young drivers in particular. The Minister very graciously gave her time to meet Harvey’s mum and listened carefully to some of those suggestions, such as additional training for young drivers and progressive licensing, and safety measures such as “Harvey’s hammer”, a device that could smash open a window if a car is trapped. That could save many lives. I know the Minister is working really hard to develop a road safety strategy. I hope she will hear the message that young drivers are three times more likely to die. We must consider them in those safety measures and, in so doing, understand that this has a stronger prevalence in rural areas.

Members may be pleased to hear that today I have been granted a Westminster Hall debate on road safety measures, in particular to protect young drivers. I hope they will join me on Tuesday 29 January at 9.30 am.

In conclusion, I again appeal to the Minister that policies must go hand in hand with the other work we are doing to increase public transport, particularly in rural areas. It must be a viable alternative. I know the Minister will join me in my dream for Shrewsbury to have evening buses and a Sunday service. That would encourage young people to embrace public transport, rather than risking their lives on the roads.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As a rural Member of Parliament, I tend to share the hon. Lady’s dreams.

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for initiating this important debate.

I have heard many passionate arguments tonight about why our roads should be safer, and about deaths that were waiting to happen and were preventable, but I have been involved in a situation in which a death actually happened. Even after an 11-year-old was killed on one of our roads, we had to fight and campaign with his grieving mother for the road to be improved.

Harley James Jackson was killed during his first half-term at secondary school. His mum had to campaign to persuade the county council to make the improvements to that road, and it took two and a half years. We were told that the mean average speed on the road of 38 mph was within the expected range, although speeds of 5 mph and 80 mph at 8 pm were recorded in the speed data. The data is not consistent. We were also told by the safety officer during our campaign that there were 50 roads with similar speed characteristics but there was funding for only two.

This death could have been prevented. We knew that the road was dangerous; the community had said so, and the community campaigned. I can guarantee that no one knows more about that road than the mother of that child, who has campaigned ever since. We need to listen to these people in order to prevent such things from happening again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was a very powerful speech. I call Amanda Martin to make the final Back-Bench contribution.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I welcome this important debate. A number of causes for concern are being raised with me by my constituents, and all of them are preventable. First, abandoned cars are routinely being left at the side of a road in my constituency, usually near car dealerships, with no MOTs or insurance. They can sit there for weeks, and they cause a hazard, because local schoolchildren are having to walk around them. One constituent contacted the council, only to be told that it was not the council’s responsibility and the constituent should go to the police. The police said, “Go to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency”, and the DVLA said, “Go back to the council.” Someone needs to take responsibility; that is vital.

The second problem is congestion. Cars pull up in bus lanes where there are no double yellow lines, near hospitals, when roads are jam-packed with buses. No one can get in or out, and that causes not only delays but accidents and damage to vehicles. Congestion, and accidents, are also caused by narrow streets and roads that are used as rat runs, with cars running all the way down them. Residents of Oakwood Road have been pushing for a one-way street, although there are speed bumps, because it would help with the flow of traffic and also with safety; the street in question is very near a school.

Finally, there is the serious issue of zebra crossing safety. A lack of signage means that crossings are ignored. One, in Baffins, is next to a sixth-form college and also near schools, and hundreds of pupils cross the road every day, but that zebra crossing and others are often ignored.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Minister.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 2. If that Lords amendment is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Before Clause 1

Purpose: improvement of passenger railway services

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3.

[Louise Haigh]

I am delighted that the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill has returned to this House. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny, and I commend the collaborative, cross-party approach taken during the passage of the Bill to date. I place on record especially my thanks to the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, and to Baroness Blake of Leeds for their valuable support and for leading the Bill so expertly through the other place. Three amendments were made there that we will seek to address today in this House.

Before I speak on the amendments, I remind both Houses that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to bring franchises for train services back into public ownership where they belong, in line with the wishes of a clear majority of the British public and in direct response to the failure of the previous Government.

Public ownership will end the gravy train that sees the taxpayer footing the bill for more than £100 million each year in fees to private operators, which ultimately benefits their shareholders, not passengers and not the taxpayer. It will allow us to strip out inefficiency and waste and will pave the way for the creation of Great British Railways, ending the fragmentation of the failed franchising system and bringing together responsibility for track and train under single, unified leadership with a relentless focus on those who use the railway. I made a statement to the House only last week setting out the early progress that we have made in fixing our railways. There is a long way to go in restoring public confidence and pride in our railways after years of failure, but the journey has begun.

I will briefly set out the Government’s position on the two non-Government amendments that were made to the Bill in the other place. Lords amendment 1 seeks to insert a purpose clause in the Bill and to require me to have regard to it. I am sure that the amendment is well intentioned, and I am delighted that after years of declining performance the Conservative party now recognises that reliability and punctuality actually matter to passengers. I am more than happy to reassure the House that improving the performance of the railways is at the top of my priority list, especially in view of the mess inherited by this Government. I really do not need a purpose clause to remind me of that. In my first few months in office, I have spent my time making sure that railway leaders pay much more attention to punctuality and reliability than they have in recent years.

As well as being unnecessary, Lords amendment 1 is misleading and potentially harmful, because it picks out improving the performance of passenger rail services as the sole purpose of the Bill. If that was really its sole purpose, the best thing we could do would be to cut train services from the timetable; the easiest way to make trains run on time is to run fewer of them. I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the House can agree that that would be absurd. Improving performance is of course a vital objective, but it is certainly not the only one. From saving millions of pounds each year in fees to private operators and stripping out inefficiency and waste to simplifying the arcane fares and ticketing system and making rail services more accessible, all those things and many more are priorities that we will address through public ownership and our wider plans for rail reform. The Government therefore cannot support Lords amendment 1, and I urge the House to oppose it.

In my opening remarks, I set out for the House the urgent need to deliver meaningful change. In view of that, the Government cannot accept amendment 2. The practical effect of the amendment would be to delay the programme of transfers into public ownership and prolong the failed franchising system that has inflicted so much misery on passengers. Delaying the transfers would mean deferring the benefits of public ownership, as well as the taxpayer having to pay millions of pounds more in fees to private operators. Clearly, the Government cannot accept that, especially given that we promised the electorate we would manage the transfer without unnecessary cost. The additional cost to the taxpayer is why the amendment triggers financial privilege, as the House will see on the Order Paper and as you have laid out, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I have also made it clear numerous times that this Government will not put up with the appalling standards of service previously tolerated for far too long. Passengers and our constituents deserve much better. I have heard loud and clear the calls for the poorest-performing services to be brought into public ownership first. I understand those calls and deeply regret that the contracts we inherited from the previous Government make it very difficult to do that, but sadly that is the position we must start from.

We have made it clear that we will bring services into public ownership as existing contracts expire, which will allow us to end franchising entirely within three years and, crucially, avoid the need to pay compensation for ending those contracts early. I assure the House that the Rail Minister and I are monitoring the compliance of train operators with their contracts like hawks. If an operator’s performance is poor enough to trigger a right to end its contract early, we will not hesitate to exercise that right and bring its services in-house at the earliest possible opportunity. We will continue to hold operators’ feet to the fire to ensure that they deliver better for passengers. Our plan to bring services into public ownership as existing contracts end is the right plan and the only responsible one. Lords amendment 2 would wreck that plan, and I urge the House to reject it.

Finally, the Government were pleased to table Lords amendment 3 in response to powerful contributions by Baroness Brinton, Baroness Grey-Thompson and others who spoke on behalf of the many disabled people who use our railways. I echo the Rail Minister’s comments in response to that debate. The railways have not done enough to meet the needs of disabled people. We simply must do better, and we will. Lords amendment 3 sends a very clear message by making it explicit in the Equality Act 2010 that publicly owned train operators are subject to the public sector equality duty.

Lords amendment 3 was accompanied by two verbal commitments by the Rail Minister, which I am happy to reiterate for the House. First, the Government will work with representatives of disabled passengers to develop

“an accessibility road map that will explain the actions we intend to take to improve things for disabled people or others requiring assistance in advance of GBR being set up.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1550.]

Secondly, the Government will now fund the next phase of improvements to the passenger assist app, which is to be delivered in close collaboration with disabled passengers.

Lords amendment 3 was universally supported in the other place, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions that have taken place in relation to it. I am confident that we can continue to work across parties to improve accessibility on the railways, and I urge the House to support the Government’s position today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I thank the other place for providing these amendments. Although the measures in this Bill are not a surprise—and we have stated our opposition to its fundamentals from the outset—we have made the case that, in effectively nationalising the operation of our passenger railways, we risk going backwards. Its core provisions will mean that the progress made on passenger services since privatisation will not be carried on.

That said, we do agree that there is a need for reform, and we support the reform laid out in the Williams-Shapps review. But the reforms proposed by this Government go too far and will undermine any potential progress. That is why the Lords amendments we are discussing are of central importance. Neither of the two amendments passed in the upper House descend from the Government’s intention to bring the franchises into public ownership, and they are clearly reasonable and measured. As the noble Lord Moylan pointed out, a

“glaring omission from the Bill is, of course, the passenger.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1510.]

This is the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, yet it says nothing about the passenger.

Lords amendment 1 attempts to put that right and put the passenger back at the head of the Bill as the driving force in what the Government are trying to do, and to require Ministers to test their actions under the Bill against the standard of whether it will improve matters for the passenger. It clarifies that the Secretary of State

“must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose”,

which is the

“improvement of passenger railway services”.

It is a simple but deeply important amendment that will ensure that the Bill, which is little more than an ideological undertaking if it lacks the proposed amendments, would be required to act unambiguously in the service of passenger railway improvement. How could anyone oppose that? There is little public appetite for ideological measures that are not based on the improvement of the passenger experience, and to reject this amendment would be a tacit admission that the Government are rejecting the principle that legislation directed at the passenger services should be in line with service improvements. In doing so, they would reject the general public consensus. I urge the Government to support the amendment on those grounds. If they choose to reject it, it is incumbent on them to explain why they have decided to make a significant legislative change to our passengers’ railways that could risk worsening services.

Lords amendment 2 contains a simple measure: to ensure that the Government, when terminating existing franchise agreements, consider operational performance and terminate the worst-performing franchises first, enabling franchises that are currently working well to continue. That would clearly be in the best interests of passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us where he thinks the dividends go when they ship out of the system. The Conservative party was quite content to see massive dividends paid out to Abellio, Nederlandse Spoorwegen, Deutsche Bahn, and every other nation state on the planet that could subsidise its own transport system because of the ridiculous system imposed on this country’s railways by the Conservative party. Rather than serving passengers and performance, what we got was money shipping out of our system for decades, subsidising other nation states’ transport systems—if that is not a good example of barmy ideology, I do not know what is. We are correcting that, and rightly so.

The Minister in the Lords, my noble Friend Lord Hendy, said that

“the Government do not believe that we should either pay compensation for termination or keep paying fees to owning groups of train operating companies when we do not need to.”

He also clarified that some contracts may end early if their performance requires it:

“if we have the opportunity to put passengers out of their misery by ending a failing operator’s contract early and bringing their services into public ownership, we will do just that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1519.]

The Government are clear that they are moving ahead with restoring passenger rail to public ownership. They have a clear plan to do so, but Lords amendment 2 creates obstacles to doing that. It is not in the interests of passengers, and I hope the House will throw it out when we vote later.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Our current railway system is simply not fit for purpose, and I know I speak for everyone in this Chamber when I say that has to change. If we are serious about growth, we have to get serious about rail. After years of Tory neglect, we must get our network back on track and put the passenger first. Across the world, there are examples of both publicly and privately owned train companies that do exactly that. Because of that, we need not be ideological about ownership; rather, we can take a pragmatic approach. That is why the Lib Dems have been, and remain, agnostic about the ownership model adopted.

As the Government have themselves admitted, nationalisation is not a silver bullet. It will not automatically deliver cheaper fares, a more reliable and frequent service, or a better passenger experience. While nationalisation might offer economies of scale, it comes with new dangers—those of us in this Chamber old enough to remember the travails of travelling on British Rail are unlikely to become misty-eyed at the prospect of going back to that future, although we might well shed a tear.

In short, nationalisation alone will not fix the mess that the Government inherited from the Conservatives. The devil, as so often, is in the detail, and I eagerly await publication of the forthcoming rail reform Bill, which we will scrutinise keenly to ensure that it does not succumb to the same demons that held back rail in this country for decades, whether it was in public or private hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I rise to support the Government motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. Britain’s railways are not working as they should, and nowhere is this clearer than in my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter. Communities such as ours have faced delays, cancellations and limited services. In Uttoxeter, Sunday trains do not run until 3 pm, leaving passengers stranded or having to resort to driving to their destination. In Burton, high fares and overcrowded trains are a daily frustration. On some services, it is so difficult to get a seat that it is a bit like being a Labour MP at Prime Minister’s questions. We can and must do better.

This is not an isolated issue; it is the direct result of decades of privatisation—a model that promised efficiency, but delivered fragmentation and sky-high costs. It has left passengers paying some of the highest fares in Europe, all while billions of pounds flow into the pockets of private shareholders, instead of being reinvested in better services. Our commitment to bringing rail franchises into public ownership is the first step towards reversing this failure. Public ownership will allow us to reinvest £1.5 billion a year back into the system. That money will improve services, reduce fares and modernise our ageing infrastructure. That is about not just the system but the people it serves. Public ownership means that passengers will have a real say. An accountable passenger standards authority will give local people a voice in how their railways are run. My constituents want more frequent services and affordable tickets, and they want to know that when they wait for a train, it will actually turn up. Public ownership gives us the chance to listen to concerns and act on them.

Cutting fares and investing back in the railways is not just about convenience; it is about connecting people to jobs, education and opportunity. For every £1 spent on the railways, the economy gains £2.50. That money goes straight into creating jobs, supporting local businesses and boosting regional economies. Fixing Britain’s railways is about more than just trains and timetables. It is about building a system that works for people, not profit. This Government’s plan for public ownership puts us on the right track. Now we must go further by investing in infrastructure, lowering fares and ensuring that communities such as mine are no longer left waiting on the platform.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind colleagues that their contributions should relate to the Lords amendments.

[Mr Snowden]

I want to speak to Lords amendment 2. I will briefly make a few points first, but I fully understand that I should not go through the debate we have already had on this Bill. That debate was about Conservative Members’ belief that we will drive improvement in the railways by putting the passenger at the heart of things, and by ensuring greater competition and private sector investment, while the Labour party argued through its manifesto that it can do that through the nationalisation of rail. We have had that debate, but Lords amendment 2 is about pragmatic ways in which the proposals can be better implemented, with the passenger at the heart of them. I fully accept that we are not having the debate over again; in fact, it is quite refreshing to see the Labour party not breaking one of its manifesto promises, but instead actually pushing on with the Bill.

As I said in my intervention, c2c has a 94% passenger satisfaction rate, but it is one of the first franchises that would lose its licence. Labour’s Lord Snape said on 6 November that it would make no sense to remove a franchise such as the Greater Anglia one, which has great public support for the way in which it operates its services. In response, the Minister said that amendment 1 would not make sense, because we could simply play the game of targets. However, the Government can play the game of targets whether or not the amendment is made. It does not really matter whether the Government can stack targets or cut data a certain way. We need to call things out, and put passengers and improved services at the heart of the Bill. Lords amendments 2 and 1 are pragmatic steps to take. We accept that the Labour party is implementing a manifesto promise, but the Lords have made reasonable recommendations on how things could be done better, and how we can put the passenger at the heart of the Bill. The amendments look at where passengers already get good services, and stage changes in a way that will not be disruptive to passengers who already get a good service on the railway network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Graham Leadbitter.

[Graham Leadbitter]

The SNP supports the Bill and the Government’s position on the Lords amendments, mainly because the SNP Government in Scotland have already driven forward with public ownership. Sadly, without full and normal powers of independence—those will come in due course—the Bill is the current means to support and underpin those actions by the Scottish Government.

I accept the Secretary of State’s position on Lords amendment 1. To take an example from my constituency, Inverness Airport station was opened relatively recently, and that adds time to the journey between Inverness and Aberdeen. Kintore station in Aberdeenshire was also opened, adding time to the overall length of the journey, but I do not think anybody would dispute that those are good improvements to the railway. They open up the railway to far more people, meaning that more people are using the line, spending money on rail services, and taking cars off the road, even if the overall journey time has not been reduced. Therefore the definition of an improvement in performance is really important, and the amendment gives no indication of how that will be dealt with. For that reason, the SNP does not support it.

We agree that Lords amendment 2 could result in further loss to the public purse and the paying of excessive fees over an extended period. We want that money to come back to the public purse so that it can be reinvested in the railway and increase the usage of our trains. This is not the 1980s. There is a lot of talk about going back to how things were prior to privatisation, but governance and scrutiny are now in a very different place from 40 years ago, and we should acknowledge that. A railway that is publicly owned might bring about a real and sustained age of the train, which we might recall from our youth, with real infrastructure investment like that seen in Scotland. We want to continue to do more of that. That will drag people back on to the railways and move them off the roads, which will contribute to our efforts on climate change and gently improve people’s lives. That is why we support the Government’s position on the Lords amendments.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Member for Derby North would have been called sooner if she had been consistent with her bobbing, but I know she has been here throughout the debate, so I call Catherine Atkinson.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendment 3 and the public sector equality duty. I welcome the Government’s plans for an accessible road map, and the fact that they will work with disabled communities to ensure that the Bill properly meets the needs of people with disabilities who travel on our trains. In the other place the Minister for Rail noted that although some changes can happen quickly, such as the map, others take longer due to the longevity of rolling stock.

I encourage the Government to work with rolling stock manufacturers to formulate a plan as to what changes need to be made to our trains, so that they can be modernised to ensure that future generations of stock serve the disabled community. Given the direction on accessibility, sustainability and affordability, I know that not only the east midlands rail cluster that my constituency is in but the whole industry will be inspired to be the first, so that other countries will want to follow. I hope that Lords amendment 3 will encourage all those who are championing improvements for our disabled communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Secretary of State to wind up.

[Louise Haigh]

I thank all Members for their important contributions. Let me start by echoing my hon. Friends’ frustration with the Opposition’s position. I sat for two and half years in the place of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), begging his predecessors who sat in my current seat to take action on performance on behalf of passengers, so forgive me, but I will not be lectured by the party that gave Avanti West Coast a nine-year extension. I will certainly not be lectured about putting ideology before the interests of passengers. This Bill is one step towards the biggest reform of our railways in decades. It will put passengers first, and I look forward to debating with all Members of this House as the railways Bill is introduced and passes through the House.

I appreciate the constructive way in which the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) approached the debate. As I set out in my opening remarks, I am concerned about potentially perverse incentives. We have already published our six objectives for the railway in our “Getting Britain Moving” White Paper, which cover reliability, affordability, efficiency, quality, accessibility and safety. I hope that he and other Members will accept that those objectives adequately and comprehensively support the objective of putting passengers first.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his passionate defence of the Government’s position and his comments on the ideological position that the Conservatives have pursued. He exposed the huge flaws in their argument as they attempt to frustrate the Government’s progress on this important reform.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) gave a passionate account of the impact of the poor performance of the railways that we have inherited. It cuts entire communities off, and he outlined the importance of having an accountable railway system, which these reforms will deliver by having a single point of access to Great British Railways, through which Members across this House and, crucially, local people through their local leaders can hold the railways to account.

There were powerful contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) and the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) on Lords amendment 3, which will be transformative in ensuring that the railways are accountable under the public sector equality duty, that we lift our ambition and aspiration for our railways, and that passengers, particularly those with accessibility needs, are at the heart of this reform.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who spoke for the Scottish National party. I agree wholeheartedly that we are not going back to the ’80s or to British Rail—I am obviously far too young to remember it anyway. This is not Network Rail 2.0 or British Rail rebooted; this is an enormous once-in-a-generation opportunity for a new organisation with a new culture and a new ethos, bringing a genuinely new era for our railways. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for her consistent passion and contribution on behalf of the wider supply chain. I can happily commit that we will work with rolling stock manufacturers as part of our accessibility road map.

On that note, I ask the House to support the Government’s position by rejecting Lords amendments 1 and 2 and accepting Lords amendment 3.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Rail Performance

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for acknowledging that we provided the statement in advance, and I suggest that next time he reads it before he responds. He will have heard me say that public ownership is not a silver bullet, hence why we are setting out a substantial package of reforms. As I also mentioned, that includes substantial workforce reform, including developing training policies—that is one of the ways in which the recruitment of drivers has been really held back—and reducing reliance on rest day working agreements.

The shadow Minister might also want to check the latest statistics on TransPennine Express. It had the largest increase in punctuality of any operator contracted to my Department, including all those in private ownership. We have been clear that open access should continue where it does not abstract revenue from the overall network and where there is capacity. There have been good examples, such as Lumo and Grand Central, and we are very happy to continue working with them. We will publish a long-term rolling stock plan in due course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The Transport Secretary’s statement is hugely welcome. Bringing privately owned train operating companies into public ownership as well as setting up GBR will inevitably add to her Department’s workload, so what preparations is she making to manage that additional workload?

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful that my hon. Friend is concerned about my work-life balance—so am I. We are staffing up the operator of last resort, as it is currently known—we will shortly change its name, as it will no longer be the operator of last resort—and the Department has significantly increased its capability. Under the previous Administration, no one in government took responsibility for the running of the railways. We are taking a very deliberately different approach and, as passengers-in-chief, we will ensure that both the operator of last resort and the Department are sufficiently staffed up to manage the quick and successful transition of franchises into public ownership.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I also welcome the new shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), to his position.

The Lib Dems welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that performance is improved, and commuters and businesses are relieved that industrial action has been curtailed. It is disappointing, however, that the unions were not required to agree any meaningful improvements to productivity as part of the settlement. Clearly, we are not yet out of the woods—or perhaps I should say the tunnel. Under the Conservatives, delays, cancellations and overcrowding became commonplace. Last year, more than 55,000 rush hour trains were either partly or fully cancelled—a 10% rise on the previous year, and the worst of any year since 2019. Although the latest news is welcome, there are many miles left to go on this journey. The Government’s policy of nationalisation is, as the Secretary of State herself concedes, no silver bullet. Earlier this year, the Office of Rail and Road found that four of the eight least reliable operators, with the highest cancellation rates, were public, while the three most reliable operators, with the lowest cancellation rates, were private.

I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, what steps is she taking to ensure that the worst, rather than the best, private operators are nationalised first? Secondly, where a private operator’s performance is of a higher standard than that in the public sector, will she consider extending its contract? Finally, given the still shocking level of accessibility on much of the network, will she urgently provide an update on when the stalled Access for All programme will be back on track?

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

Either the Rail Minister or I will of course seek to meet representatives of West Midlands Trains to address its performance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Select Committee member Laurence Turner.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State said that we should pay attention to performance statistics. The figures that I have obtained from the Department show that over the past seven years, there was a 35% increase in temporary and emergency speed restrictions on the network. The Secretary of State has a difficult inheritance, but can she set out for us the work that she is doing to refocus the industry on the hard graft of understanding, maintaining and improving our crumbling infrastructure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Chiltern was the worst-performing operator last year, in terms of the reduction in punctuality, which further makes the case for public ownership. The previous Government made lots of commitments, few of which were funded, but I will take that question away and determine where the rolling stock order is.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Select Committee member Catherine Atkinson.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s success in ending national industrial disputes as a first step to delivering better services for rail passengers. Does she agree that the establishment of Great British Railways in Derby represents a further positive step in getting Britain moving again? Can she update the House on the governance framework for shadow Great British Railways, and how it will work with stakeholders on functions such as producing a business plan?

[Louise Haigh]

I was delighted to be in Derby recently to confirm that the headquarters of Great British Railways will be in that rail city. I am also delighted that, as I say, Alstom is manufacturing the new Elizabeth line trains, as a consequence of funding awarded in the Budget. Shadow GBR is really important for engaging with stakeholders and, crucially, putting passengers at the heart of developing a new culture—and a new organisation, in Great British Railways. It has the expert chairing of Laura Shoaf, who brings substantial planning and transport experience from her time as chief executive of West Midlands combined authority.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Select Committee member Rebecca Smith.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It has recently been brought to my attention that in Great Western Railway, which serves my constituency in Devon, drivers do not have contracts that ensure a seven-day-a-week service—the contracts do not include Sundays, so trains are regularly cancelled. In fact, four trains were cancelled yesterday, so one lady had been forced to catch the first train today instead. What plans does the Secretary of State have to equalise driver contracts under Great British Railways, to ensure that routes such as Paddington to Devon are fully staffed seven days a week, so that she can fulfil her promise to passengers?

[Louise Haigh]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and unfortunately that is the picture across too much of our railways. The workforce terms and conditions are simply not fit for purpose. Part of our inheritance is that we do not have a workforce that can deliver a modern and efficient railway. We are working with Great Western Railway to address that egregious issue, and we will come back to the House shortly to set out our progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Select Committee member Dr Scott Arthur.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for the leadership that she is showing to get our railways back on track—sorry for the pun. I am pleased that she mentioned LNER and Lumo, which do a fantastic job of connecting Edinburgh and London, and of providing a stress-free alternative to flying. When she first took up her post, she was clear that she wanted HS2 to get a grip of costs. Does she feel vindicated, given the reports over the weekend of more than £100 million being spent on a single structure, despite some of those involved saying that they were not aware of the need for it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Richard Quigley, can you confirm that you were here at the beginning of the Secretary of State’s statement?

[Mr Quigley]

No, I was not.

[Louise Haigh]

I am conscious of the disruption that will be experienced by passengers coming from the south-west. We are putting in place plans so that trains can come into Euston rather than Paddington, but it is undeniable that there will be substantial disruption during the Old Oak Common works. I or the Rail Minister will be happy to meet colleagues who are affected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Richard Quigley—honesty goes a long way.

[Mr Quigley]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I truly am grateful. I was going to say that my train was late, but that would not actually be true. [Laughter.]

Speaking of my right hon. Friend being a heroine, finding a solution to the Isle of Wight ferries issue would result in our erecting a bronze statue on the seafront in Cowes. Does she agree that the Conservatives’ failed experiment with rail privatisation has caused passengers misery and cost millions? What will she do to make things better?

Rail and Road Connectivity: Northern Lincolnshire

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), on securing this debate. It is an important one and, as she knows, an issue that I have been campaigning on. Indeed, when she was previously in this House we held numerous meetings with Ministers and the like about it.

The new Brigg and Immingham constituency has 11 railways stations, the largest port in the country and an international airport, yet we are still struggling to get the A180 resurfaced and a direct train service to London. This afternoon I was looking at when I first raised this matter in the House—it was in 2011, on a debate about High Speed 2, ironically. My understanding is that the previous Secretary of State had approved the start of the direct service from Grimsby and had instructed LNER to incorporate it in its negotiations with Network Rail about the forthcoming winter timetable. As the hon. Lady said, it would be nice if the Minister could confirm that that is the case.

The A180 is an issue that has been rumbling on—no pun intended—for at least the 14 years that I have been a Member of the House. In 2018, I held a public meeting in Stallingborough village hall, and Highways England—as it was called at that time—said that resurfacing would commence and be completed during the 2020-21 financial year, which was subsequently confirmed in a letter from the Minister. The situation at the moment as I understand it is that a programme exists to spend £9 million in the current financial year to deal with particularly dangerous stretches, but I am told now that complete resurfacing from Barnetby Top to Grimsby, which is essential, is now in the £300 million-plus category, and will need authorising as a major capital project.

Very briefly, there are a couple of other points worth mentioning. The train service that runs through Brigg, the Sheffield-Gainsborough-Brigg-Cleethorpes train service, was until fairly recently a one day a week service, with three services on a Saturday. That has now changed to a five day a week service, but it gives only 90 minutes in either Grimsby—if people want, as they should, to stop there to do their shopping in Freshney Place—or Cleethorpes. It gives them a mere 90 minutes to explore the beach and all that Cleethorpes can offer. Let us get something sorted. A regular service on that stretch of line would be greatly appreciated.

My final comment is on the Cleethorpes to Barton service, which is a bit of a Cinderella service. There are so many cancellations and the timings are not good for commuters who want to use it. It needs to be fully restructured, so I urge the Minister to look at that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I cannot allow another speech, but interventions on the Minister, if the Minister chooses to accept them, are permitted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Member makes an important point that we will certainly look at, but I am sure he understands that, given the capacity and given the other ways in which people can travel, it is challenging.

Indicative modelling of an additional service suggests an industry revenue uplift of approximately £35,000 a year, although most of that is achieved by improving the service between Worksop and Retford and Sheffield. It would increase Northern’s subsidy requirement and would therefore raise costs significantly. This money is not available in Northern’s current budget.

This Government have been clear that performance on the railways must improve, and we are committed to delivering a unified and simplified rail system that focuses on improved services for passengers and better value for taxpayers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes knows, just this week the House of Commons passed a Bill to bring passenger services back into public ownership. By ending years of fragmentation and waste, we will ensure that the railway serves the needs of passengers and the taxpayer, rather than lining the pockets of private sector operators.

Bringing train operations into public ownership is just the first step in the Government’s plan to improve the railways for passengers and taxpayers. We will bring forward further legislation to create Great British Railways, a new arm’s length body that will act as a directing mind for the railways. This will ensure the highest standards of customer service and operational performance, with a relentless focus on delivering for passengers and freight customers. To achieve our goals, rail must become part of a reliable and efficient integrated transport network, including in the region that hon. Members here represent.

Improving bus services is also a top priority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear that buses are the lifeblood of our communities. We have not discussed them much today, but they can improve access to education, jobs and leisure opportunities, as well as connect us with our friends and family. As the Government strive to kick-start the economy, buses will be central in addressing regional inequalities and delivering growth. That is why we have set out an action plan to deliver better bus services, grow passenger numbers and drive opportunity to underserved regions. A core part of the plan is passing the better buses Bill, which will be introduced in this Session.

Am I running short of time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

indicated assent.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will cut to the chase. The Bill will give local leaders the tools to deliver better bus services and will ensure that networks meet the needs of the communities who rely on them. However, I need to say that this Government, as the Chancellor has clearly set out, have inherited an extremely challenging financial situation, with a £22 billion public spending gap left by the previous Administration in this year alone. The gap between promised schemes and the money available to deliver them has been abundantly clear.

I know that this is not the first time that these issues have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes has made a strong argument on behalf of her constituents. I reassure her that this Government have heard clearly the case that she and other hon. Members have made, and that we will continue taking action to address the issues that have been debated today.

Question put and agreed to.