Regional Transport Inequality

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I was all too conscious at Transport questions this morning not only to ensure that I did not, after last night’s scolding, repeat the heresy of “you” or “yours”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to keep my questions brief. Consequently, I did not have time to put on the record—for the third time in less than a year—a formal welcome on behalf of my party to the new shadow Transport Secretary. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is no longer in the Chamber, I formally congratulate him on his elevation.

As former Transport Minister, the right hon. Gentleman knows all about the transformative effect of transport, having only recently hopped aboard the overnight shuttle from Durham to Basildon. On that tortuous journey from the north of England to the south-east, he would have glimpsed the huge inequalities in transport provision across our country. Be it trains or buses, roads or air travel, where people live or their business is situated has a massive effect on their mobility. Mobility—the ability to move from A to Z and all points in between—is key to a modern economy and a cohesive society.

The statistics paint a stark picture of, to coin a phrase, a two-tier system. Last year, for example, transport spending in London was over £1,300 per head, compared with under £400 per head in the east midlands. New research from Transport for the North reveals that over 11 million people in England face a high risk of social exclusion specifically because of inadequate transport systems. That represents a 14% increase—an extra 2 million people—since 2019. In the north-east, well over 30% of residents face a high risk of transport-related social exclusion, compared with below 3% in London. And who are the excluded? It will come as no surprise that, as Transport for the North has highlighted, it is disproportionately low-income households, unpaid carers, the old and the disabled. The very people our transport system should be helping the most are the ones facing its greatest barriers.

It is not just the north of England suffering from these inequalities. Minehead in Somerset, for example, is virtually cut off. The railway station closed in 1971, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) tells me that the No. 28 bus appears to run on a whim. In Stratford-upon-Avon, Stagecoach has stopped running buses in the evening and at weekends, and there is no direct train service between the home of Shakespeare and London, undermining the town’s tourist and cultural economy. Transport is, of course, key to our tourist industry. That is why in Cornwall, the new Lib Dem council has cancelled the previous Tory administration’s plans to sell off Newquay airport, but it now needs more help than is currently being offered by the Government to make the critical investment the airport so badly needs.

Investment in transport is key. Even in London, where Transport for London is the envy of the rest of the country, more investment is needed. Repeated disruption on the District line is caused by some of the infrastructure being up to 130 years old, according to TfL. It sounds grim, but as my constituents are getting tired of hearing me say, we in Wimbledon and the rest of London do not know how lucky we are. Just imagine living in a region where services are sparse or non-existent, bus routes are cut, stations have been closed and the few trains running are routinely delayed.

I am addressing my remarks to the Minister, for whom I have high regard and no little sympathy, because the problems with regional transport inequalities are clearly not of his making, nor his Government’s, but of the past Tory Administration’s. Take buses, for example, where deregulation allowed private operators to cream off the profitable routes and abandon the rest. Between 2015 and 2023, over 1 billion passenger journeys were lost. In the north-west alone, bus routes were reduced from nearly 3,500 in 2015 to half that number in 2024.

Sadly, however, the problem still continues. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) in the south-east of England tells me that three bus services have been cancelled since last summer. In the south-west and north-east, 56% of small towns are now identified as transport deserts or at risk of becoming so.

I do not doubt the Government’s good intentions, evidenced by the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, but in some respects, things are getting worse. The Government’s decision to increase the bus fare cap from £2 to £3, for example, will only accelerate the decline in bus usage, hitting those who are already struggling the most. The Minister will rightly point to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill and its many excellent provisions but, as with the soon-to-be-published rail Bill, no amount of legislation will solve the issue of regional transport inequality without the necessary investment. As we saw with High Speed 2 and, more recently, the spending review, those moneys are not forthcoming.

The electrification of the midland main line from London to Sheffield has now been cancelled, while at Dawlish, the critical work to protect the vital Paddington to Penzance main line from the sea has been put on hold despite the very real risks to regional connectivity. The same is true of our road network, where, for example, the promised widening of the A12, which would have supported the creation of 55,000 new homes in the Chelmsford area, has been cancelled.

As the Minister is fond of telling me, there is no magic money tree, which is why the only way to address regional transport inequality is to grow the economy—a growth that is impeded by the very inequality that growth would help to address. That is why the pump must be primed with more investment in our transport system and a far more ambitious approach to growth, which can be achieved not by wishing on a star or by the PM tying himself in knots with his red lines over Europe but by boldly re-engaging with the EU and thereby completing the virtuous circle of an integrated transport system driven by and driving a dynamic and growing economy.

I end by thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this important debate and all Members for their excellent contributions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

As I am sure the Minister knows and agrees, improving bus services must include making them safer for women and girls. Concerningly, sexual offences on the UK bus network have increased in recent years; for example, they increased by 13% on London buses in the first six months of this year. What is his Department doing to ensure that women and girls feel safe using the bus network, and can he share with the House any more information on the work being led by the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which he alluded to in yesterday’s debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill?

[Simon Lightwood]

As I intimated in last night’s debate, the Bill requires local transport authorities and bus providers to give training to their staff. They will also have the power to introduce byelaws in order to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, and violence against women and girls in particular. On police officers being able to use buses for free across the country, I share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition. I have already commissioned work with the Confederation of Passenger Transport to explore how we could deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Right, with all those pleasantries done, we now come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

A transport system can support economic growth only if it provides a reliable service on which businesses and passengers can depend. According to the Evening Standard, there have been 149 incidents of industrial action on TfL since Sadiq Khan became Mayor, with millions of people inconvenienced and businesses disrupted again this week in yet another tube strike. Can the Secretary of State tell us what steps she is taking, as a senior Labour politician, to sort out the mess caused by the Labour Mayor of London’s failure to reach an agreement with his Labour friends in the RMT, a union that has given hundreds of thousands of pounds to their comrades on the Government Benches in recent years?

[Heidi Alexander]

I understand everyone’s frustrations with the tube strikes; I use public transport in London every week, and I know that when the tube is down, not only are there queues for buses, but there is gridlock on our roads. It is right that the Mayor of London has called for the RMT to get back around the table with TfL. That is what this Government want, and it is what the travelling public want. I will be talking to the director of operations at Transport for London, Claire Mann, this afternoon, to understand what the next steps are in resolving this dispute.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister and commend him for his constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill on the Floor of the House, in Committee and via the usual channels.

Let me make it clear from the outset that my party supports the basic tenets of this Bill. The Tories’ ideologically driven decision to deregulate the bus network in the ’80s and allow private operators to cream off the profitable routes paid scant regard for many unprofitable, mainly rural, routes serving small communities, which unless subsidised by an increasingly hard-pressed local government were simply abandoned. Since 1985, as a direct consequence of their meddling, the number of bus journeys taken in this country has fallen by over 2 billion—a decline of almost 40%—and more than 8,000 services have been cut or withdrawn entirely. In counties such as Shropshire and Devon, and across the country from Cornwall to Caithness, entire villages lost daily services, and some areas were reduced to one bus per week or none.

The Bill represents a bold attempt to reverse that decline. If implemented properly, which will require more funding than currently on offer, it could be transformational, returning control over local bus networks to local communities. It would remove bureaucratic barriers to franchising, enabling local authorities to design routes, timetables, fares and branding that meet the needs of communities, while allowing profitable routes to cross-subsidise the unprofitable ones, rather than lining the pockets of big business, opening up the possibility of a more reliable, integrated and affordable network, which is so crucial for rural and deprived areas that are currently facing steep service declines.

Liberal Democrats want to ensure that this legislation fulfils its potential by empowering local communities, protecting vital routes and driving the shift to greener, fairer transport. We know how important buses are to people’s daily lives. If this Bill is to succeed, it must put passengers first. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled so many amendments. I acknowledge that many of them will not be selected for a vote, but even at this late hour, I ask the Minister, please, to cast his eye over them to see which ones he might still accept.

It is worth highlighting that no fewer than 42 amendments were accepted on Report in the Lords, 30 of them from the Government and a further six from Lord Blunkett which the Government chose to support, after some intensive behind-the-scenes lobbying by my Lib-Dem colleagues. I thank them for amendments that we re-tabled in this place to address bus fare affordability, disabled passenger access, decarbonisation of the bus fleet and the protection of socially necessary routes.

[Helen Maguire]

The E5 bus service for Langley Vale in my constituency has a woefully inadequate timetable and a route that does not stop at the local hospital. Local bus routes are simply not servicing my residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill must tackle poor services and restore the £2 fare cap, reversing the devastating effect of route cuts administered under the Conservatives?

[Mr Kohler]

Those are exactly the issues that the Bill should and could address if the Minister took the bold steps we are asking of him today. In its passage through the other place, the Bill was clearly strengthened through constructive engagement across the political divide. The Government have been willing to accept sensible proposals from their lordships, so surely there can be no good reason why equally sensible amendments tabled here in the Commons could not be adopted.

One such sensible proposal concerns floating bus stops. Badly designed floating bus stops are a menace to the disabled, old and infirm, and in particular to the visually impaired, which is why my party tabled new clause 17, requiring the Secretary of State not only to conduct a review, but to retrofit all existing floating bus stops where necessary. We support amendments 18 to 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and welcome the Minister’s concessions on the issue.

I will address the three amendments that we continue to press with most conviction before turning to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). Our amendment 10 addresses the scourge of headphone dodgers, which is not a trivial matter. Many passengers feel unsafe or uncomfortable when others play loud content on their devices without headphones, oblivious of those around them. That is not simply an irritation; it causes genuine distress to many trying to travel in relative peace and quiet. More than 75% of those who use public transport stated that it disturbs them, according to a recent Savanta poll. More than 80% of people in a separate YouGov poll agreed that it is unacceptable.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that the provisions apply to people who travel on trains but not on buses? Does he understand why the Government made that distinction?

[Mr Kohler]

I agree entirely. We need a simple rule across all public transport. I also think it is odd that the hon. Gentleman makes that point after his colleagues jeered me when I first raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions a few months ago—but I thank him for his support now. Our amendment 10 would allow local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to prohibit such disruptive antisocial noise. It would be a simple, practical measure that would make bus travel better for everyone. Some have argued that such measures are illiberal, but liberalism—unlike libertarianism—is as concerned with responsibilities as with rights. My right to play loud content on my phone does not preclude my responsibility not to cause someone else unnecessary disturbance by failing to plug in my headphones—after all, that is why they were invented.

When I first raised this issue at PMQs, as I mentioned, the Conservatives and Reform—who are not here, of course—jeered at the suggestion. I cannot say whether the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) or other members of the shadow Transport Front-Bench team joined in that chorus. Although the Prime Minister, in his extremely constructive answer, agreed that it was a serious issue, his Labour colleagues in Committee voted down the amendment, which the Tories also refused to support, consistent with their previous hostility.

In a bizarre volte face, the Conservatives have now tabled an amendment that mirrors our own, and the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, has taken to the airwaves in recent weeks to demand action on headphone dodgers, having miraculously seen the light—or at least heard the noise. Whether that was because of headphone dodgers or Conservative headquarters focus groups, I will leave others to judge. People say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and, despite the Conservatives’ previous mocking and blocking, I am delighted to welcome our Conservative friends to the cause. I ask the Minister to listen again—which would be a damned sight easier to do were amendment 10 accepted and the headphone dodgers were consigned to history.

Without doubt, the Minister will say as he did in Committee, that the Bill already gives local transport authorities the ability to address antisocial behaviour. However, it does not explicitly reference the scourge of auditory disturbance, which is so serious a problem as surely to merit the individual attention that our amendment 10 would provide, empowering local transport authorities to create a bus environment that is safe, civil and comfortable for everyone. If the Government are serious about improving the passenger experience, they, like the late-arriving Conservatives, must surely come around to supporting this sensible Liberal Democratic policy, which according to Savanta is supported by a vast majority of the public; only 13% are opposed.

New clause 1 would reinstate the £2 bus cap. The Government’s recent decision to hike the cap to £3 represents a 50% increase that will drive people off buses and hit the most vulnerable in our society.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I absolutely support the reduction of the price cap to £2. However, in my constituency, where the Conservatives cut bus routes by more than 50% over the past decade, people often have to get several buses, so for a couple of constituents I have, going to the Jobcentre costs them £12, even though a price cap is in place. Do we not need a simpler structure and proper investment so that buses do not cost so much?

[Mr Kohler]

Those are indeed the issues that we need to address and that are not addressed at the moment—my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The poorest, who use buses the most, are already struggling with the cost of living crisis. No amount of spin can hide the fact that the Government’s decisions represents a huge fare increase, despite the Prime Minister taking to social media last month to proclaim that he was putting working people first, and that this fare rise would “cut costs” for working families. No, it will not.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

In Torbay, which is sadly one of the most deprived constituencies in the south-west of England, bus travel is the primary form of public transport. The £2 price cap was valued by young people and by those of working age in navigating Torbay. Does my hon. Friend agree that its reinstatement would help oil the wheels of our communities, such as Torbay?

[Mr Kohler]

That is hugely important. If we want to get people back on the buses and help the most deprived in our society, we need to reinstate the £2 bus cap.

Fares have risen to the point where many households simply cannot afford to use the bus regularly. A £2 fare cap would make a tangible difference to low-income families, students and modest earners, while also helping to reduce congestion and cut emissions by getting more people out of their cars. Sadly, new clause 1 has not been scheduled for a vote, so we will support the Conservatives’ more modest proposal, amendment 23, requiring the Secretary of State to conduct an impact assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap.

Another clause that will not be pressed to a vote is our new clause 48, which would have provided free travel for uniformed police officers in order to provide greater reassurance to the travelling public. Antisocial behaviour—and not just headphone dodging—is on the increase across the bus network, and the sight of more police officers on buses would only help to reduce that menace. Currently, there is a patchwork of different schemes covering some, but not all, bus operators, and requiring officers to produce a variety documentation to access free travel, which is not infrequently denied. Our new clause would have provided a simple baseline requiring no bureaucracy, allowing every officer in uniform to travel freely on any bus. I again ask the Minister to consider accepting that costless improvement to the safety of the bus network.

I now turn to a hugely consequential cross-party amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), whose work on the Bill has been thoughtful and persistent. His new clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes. It is supported not just by Liberal Democrats but by Members across the House, including on the Government Benches. Disabled passengers, forced to travel at restricted times under current rules, face unnecessary barriers to jobs, appointments and social inclusion. Removing time restrictions would allow them to use the bus network when they need it. It is right that the House should support this new clause, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it forward.

Rigid time slots reflect outdated thinking. Disabled people deserve travel choices that reflect real-life needs. If, as they claimed during their ill-fated attempt to reduce personal independence payments before the recess, the Government really want to help more disabled people back into work, removing such restrictions would be a wonderful place to start. I am delighted that Mr Speaker has selected new clause 2 for a vote, and I ask Members across the House to bear witness to the cross-party support that it has already received by voting together in support of it.

In conclusion, my party welcomes the Bill, which will make a real difference to our bus network, but I call on the Government and the Minister to not allow petty party rivalry and tribalism to stand in the way of making this legislation even more effective by voting against the sensible amendments and new clauses that we have proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have had an interesting debate with around 25 to 30 speakers, and some themes have developed from it. A number of speakers mentioned disability access, particularly issues with floating and shared-border bus stops for those who are visually impaired or blind. Other speeches focused on concessionary travel during rush hour and concessionary companion passes. We also heard a number of descriptions of local bus needs in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, particularly focusing on rural needs.

I want to pick out two or three speeches for commendation, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke in support of amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34. He highlighted a concerning failure by his Liberal Democrat county council, so if we want to improve bus services, we know where the Liberal Democrats can start. I commend the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who put his name to and championed new clause 47, which aims for companion passes to form part of the concessionary travel scheme.

I would like to mention the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), because he had a tiny pop at the Conservatives, particularly about new clause 10 relating to antisocial behaviour. I think this requires a bit of explanation. It was right of him to highlight that the position of His Majesty’s Opposition has changed on this measure, and I will explain why. When we discussed new clause 10 in Committee, the hon. Member will recall—if he does not, he can always refer to Hansard—that I was very sympathetic to the objective of his new clause, but, as I now accept, I took a rather narrow objection to its drafting. The new clause adds a description to a non-exhaustive list and is therefore technically not required, because the definition was already employed. The definition is one of nuisance, and audible antisocial behaviour is, by definition, nuisance. It was the lawyer in me coming out, and I was being slightly otiose.

[Mr Kohler]

Does the shadow Minister accept that I made the point to him in Committee that he was being too narrowly lawyerly? Does he also accept that when I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, the Conservative Benches jeered almost unanimously on this point?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I stand corrected, in the sense that I have listened to the hon. Member and, on reflection, I accept that I was making perhaps too legalistic a point. If by adding “sustained antisocial auditory disturbance” to the definition of nuisance we can make what is an implied power an express one, I am happy to support that. As for the jeering, perhaps my hon. Friends were cheering—who knows?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

My party supports this Bill. After decades of failure, with the deregulation orchestrated by the Tories, this is clearly a move in the right direction. It is not ambitious enough, and I regret deeply your failure to reinstate the £2 bus fare cap, the failure to remove the time limits on concessionary travel for disabled people and your failure to address—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly used the words “you” and “yours” throughout this afternoon’s proceedings. Please can he do better?

[Mr Kohler]

And the Government’s failure to address the awful scourge of headphone dodgers. Most fundamentally, the Bill will not work unless it is properly funded. At the moment it is not, and the Government cannot hide behind localism when it needs proper funding. However, we will support the Bill.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Kane]

Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to introduce, through regulations, a levy on aviation fuel suppliers to meet the costs of payments made by the counterparty to SAF producers and to cover the counterparty’s administrative costs. We plan to fund the revenue certainty mechanism through a levy on industry because it is right that the costs of decarbonising air travel are borne by the aviation sector rather than the taxpayer. We are levying aviation fuel suppliers because placing the levy higher up the supply chain spreads costs across the sector and reduces administrative burdens, and because aviation fuel suppliers will benefit from the greater volumes and lower prices for SAF that the revenue certainty mechanism will create.

Broadly, if the counterparty has incurred costs in a set period, we will cover those costs by levying aviation fuel suppliers based on their share of the fossil fuel market during that period. We are continuing to work closely with industry on the details of how the levy will operate. This approach is in line with the approach of other contracts-for-difference-style schemes, such as in the renewable electricity sector where there is a levy on electricity suppliers. The clause will also ensure that the counterparty’s obligations and activities in respect to the levy are appropriately regulated. I assure Members that the regulations under this clause will be subject to consultation and the affirmative parliamentary procedure, so there will be further opportunities for scrutiny in this area.

Clause 7 enables the levy regulations to require a person who is liable to pay the levy to provide financial collateral to the counterparty. This acts as a failsafe if there is cause for concern about non-payment. It ensures that if a levied party does not make a payment, the counterparty can take any owed money through the collateral. Without this power, there is a risk that non-payments to the counterparty lead to the Government needing to provide financial assistance to ensure that the counterparty can make payments under the revenue certainty mechanism contracts.

Clause 8 enables the levy regulations to include provisions to ensure that the levy is administered efficiently. It allows the Secretary of State to confer statutory functions on the counterparty, such as collecting levy payments and enforcing regulations. It is vital that the counterparty has the powers and functions it needs to operate efficiently and effectively.

Clause 9 will allow us to make regulations on who will calculate matters relating to the levy, and how—for example, how levy payments should be calculated and who is responsible for doing so. It ensures that calculations are made in an appropriate way by people who are qualified to do so. The regulations made under this clause will be subject to consultation and the affirmative procedure.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I rise to speak on clause 6 and new clause 6. As we have heard, clause 6 would create a levy on fuel producers. While I do not necessarily believe that to be the wrong approach, as with much of the Bill, the devil will be in the detail that is not available for us to scrutinise here, for obvious reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will make clear, there may be unintended consequences if the regulations are not designed correctly.

In my opinion, leaving much of the mechanism to a later date is not necessarily a bad thing—I agree with the flexibility that is being put in place. With a new, emerging technology and industry, ensuring that the Government’s hands are not tied at this early stage is a strength, not a weakness. That notwithstanding, some assurances should be given about how the mechanism will be designed, and how the potential flaws raised in the written evidence received by the Committee will be sidestepped. I point in particular to the written evidence from Valero.

Clause 6(3) implies that the levy will be based on criteria relating to the historical market share of fuel suppliers. That has been raised by those in the industry as potentially having unintended consequences. As I raised yesterday with the Minister, who I am not convinced gave me the clearest of answers, there have been worries that it may allow new market entrants not to pay any levy, as they will not have had a previous market share. Will he commit to ensuring that the levy regulations will account for such obvious loopholes?

It is clear that the challenge of decarbonisation, both in aviation and beyond, is great and will not be solved without collaboration with our closest international partners. I therefore tabled new clause 6, which would require the Government to review the differences between our approach to sustainable aviation fuel and that of our European partners in the European common aviation area. With 71% of international air passengers at UK airports travelling to or from Europe, it seems sensible that we should strive to be in broad alignment with Europe with regard to SAF.

I appreciate that there may be differences: in the case of the early part of our SAF mandate, we are going further and faster than the ECAA, but our European partners may accelerate beyond our thresholds later on. However, we believe it is important to remain mindful of what our partners across Europe are doing in an industry that has international competition at its very heart. The new clause would ensure that the Government are fully aware of differences in policy, and alive to any unintended consequences or differences that the Bill could result in for those in the aviation industry. We think that would be helpful.

I would welcome the Minister’s observations on both the mechanism that we have suggested and the broader issue of alignment with our European partners. This is, of course, a probing clause. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Government will keep a watching brief on what the ECAA are doing with regard to SAF from here on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I have a brief question. When the Minister talked about the effect of £1.50 either way on airfares, was he talking about the effect of just the levy or the effect of the mandate as well? As we heard on Tuesday, the mandate will have far more of an effect on prices than the levy, given the premium that is likely to be repayable on SAF.

[Mike Kane]

Well done to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire; he pulled it out of the fire there with the amendments. He is right that we are putting SAF on the statute book. We should have put it on the statute book years ago, which is why it was in our manifesto and we are doing the right thing now. I will address the questions about £1.50 in a moment.

Amendment 4 tabled by the hon. Member would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism on air travel prices. Once operating, the revenue certainty mechanism is expected to make minimal changes to fares with an average ticket price, as we have said, decreasing or increasing by up to £1.50 on average per year. I remind him that that is less than a bus fare on Andy Burnham’s Bee Network in Greater Manchester where I live. I would offer to pay it, but it is quite cumulative over time and I do not have that type of resource—I am happy to fund the hon. Member for one year at £1.50 if he so wishes. That figure comes from a DFT analysis.

The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. The Government will also set the approach to the allocation of contracts, the number of contracts awarded and the scale of support they provide. Those controls will help to minimise any potential impacts on airfares. The costs of the scheme will also be reported in the DFT annual report and accounts in the usual way. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked whether the figure refers to the mandate or the revenue certainty mechanism. I assure him that it is just the revenue certainty mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Review of the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a report reviewing measures to encourage the supply of materials for Sustainable Aviation Fuel.

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

(a) an assessment of the impact of the closure of bioethanol plants on the ability to encourage overall increases in sustainable aviation fuel production;

(b) options for mitigating any adverse impacts on the availability of supply of sustainable aviation fuel by the closure of bioethanol plants;

(c) recommendations for any necessary Government action to promote a stable supply of bioethanol for Sustainable Aviation Fuel.”—(Mr Kohler.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report outlining measures to encourage the supply of materials for SAFs, including considering the impact of bioethanol plant closures on encouragement to increase supply.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Kohler]

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

New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Act’s passing, reviewing how we can better secure the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production.

The success of the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel ambitions will rely not only on bold targets and optimistic projections, but on the reliable availability of the resources needed for manufacturing. Bioethanol will be a resource that can be part of the manufacturing process for SAF, and help support a low-carbon industry in the UK, yet while the Government continue to laud their commitment to green aviation, they have stood by while domestic bioethanol production is at risk from Donald Trump’s bully boy tactics.

Since the signing of the UK-US trade deal, the owners of two UK bioethanol plants based in Hull and Teesside have threatened to close the sites as the trade agreement fundamentally undermines their business position. This Government have given US ethanol producers a 1.4 billion litre tariff-free quota—equivalent to the UK’s entire annual demand for the product—and completely undercut the industry, making the UK vulnerable to the whims of, to put it at its mildest, the mercurial Trump Administration.

The new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of plant closures on SAF production potential, set out options to mitigate supply risks and, crucially, recommend the policy steps needed to promote a stable domestic supply of bioethanol. We cannot afford to leave this to chance, or to the good will of a US President who, as we all know, simply cannot be trusted. If the Government are serious about scaling up SAF production, they must ensure that the raw materials are available. That means a proper strategy to support and stabilise the UK’s bioethanol sector.

[Greg Smith]

I absolutely understand and appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from with this new clause. This topic came up in the oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading.

It is of great concern that the slightly lower tariffs deal done with the United States of America has clearly and materially threatened UK production of bioethanol, which of course has many uses. Many of us on the petrol station forecourt will have seen the curious E5 and E10 labels on the petrol pumps, which is about the ethanol blended with the regular fossil fuel. Our consumption of it as a country is particularly high.

As we are debating the potential future of bioethanol in sustainable aviation fuel production, it is incumbent upon the Government to reflect, within the scope of the Bill, on how much domestic supply there can be. So much of the Bill is underpinned by sovereign capability and fuel security—a point on which the Opposition and I think the Liberal Democrats are equally aligned on; it is so important—and so surely this new clause must also be important to the Government. I ask the Minister to reflect on that when he responds.

[Mike Kane]

I am extraordinarily proud that we have a Prime Minister and a Government who are rebuilding the UK’s reputation across the world once again, building trade deals with our closest partners across the planet, whether that be India, America or the recent agreement with the European Union. That is where Britain should be—leading and involved, not on the fringes as we have been for many years.

We are debating sustainable aviation fuel, but this is also about decarbonising the planes that will fly in our skies for generations to come. That US trade deal is zero tariff on aviation technology, which is a huge deal for this country, making it a world leader again in the future.

However, I am worried for the workers and families who have been affected by the trade deal. Ministers and officials, including the Business and Transport Secretaries, have met the companies consistently during this challenging time—those companies were struggling regardless of the time—to understand their concerns, discuss what action could be taken and to support them, because that is what good Governments do. The Department for Business and Trade is in discussions on requests for support from the UK bioethanol sector. As a responsible Government, there is a series of strict criteria and well-established due diligence processes that we must follow to consider such requests.

While I would like to see a thriving UK bioethanol sector, we would not expect a significant impact on the SAF mandate if there were to be a reduction in that sector’s production. That is because the UK bioethanol plants use crops that are not eligible for the SAF mandate. The SAF mandate, which is the framework for the supply of SAF in the UK, sets targets based on the availability of waste feedstocks rather than crop feedstocks. The SAF mandate is a global scheme and can use fuels from all around the world, providing an opportunity to draw upon a diverse pool of feedstocks.

However, we also want to encourage a UK industry. In January, the Chancellor announced £63 million of funding this year to help grow UK supply of SAF through the advanced fuels fund, which has been further extended in the recent Budget through to 2029-30. The SAF revenue certainty mechanism—the subject of the Bill—will also boost investment in UK SAF production.

Finally, under the SAF mandate, a formal review of the whole scheme has been built into the legislation, with the first review taking place in 2030. That will provide an opportunity to make an assessment on the availability of SAF supply. The above steps demonstrate how many of the recommendations set out in the hon. Member for Wimbledon’s new clause are already being undertaken by the Government. Given that, I ask him to withdraw it.

[Mr Kohler]

I hear what the Minister says, but we think that not enough is being done to protect the bioethanol industry in this country. We will therefore push the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Kohler]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report which sets out a strategy for increasing the greenhouse gas emission saving resulting from the promotion of sustainable aviation fuel production in the United Kingdom.

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

(a) proposals for incentivising the research and development of Sustainable Aviation Fuels that maximise greenhouse gas emission savings;

(b) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, the minimum required greenhouse gas emission reduction in order for a Sustainable Aviation Fuel to be issued a SAF certificate;

(c) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, minimum ratios for renewable content in blended sustainable aviation fuels, for the purpose of more quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(3) Twelve months after the publication of the report required under subsection (1) and within every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report which—

(a) sets out progress against the strategy, and

(b) makes any necessary adjustments to the strategy as a result of developments in the sustainable aviation fuel industry.

(4) In this section, ‘SAF certificate’ has the meaning given in article 2 of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.”

[Mr Kohler]

As we are all aware, aviation is one of the most challenging sectors to decarbonise and one of the fastest growing sources of emissions worldwide. While other sectors benefit from mature, low-carbon technologies, aviation remains heavily dependent on fossil jet fuel, and is one of the few industries where there is not an alternative available already. The Bill will attempt to grow the alternative industry, but it is clear that its provisions are only the first steps on a long journey to reach net zero by 2050 in aviation. If we are serious about hitting net zero by 2050, we must be equally serious about tracking our progress and course-correcting where necessary.

New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to conduct an annual review of what contribution the revenue certainty mechanism is making in helping the UK achieve its target of net zero aviation emissions by 2050. It is a simple step that would help us to understand further the impact our SAF policy is having on our net zero targets, and whether other changes or alterations will be needed in the jet zero plan. It would allow us to ensure we understand, year by year, whether we are making the progress the science demands. Are SAF volumes increasing fast enough? Are emissions falling across domestic and international routes fast enough? Are the technologies we are backing delivering real, verifiable carbon savings? To reach net zero, those are the questions we should ask, and we must ensure that we have the evidence base to do so. The new clause would help provide us with that information as a guard against complacency.

New clause 5 would also contribute to our net zero responsibilities. It would require the Secretary of State to, within six months of the day on which the Bill is passed, publish and lay before a Parliament a report that sets out a strategy for increasing greenhouse gas emission savings from SAF production in the UK. It would allow us to understand and ensure that we are implementing new technologies within SAF production. The point of SAF is to reduce the carbon cycle of jet fuel. We should be vigilant in ensuring that anything marked as SAF delivers just that.

New clause 5 consequently sets a minimum standard of the lifetime carbon emissions that can be classed as SAF, and ensures that that is monitored effectively. If we do not embed a culture of accountability, we risk drifting and passing legislation that sounds ambitious but fails to deliver at the pace required. With only 25 years left to decarbonise a sector that today remains overwhelming fossil fuelled, we cannot afford complacency. This Government have rightly set the bold target of net zero aviation by 2050, which the Liberal Democrats support, but targets must be matched with transparent measurement and a willingness to adapt. These new clauses would simply give us the tools to do just that, and I urge Members to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

My kingdom for a chemistry degree! I will let the hon. Gentleman know the answer to his question in due course.

To go back to the point, new clause 5 would duplicate the process already embedded in the SAF mandate legislation. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause.

[Mr Kohler]

New clause 4 was of course a probing amendment, and the Minister has satisfied most of us that enough will be done to report on our progress towards net zero. I was less convinced by the Minister’s answer to new clause 5. With or without a chemistry degree, the point is a simple one: SAF is green, but some SAF is greener than other SAF. I am not convinced that the Government are yet embracing that or doing enough to work out which SAF should be pushed because it is the most beneficial to the environment. We will press new clause 5 to a Division, but not new clause 4. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report which sets out a strategy for increasing the greenhouse gas emission saving resulting from the promotion of sustainable aviation fuel production in the United Kingdom.

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

(a) proposals for incentivising the research and development of Sustainable Aviation Fuels that maximise greenhouse gas emission savings;

(b) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, the minimum required greenhouse gas emission reduction in order for a Sustainable Aviation Fuel to be issued a SAF certificate;

(c) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, minimum ratios for renewable content in blended sustainable aviation fuels, for the purpose of more quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(3) Twelve months after the publication of the report required under subsection (1) and within every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report which—

(a) sets out progress against the strategy, and

(b) makes any necessary adjustments to the strategy as a result of developments in the sustainable aviation fuel industry.

(4) In this section, “SAF certificate” has the meaning given in article 2 of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.”—(Mr Kohler.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Fourth sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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

If we are serious about meeting our climate obligations and economic ambitions, then transparency, accountability and evidence-led policy must be at the heart of the legislation. The ambition of the Bill to build a whole new industry is to be lauded, but it lacks the level of scrutiny that such a large project entails. The Bill sets a framework, but frameworks alone do not produce fuel. Nor do they deliver jobs, attract investment or lower emissions. We must not content ourselves with well-intentioned ambition. After previous broken promises by—I am sorry to say—the Conservatives—to have five plants up and running by now, we have already seen that ambition alone will not deliver what we need.

To truly build the sustainable aviation fuel industry, we must track progress, identify bottlenecks and act on evidence. That is what the new clause provides. It demands a detailed assessment of SAF production levels, uptake by airlines and investment in infrastructure. Further, it requires the Government to consult widely with a full range of stakeholders, widely enough drawn to include employees and unions, as well as producers, suppliers, environmental experts, academics and, importantly, the communities whose lives will be affected, whether by new plants, changes in aviation demand or environmental impact.

The new clause would ensure that Ministers come back to the House not with warm words but with evidence, consultation and a plan. I urge the Minister to accept it in the spirit in which it is offered—constructive, collaborative and committed to making the legislation truly fit for purpose.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

I thank the hon. Member for the new clause, which seeks to ensure parliamentary scrutiny and that the SAF revenue certainty mechanism will run effectively. I also thank him for saying that I am full of warm words, because I am.

I agree with the hon. Member that it is important to have measures to assess the impact of the Bill and make necessary recommendations; however, significant developments in the SAF industry are unlikely within the first 12 months after the Bill becomes an Act. We are committed to deliver the revenue certainty mechanism as soon as possible, but it is vital that such complex contracts are considered carefully, with time taken to get them right. That will involve negotiations with potential SAF producers.

I reassure the hon. Member that we are committed to transparency in the Bill. We have committed to publishing details of who receives revenue certainty contracts and on what terms. We will also continue to publish annual data on the volume of SAF supplied under the SAF mandate. I hope that he accepts the explanations in the spirit in which they are given and withdraws his new clause.

[Mr Kohler]

I am grateful for the Minister’s flattering and sometimes unctuous words. He makes a good point about 12 months not being sufficient time to give such a report, and I acknowledge the assurances that he has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Review of the Potential Conversion of Industrial Sites for Sustainable Aviation Fuel Production

“(1) Within twelve months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish a report into the merits of converting disused oil refineries and other relevant existing industrial sites into facilities for the production of sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) The report required under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—

(a) an assessment of the technical and operational feasibility of such conversions;

(b) an evaluation of the economic viability of such conversions;

(c) the cost effectiveness of such conversions compared to new build production facilities, taking into account—

(i) the ability to use existing infrastructure such as tanks and pipelines;

(ii) the complexities of environmental remediation and site preparation.

(iii) the availability and suitability of a skilled workforce within proximity to such sites.

(d) recommendations for government actions to facilitate and incentivise such conversions, where they are deemed beneficial for enhancing the resilience and increasing the domestic production of sustainable aviation fuel industry.

(3) In preparing the report required under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to—

(a) sustainable aviation fuel producers,

(b) representatives of the oil and gas industry and workforce,

(c) environmental organisations,

(d) local authorities, and

(e) academic experts.

(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed through Government action.”—(Mr Kohler.)

This new clause mandates the Secretary of State to publish a report within twelve months, reviewing the merits of converting disused oil refineries and other industrial sites for Sustainable Aviation Fuel production.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Kohler]

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

New clause 8 calls on the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months on the merits of converting disused oil refineries and other existing industrial sites into sustainable aviation fuel production facilities—and there is an opportunity to have such a report early on. Many Members present, including, notably, the hon. Member for Falkirk, have spoken about the strength and possibilities of SAF to reinvigorate and reuse industrial sites.

The UK has several disused oil refineries and industrial sites, which already possess critical infrastructure—storage tanks, pipelines, grid connections—and are often located near skilled workforces familiar with complex industrial processes. That presents a real opportunity to repurpose existing assets, accelerating the deployment of SAF production, supporting local economies, and reducing the cost compared with greenfield sites, but we must proceed with a clear understanding of the technical feasibility, operational requirements and environmental considerations for such conversions.

Environmental remediation, site preparation and ensuring community support are complex challenges that require careful evaluation. The new clause would mandate a thorough, evidence-based report that would address such technical, economic and environmental factors, and include consultation of a wide range of stakeholders, including SAF producers, the oil and gas workforce, unions, environmental organisations, local authorities and academic experts. The findings will help the Government to shape policies and incentives that maximise the benefits of such conversions where appropriate. I do not think we can simply leave it to market mechanisms; the Government need to intervene here.

This is not about preserving the fossil fuel past, but transitioning our industrial heritage and workforce, and some of our dying economies, to a new sustainable future. The UK’s industrial regions deserve a just transition that leverages their existing strengths to help to power the green economy. The new clause would be a step towards securing the resilience and growth of a domestic SAF industry that can create good jobs, strengthen supply chains and reduce reliance on imports. I urge the Minister to welcome this practical proposal, accept the new clause and commit to a clear timeline for delivering the report. The future of UK aviation depends on not only ambitious targets but pragmatic steps to make those targets achievable and bring the country with us. The new clause would help us to take one such step.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

New clause 8 has considerable merit. It is always preferable where new industrial facilities are to be built—in this case for the production of sustainable aviation fuel—for those identified sites to have had former brownfield status and former industrial use. I have no argument with that element of the new clause.

The one note of caution I have on the new clause is that many of the existing sites—certainly oil refinery sites—are not necessarily located in the right places currently for certain SAF technologies. That includes the e-fuels and power-to-liquid solutions, which require, as part of the process, electrolysis and the creation of green hydrogen. Of course, if the hydrogen element that goes into making the SAF is not green hydrogen, the whole problem becomes rather academic—we could still make the fuel, but the reality is that it would not be as green as we want it to be. Those SAF production facilities, by definition, would need to be located in places with potential large-scale offshore wind, electricity production or, possibly, nuclear generation.

If we look across the world at such fuel plants that have been created, Porsche, for example, chose the hills of Chile to produce its particular fuel, because it can leverage off the wind power that it can get up there. In our country, Orkney seems to have been a popular site for harnessing the offshore wind technology available up there. While I fully support the principle that underpins the new clause—for many SAF production sites to be on former industrial or oil refinery sites—I simply wish to add the note of caution that they might not be suitable for every application and technology out there.

[Mike Kane]

On new clause 8, the hon. Member for Wimbledon is right to talk about deindustrialisation. Growing up in the 1970s, I saw the impacts of that, particularly on the east side of Manchester, with the chemical and mining industries being wiped out. In this day and age, we are still getting over that in my great city. I reassure him that we are supporting the SAF industry, in part, to grasp this opportunity for deindustrialised areas. Emerging SAF projects are often located on former industrial sites, and I remind the Committee that, if we do this right, our low-carbon fuels industry can support up to 15,000 jobs and £5 billion to the economy by 2050.

I also reassure the hon. Member that work is ongoing across Government on the future of our refineries. We are acting urgently in response to the deeply concerning news of insolvency at Prax Lindsey oil refinery, and have put £200 million into the National Wealth Fund to back investment at Grangemouth. I want that work to continue at pace, and am conscious that specific sites will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Commissioning an additional separate report would not be beneficial, and would risk delaying potential investment decisions. Given that, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

[Mr Kohler]

I am saddened by the Minister’s response. We cannot just leave it to the invisible hand of the market to make sure that sensible decisions are made regarding old oil refinery sites.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

In Grangemouth, we have £200 million dedicated from the National Wealth Fund, and Project Willow, which has two SAF options contained within it. Does the hon. Member acknowledge that, and acknowledge that we need to move at pace to deal with deindustrialisation in such places? His new clause would risk potentially adding another layer of report-making, rather than the real action that needs to be taken in places such as my constituency.

[Mr Kohler]

Such a report would not require there to be a delay. The report would be within 12 months, and we have already heard from the Minister that not much will happen within the first 12 months. That was the excuse given earlier in Committee for not doing various things. A report to focus attention on these sites would be useful and helpful, and I really cannot see why there should be any objection to it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Blue Badge Eligibility

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on securing this debate, and her constituent, Sandy, on bravely campaigning on this issue. It is people like her who make a real difference to this world—thank you.

A cancer diagnosis does not simply change someone’s medical needs; it changes the course of their life. Even the most basic tasks can become physically painful and emotionally draining. It may be a short-term issue during recovery or represent a permanent shift. In these circumstances, a blue badge can offer crucial support, making it easier to access vital services and maintain a degree of independence. The blue badge scheme provides essential parking concessions to help people with significant mobility challenges to park close to their destination, whether they are the driver or passenger.

Cancer treatment side effects, such as fatigue from chemotherapy, chronic pain or nerve damage, can all severely limit mobility. However, despite the profound and often sudden impact of such conditions, many people living with cancer or other life-altering illnesses, as we have already heard today, find they do not automatically qualify for a blue badge. The cost of travelling to medical appointments is already high, and for those undergoing frequent treatments and tests, it quickly adds up. Research shows that 93% of young cancer patients and their families travel to hospital by car and need a place to park. Furthermore, 71% say they struggle to afford travel costs, with parking charges contributing to an extra £250 a month. Many also report that parking arrangements at hospitals are inadequate. The charity Young Lives vs Cancer cited one parent who described hospital parking as a lottery:

“I can probably win the lottery better than I can get a parking space.”

In my constituency, a resident contacted me about her 83-year-old husband, who has blood cancer and neuropathy, uses a wheelchair, and cannot walk. Despite that, Labour’s Merton council lost his blue badge application, forcing his wife to resubmit it. That is unacceptable, and it highlights the pressing need for the more seamless blue badge process that we are advocating.

In other cases, the criteria for blue badge eligibility fail to map neatly on to fluctuating conditions such as cancer. That is why the Lib Dems are calling for a comprehensive review of the legislative framework for the blue badge scheme, as is everyone in the Chamber, I think. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), we want it to be more responsive to real-world need, more compassionate in its interpretation of eligibility and more efficient in delivery.

We also urge the Government to take advantage of their ambition for a single patient record. Much of the infrastructure exists already, particularly in cancer care. It is entirely feasible to implement an automatic offer of a blue badge where clinical records show clear mobility changes, as so eloquently argued for by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Chatham and Aylesford.

Smaller but important changes we could make include amending blue badge signage, which we support, to clarify that not all disabilities are visible. That would help to reduce stigma and the misunderstanding faced by many users of the scheme. We are also pushing to ban discriminatory practices by taxis and private hire vehicles with a clear national standard for what an accessible city should be.

We remain firmly committed to improving accessibility across society. Public transport in particular must work for everyone, and we are campaigning for train stations around the country to meet essential accessibility standards, such as step-free access, safer and more inclusive platform designs, and level boarding wherever possible. Things such as that and blue badge accessibility are crucial to a society that cares for everyone and has an inclusive approach to how we live our lives.

Ultimately, we need a system that is fairer, simpler and more humane, one that recognises the challenges posed by cancer and chronic illness, even when those challenges do not fit neatly into a tick-box form or an online mechanism. A blue badge can mean being able to go to work, to reach a hospital, to attend a support group, or simply to visit a friend. It is about dignity, independence and inclusion. The very least we can do is to ensure that the system works as it should. Cancer and serious illness take so much from individuals and their families, access to parking should not be another burden that they are forced to carry.

Draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 General Committees

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington for stating the Opposition’s support. UK aviation enjoyed its most successful month in history in April. Over the next 20 years, we are looking at the doubling of numbers in aviation, and freight as well, so modernising our airspace is critical to making sure that there is resilience in the system.

Work was done under the previous Government, and I pay tribute to the former hon. Member for Witney, Robert Courts, for what he did, but Governments become sclerotic and the last Government did not get this measure over the line. I was glad that we committed to do it in our manifesto. What we are doing today by implementing that manifesto commitment and putting it into law will be a huge confidence boost for the aviation industry. When I have spoken to industry representatives, as I do all the time, including this morning, they tell me they have been looking forward to today, because the measure is a statement of commitment and intent.

The hon. Member for Orpington is absolutely right: who knew that flying in a straight line would cut carbon emissions? EasyJet gives the example of the journey from Jersey to Luton airport wherein the aircraft burns a third more fuel because of the path it has to take. Flying in a straight line is better for customers and for the environment, and it will produce fuel savings. He talks about winners and losers, but this measure also allows us to analyse take-offs and landings and varying routes, so we can mitigate impacts on communities. That is key.

The skillset is an essential element of that. Until now, the skills have been dissipated throughout the country. This measure puts the skillset into one place in the UKADS. That means we can concentrate on the most congested skies in the south-east, but it does not stop us doing what we need to do in the Scottish, northern and south-west airspaces. There will be funding to make sure that those other regions benefit, including smaller airports, which the hon. Member asked about. I will also commit to full transparency as we go through the process and get it over the wire to modernise airspace, so that the British aviation set-up has a confident future.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

rose—

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to contribute? He did not indicate that he did when I looked at him meaningfully earlier, but he is just in time if so. I call Paul Kohler.

[Mr Kohler]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. We welcome steps to better co-ordinate the fractured and complex system of managing airspace. It is important to bring it into the 21st century by delivering flight paths that cut emissions and ensure that journeys can be quicker, quieter and cleaner. The creation of a single guiding mind to co-ordinate and sponsor future airspace changes is a positive step and something that my party warmly welcomes.

We recognise that without modernisation, not only will there be unnecessary capacity constraints, but outdated flight paths will constrict innovation and stand in the way of future advances, including essential low and zero-carbon developments in the sector. It is vital, however, that the new organisation works closely with the communities affected by noise and air pollution—as has been said, there will be losers as well as winners—and that local communities feel that their voice is being heard when changes take place.

We understand that London will be the first area that the UKADS considers. Can the Minister clarify the timeline for the creation of the new service and when we can expect the work on the modernisation of London’s airspace to commence? Can he give any indication of how long the Department envisages it will take for the UKADS to publish and consult on its draft proposals? Finally, will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that UKADS works closely with the public, so that the communities affected by the changes are and feel properly consulted?

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

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention; I stand corrected, as I was talking about clause 27. I do not know where clause 23 came from—my subconscious.

Subsection (2) clarifies that regulations can address the powers of an inspector outside of their authority’s area. Subsections (3) and (4) clarify the definition of an inspector. That is all fine.

Clause 28 is the largest clause in the Bill, so although it is not particularly contentious—we are substantially supportive of it—I would not be taking my duty seriously if I totally skipped over it. I will therefore pick and mix and hope that people bear with me while I take a little time to consider how it deals with local transport authority byelaws. It amends the Transport Act 2000, sets out the power of LTAs to make byelaws, and lists the various areas that can be covered.

Proposed new section 144A(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act is relevant to Liberal Democrat amendment 67. The byelaws set out in proposed new subsection (1) relate to travel on services, the maintenance of order and the conduct of persons while using services. Those are the areas of interest about which organisations will have the authority to create byelaws.

Proposed new subsection (2) goes into more detail and states that the byelaws relate to issues including tickets, the evasion of payment of fares, interference with or obstruction of local services, and the prohibition of vaping, smoking and nuisance on local services. I highlight that list, because Liberal Democrat amendment 67 would add “sustained anti-social auditory disturbance” to it.

The two subsections are dealt with differently: proposed new subsection (1) is an exhaustive list setting out the scope for byelaws, but proposed new subsection (2) is a non-exhaustive list of provisions that may be considered. Therefore, proposed new subsection (1) does not allow the consideration of issues relating to noise disturbance and would need to be amended to include that. In my submission, however, proposed new subsection (2) would not need to be amended because it is a non-exhaustive list, so we could go on forever adding things that annoy us on public transport—I would quite like to settle down and consider that. Although I share the Liberal Democrats’ fury and annoyance at antisocial auditory disturbance, I do not think it is necessary to add it to the non-exhaustive list in proposed new subsection (2).

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments on our amendment, but what is the point of including anything in proposed new subsection (2) then? Following his argument, nothing needs to be there.

[Jerome Mayhew]

As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not the Government; it is for them to defend their drafting. If he wants to help to change that, I will happily stand on the Government side and give him the answer he is looking for. The essence of any non-exhaustive list is to give examples. It would not be wrong to give another example, but it is up to the Government whether it is necessary to amend the clause and whether they are prepared to add it to the list. As a matter of law, however, that is the difference between an exhaustive and a non-exhaustive list.

Proposed new section 144B sets out the procedures on byelaws. The Minister spoke about them briefly, and the measure is a reasonable approach to the problem that the Government seek to solve. I will just go back, however, and highlight that the byelaws allow for level 3 fines for these offences. Hon. Members will know that, under the current guidelines, a level 3 fine is £1,000, so the byelaws will allow local transport authorities and Transport for London to impose not inconsiderable fines.

Given that these are substantial powers that can address quite wide-ranging behaviours, and that transport authorities can impose fines of up to £1,000, we collectively need to think about the guidance from the Secretary of State that will accompany this legislation. It is important to get that right, and I invite the Minister to elaborate on the guidance’s likely approach to enforcement. A kind of draconian, one-strike-and-you’re-out enforcement would be deeply unpopular, and it would bring in a whole load of people who were just running for the bus. There are good actors and bad actors: people get caught up in behaviours for all sorts of reasons, and we need sensible guidance about enforcement.

Clause 29, on TfL byelaws, is a similar clause that simply seeks to apply a similar approach to TfL. I will not go through it, but the points that I made about clause 28 apply.

[Mr Kohler]

Clause 28 introduces powers for local authorities to make byelaws for buses. That is welcome, and I agree that the behaviour that the clause already lists should be prohibited. There is, however, a clear omission. With passengers already paying extortionate fares to be packed in like sardines on buses, we should at least ensure that they do not face the added indignity of someone’s blaring TikTok feed. That is why our amendment 67 seeks to add the words

“including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”

The amendment would explicitly allow transport authorities to bring in byelaws that ban persistent antisocial noise, such as music or videos played out loud on personal devices. It is a sensible, proportionate response to a problem that has been left unchecked for far too long. Let us be clear: we are not talking about a small inconvenience. The scale of the problem is significant.

Recent polling has found that almost two in five people say that they have experienced others playing music out loud often or sometimes, while only a quarter report experiencing it rarely. Furthermore, a majority of respondents say that they would not feel comfortable asking someone to turn down their music on public transport. Women feel especially unable to challenge such antisocial behaviour; almost two thirds say that they would not feel comfortable doing so.

Furthermore, playing music and other content loudly on public transport is done not only unthinkingly but, on many occasions, in a deliberately intimidatory manner designed to provoke and unsettle others going about their lawful business. The amendment is a sensible step that would ensure local authorities have the tools that they need to combat a growing menace.

Not everyone agrees. I was deeply disappointed when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who also happens to be a valued constituent of mine, opposed the measure, dismissing fines for such disruptive and selfish behaviour as “silly”, despite the frustration and discontent that it causes for so many. I find her attitude extraordinary; I would be very surprised if she had not, like so many of my other constituents, experienced the phenomenon on buses across Wimbledon—assuming, of course, that she uses buses.

The right hon. Lady is not alone, however, as I will explore in more detail in a moment. Some have accused me of abandoning my liberal sensibilities in seeking to address the issue. All I would say to such critics is that liberalism is as much about responsibilities as about rights. I do not begin to see how my right to play content loudly on my phone or some other device obviates my responsibility not to cause unnecessary disturbance to others. Whether people are heading to work, taking their kids to school or simply trying to enjoy a moment of peace, they deserve to feel safe and respected on public transport.

Time and again I hear people say that they feel too intimidated to speak up when someone is blasting music or videos from a phone or speaker. The Liberal Democrats want to take tough action on headphone dodgers to ensure that every passenger feels safe and respected, and can travel in peace. We urge all parties to support the amendment and finally bring an end to commutes filled with unnecessary noise, disturbance and frustration.

In what has become a running motif of the Committee, the Minister has said that the amendment, like so many that have perished before it, is unnecessary on two broad grounds. First, he argues that the antisocial playing of music and other content already comes within the term “nuisance” under the Government’s proposed new section of the 2000 Act.

That is clearly open to challenge, however: I have already quoted the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears not to regard such thoughtless or intimidatory disturbance as a nuisance. Perhaps more significantly, in what has become an increasingly rare experience for the Conservative leader, she appears to still be speaking for most of her parliamentary party—although not, it seems, for the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on this issue at least—given the jeers and heckling directed at me from the Opposition Benches when I raised headphone dodgers at Prime Minister’s questions recently. I humbly suggest to the Minister that it is worth noting the Prime Minister’s answer to my question. Pointing at the jeering Conservative Benches, he said:

“We take this seriously; the Conservatives laugh about it.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2025; Vol. 766, c. 324.]

Here is the Minister’s chance to prove that the PM is a man of his word by accepting our amendment and showing that the Government do take sustained antisocial auditory disturbance seriously in the face of those who would—bizarrely—argue that it is not a nuisance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend is right. I do not want to demonise cyclists. Cyclists are not out there actively trying to mow down pedestrians seeking to cross at floating bus stops; they are doing their best in the vast majority of cases, but we have created, with the best of intentions, a conflict between foot passengers and cyclists. I would submit that we have the balance of convenience wrong, and we should be brave and bold enough to admit where we have made a mistake and should take effective steps to improve the situation.

Floating bus stops are inherently inaccessible and dangerous. They compromise the safety of people with visual impairments, who potentially cannot see or hear cyclists. They confuse wheelchair users and those with mobility impairments, who are put off using public transport. New clause 12 would strengthen democratic oversight by requiring proposals to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

New clause 13 was also tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; in her absence I shall set out what it does. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared use bus boarders to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England. I made clear in my earlier remarks the dangers caused by floating bus stops to the safety of disabled, partially sighted, blind and elderly people, and I support the new clause, as it would add further checks and balances to clause 31 and strengthen the Government’s stance on the issue.

The requirement on the Secretary of State to commission an independent safety and accessibility review and to undertake that review in collaboration with groups representing disabled people would not only help to ensure that the Government’s response to floating bus stops was evidence-based and centred specifically on safety concerns and the lived experience of people trying to use such bus stops, but accommodate consulting the wider disabled community, not just the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

New clause 40 was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon and he will be delighted to hear that he has my support. I will leave it to him to rehearse all the details of the drafting, if he wishes to; suffice it to say that that the new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops—not future ones, but the ones that are already there—and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure that they are fully accessible and safe. I welcome any amendments that add checks and balances to the Bill to help to ensure the safety of passengers and nullify the safety issues with floating bus stops. My new clause 47 accommodates the aims of new clause 40(2), but goes one step further by prohibiting any new floating bus stops after the day on which the Bill becomes an Act. I fully support the Liberal Democrat new clause.

Members will be delighted to hear that my new clause 47 is the last clause in this group, so I will sit down in a moment. Were the new clause to be adopted, it would do three important things. Subsection (1) would establish an immediate prohibition on the construction of new floating bus stops by local authorities—so we would stop digging. That is the first thing: we would stop making new floating bus stops. Subsection (2) would compel the Secretary of State to review existing infra-structure to assess compliance with accessibility and inclusive design principles—that is, to see what we have and to analyse it to see whether it is accessible. Subsection (3) would require a clear and public statement to Parliament setting out what changes would be made, what steps the Secretary of State would take to ensure that they were delivered, and what guidance would be issued to local authorities to support that work.

The new clause is designed to be a pragmatic response to persistent and credible concerns raised by the disabled community, charities representing blind people and elderly bus passengers who have to struggle with the safety challenges that persist with these bus stop designs.

[Mr Kohler]

Is there not a contradiction? Subsection (2) seems to suggest that there are ways of designing out the problem, whereas subsection (1) bans all new floating bus stops. If subsection (1) were offering a moratorium until the design issues had been addressed, we could support it, but subsections (1) and (2) do not sit well with each other.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Given my criticisms of the hon. Gentleman’s drafting of previous amendments, I am sure he is delighted to raise this drafting concern. I respectfully disagree with him, as new clause 47 takes a sequential approach to stop the problem getting worse, then to identify the cause of the problem, and then to require the Government to set out how to fix it. I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman and his conscience to decide whether he feels able to support the new clause, should it come to a Division.

New clause 47 strikes the right balance between a pragmatic approach towards existing floating bus stops, a requirement for the Secretary of State to review all floating bus stops to identify the changes that are needed, and a firm but necessary stance against the construction of any further floating bus stops. The principle of inclusive design must be a main priority when we think about bus stops, and my new clause would achieve that. I urge the Committee to think carefully about it, and to see if they can find it in their hearts to support it.

[Mr Kohler]

There is a lot to cover, but I will not take as long as the shadow Minister. Amendments 40 and 42 are sensible, as making guidance mandatory rather than permissible would keep the right balance. This is clearly an issue for many people, and having clear Government guidance on the accessibility of stopping places would be a positive step. As the shadow Minister said, surely the Minister will want to produce guidance, so making it mandatory would not be an onerous obligation.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not here to press amendment 29, but my party supports it and will press it. This positive amendment would ensure that there is guidance on toilet facilities—which are clearly an issue, particularly for people with a disability or medical condition—and on travel information in relation to floating bus stops.

Liberal Democrat amendment 65 would mean that accessibility guidance includes guidance relating to the provision of information at a stopping place, and amendment 60 would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that the disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented. Although the Bill makes provision for the publication of new statutory guidance to improve the accessibility of bus stops, service information provision is not mentioned. Up-to-date route and timetable information, as well as real-time arrival boards, are crucial for all passengers, especially those without access to digital tools. It also improves passengers’ feeling of control and security. In Wimbledon, many signs have been removed and not replaced, which is a real issue for older people and the digitally excluded. For those who do not have access to an iPhone, this sort of information is critical.

Amendment 65 would address that need by ensuring that legislation covers both infrastructure and information provision, including up-to-date route maps, timetables and real-time arrival information at bus stops, ensuring accessibility and safety for all users. It would help to prevent people becoming disoriented or isolated, ensuring that disability does not stand in the way of navigating a local bus route.

Amendment 60 would ensure that disability provisions are properly actioned. “Reasonable steps” is a legal term of art, and the shadow Minister’s criticism does not hold because the costs would be part of deciding whether it is reasonable. Having regard to guidance on disability could see many transport authorities fail to implement anything substantive, but this amendment would require them to take reasonable steps to deliver the guidance—that is, they must be reasonable steps.

Accessibility is not a nice-to-have; equal access for all passengers is essential. If disabled people are unable to travel to their doctor’s appointments, to see their friends or to access work because of poor accessibility, the impact on their lives is intolerable. For accessibility, legislation needs to talk in terms of duties and steps that must be implemented rather than just a consideration that can be done away with. However, as I said, the amendment emphasises reasonable steps, not unreasonable ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. With the welcome increase in active travel and the number of cyclists, we need to address the conflicts that arise on the road. If one goes to the continent, it is part of their DNA—cyclists, motorists and pedestrians understand their relationship—but the same is not true in this country.

The new clause proposes a review of existing floating bus stops within six months and would require the Secretary of State to come up with a plan. This is a proportionate, evidence-led and pragmatic path forward that puts safety, accessibility and inclusion at its heart. I have been lobbied by eloquent advocates from Guide Dogs and the RNIB, who are concerned that the review of the existing provision that we are proposing will be biased in favour of floating bus stops, so I make it absolutely clear that we would expect the Secretary of State to include representatives of those organisations along with other charities in that review process.

Moving on to new clause 47, I am aware that some think there is no solution to this problem apart from banning floating bus stops. However, from my conversations with visually impaired colleagues, both in Parliament and beyond, I believe that compromise can be achieved. I counsel the Committee to reach a compromise that does not pit the blind and disabled against cyclists.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)

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

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Before I came to this place, I sat on the highways and transport scrutiny committee at Leicestershire county council, so I have spent a lot of my professional life talking about buses. As is not out of the ordinary for someone living in a rural or semi-rural constituency, however, I have also spent a lot of my personal life talking about them, as cuts and broader threats to our services are often the subject of conversation around the dinner table.

We all have residents such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke about in our previous sitting. For example, my constituent, Jacky, fought hard to reinstate the bus service in Whitwick in my constituency, and won, ensuring that people can get to the local doctor and pharmacy. That is a socially critical service. A few years ago, the service between Coalville in my constituency and Hinckley in the neighbouring constituency was withdrawn at short notice in the middle of an academic term. North west Leicestershire and Hinckley both have further education colleges, and that essential link between the two was withdrawn in the middle of people’s courses. If the local authority had responded to campaigners then, it would have realised that the bus route between those two urban parts of Leicestershire was a socially necessary service.

In big cities, cutting one service leaves a dent, but in rural areas such as mine, it leaves a crater—and craters have been appearing all over my constituency. Bus services were cut by 62% under the previous Government. What bus providers and councils see as cutting costs, we see as cutting lifelines to education, jobs and healthcare—cutting connections with our communities. Members can imagine my constituents’ frustration when they heard a few weeks ago that notice had been served on a route between Ashby and Loughborough. The local authority has found an alternative to protect the service, but the timings are such that students now have to catch their bus even earlier to get to college.

Bus services are not just about transport; they are about opportunity, inclusion and dignity. When a young person in Measham cannot reach their college in Loughborough, or an elderly resident of Ibstock cannot get to their medical appointment, that is not an inconvenience but an erosion of their independence. We cannot afford to keep asking our communities to do more with less. That is why I welcome the Bill’s ambition. Finally, we have committed the resources that are needed to protect socially necessary services in my community and many others.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Committee members will be pleased to hear that I will whip through the clauses quite quickly. Clause 15 amends the Transport Act 2000 to widen the measures that can be taken by a local transport authority under an enhanced partnership scheme so that they can relate to any local services in the area concerned. That is very sensible; we need not trouble the Committee any longer with consideration of that clause.

Clause 16, which deals with the passenger benefit requirement, replaces section 138C(9) of the 2000 Act. It sets out requirements in respect of local services to allow an enhanced partnership scheme to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers in return for public expenditure on facilities or measures that will reduce operating costs. It is a simple and practical balancing act between the commercial operations that pay for themselves and the socially necessary additions that a local transport authority may wish to negotiate as part of the enhanced partnership. It is about the quid pro quo of how those can be funded other than by direct subsidy.

Clause 16(9)(a) provides that local transport authorities may include requirements that relate to operators establishing and operating arrangements that facilitate an EP scheme, and subsection (9)(b) may require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers if they benefit from action taken by the LTA or other public authorities, including the Secretary of State. Again, this is a sensible adoption of a quid pro quo process rather than having route extension with direct subsidy. For the Conservatives, the provisions seem to sensibly widen the options for trade-offs, and we are supportive of them.

Clause 17 inserts into the 2000 Act proposed new section 138(KA), so that where an EP scheme can be varied in accordance with the scheme, a variation can be made under section 138(K) only when the Secretary of State is satisfied of two things: first, that operators have behaved unreasonably or obstructively, and secondly, that the variation or revocation will benefit the users of local services. Again, this is a sensible approach for the Secretary of State to take and we will not object to clause 17.

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 37 would deal with the variation of EP schemes to improve the integration of public transport. It would mean that a variation to an EP could take place only if it had the effect of improving integration across different modes of transport. Although I understand and applaud the rationale behind the drafting of the new clause, one has to be careful of the unintended consequences, because it would prohibit any change to an EP that did not also improve integration across different modes of transport. Many variations to an enhanced partnership might have multiple benefits for passengers, but might not have the benefit of improving integration across different modes of transport. Under a strict reading of the new clause, such improvements would be prohibited. I know that is not the Liberal Democrats’ intention, but as the new clause is worded that would unfortunately be the effect.

I will not make any comments on new clause 50, other than that, unusually, I support the words of the Minister in that the trade unions already come under the wording of the Bill.

[Mr Kohler]

New clause 37 is sensible and constructive. It would ensure that when enhanced partnership schemes are amended, improved integration across modes of public transport is explicitly recognised as a legitimate and desirable reason for doing so.

We have seen time and again, both here in the UK and internationally, that when public transport is properly integrated, it works. It becomes more convenient, reliable and attractive to passengers. People choose to use it and when that happens, buses flourish. Whether it is better co-ordination between bus and rail timetables, joined-up ticketing or clear and consistent information across modes, the benefits of integration are obvious. Without a clear statutory basis for prioritising integration, too often such opportunities are missed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is great to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dame Siobhain. I want to follow up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said and ask a few additional questions, particularly about the provision in clause 18 for persons with disabilities.

I obviously welcome the inclusion of this clause in the Bill—we clearly want to ensure that public transport is as accessible for all as possible—but I am slightly concerned that, in a way, it provides false hope. Subsection (2) states:

“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify”,

so it is a “may”, rather than a “must”. It is nice to have that consultation, but there is an opportunity for the local authority or whoever is providing the bus service not to do it. The clause allows for a consultation, but there are no guarantees that what disabled people want will happen.

I am also slightly concerned about the taxi guarantee scheme. I do not know whether hon. Members have experienced the same thing as me, but my constituency of South West Devon is an interesting mix of urban and rural. It might be thought that large chunks of Plymouth are technically easily accessible, but the Access Plymouth minibus system does not even work across the city, let alone go into the rural parts of the constituency. Out in the South Hams and West Devon, which is a different local authority, the bus services are typical rural bus services: they are not very reliable or frequent.

It is also worth saying that taxis are not reliable either. Just this weekend, a local taxi service that runs out of the village put a post on social media saying, “We’re fully booked this evening.” Even able-bodied people, let alone people with disabilities who are trying to benefit from a taxi guarantee scheme, need to book in advance, so I question the feasibility of delivering on this clause.

We are not only saying that bus services will be reliable for persons with disability; we are offering them a taxi guarantee scheme. Yet we do not know—I assume the Minister will be able to explain this—what assessment has been made of the wider public transport picture or whether the taxis exist to provide the scheme, particularly in our rural communities. I know the Bill seeks to address those places. Ultimately, we need to ensure that we manage the expectations of those we are trying to help with the Bill.

I ask the Minister, what consultation has been held on, and what thought has been given to, the provision of rural services for people with disabilities? The taxi guarantee scheme is a great idea, but is it deliverable? What analysis has been made of that? Secondly, what might stop a local authority from delivering on this, and what assessment has been made of potential obstacles? Apart from the supply of buses and taxis, are there other reasons why a local transport authority might not be able to deliver this?

If it is that important to ensure that persons with disability can access public transport, which is something that I think we all agree we want, then the obvious question is: why does the legislation not say that an enhanced partnership scheme “must” do it? Why does the Bill say just that it “may”? It seems that there is a conflicting ambition here. Perhaps I have answered my own question in saying that there might not be the supply, but if we want to ensure a better world for persons with disability, I am intrigued as to why it does not say that a scheme must do this.

[Mr Kohler]

The clause, added during scrutiny in the Lords, is a welcome and valuable improvement to the Bill, but we would like to know what consultation was held with disabled groups before it was drafted. Although the changes it makes might seem modest on paper, they have the potential to make a significant difference in improving accessibility across our bus network.

Subsection (2) allows enhanced partnership schemes to specify requirements to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely, and in reasonable comfort on local bus services. The inclusion to allow the specification of a taxi guarantee scheme is also welcome. Although we share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for South West Devon, such a scheme may prove to be vital in ensuring that disabled and other vulnerable users feel comfortable and confident in using the bus. Subsection (3) strengthens the consultation process and ensures that disabled users or organisations representing them are consulted before any EP scheme is made. That is not just good practice; it is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone.

Subsection (4) mirrors that requirement when enhanced partnership schemes are varied, and guarantees that the accessibility is not forgotten as schemes evolve. Authorities must once again consider whether changes enable disabled people to travel independently, safely, and in comfort. These are considered but welcome changes. Accessibility cannot be an afterthought; it must be embedded from the outset and considered at every stage of decision making. These welcome measures help to support that.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank hon. Members for their thoughts on the clause. I remind the Committee that the clause was inserted into the Bill because the Government listened intently to concerns in the Lords. The clause will help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled passengers in the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. It will enable the specification of requirements of disabled people to travel independently, safely and in reasonable comfort. That extends to when a local transport authority is varying an enhanced partnership scheme. It will help local transport authorities to understand better the impacts on disabled passengers, and fits into how the Government are reforming transport to make it more inclusive, placing the passenger at the heart of everything we do.

The Government are determined to ensure that, as far as possible, local transport authorities take proper account of the needs of disabled people in using local bus services. The clause will support them in that. I have had many meetings with various groups, including disability groups, and I engage widely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DPTAC—to help and guide us on the Bill. As I said, the clause was a reaction, having listened to concerns in the Lords.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Objections by operators

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister did a good job of précising the contents of the clause, so I will not repeat that—I know everybody will breathe a big sigh of relief. However, there are some issues; essentially, clause 21 requires a bus network accessibility plan to be created, but it does not then tell us what to do with it. My questions are around the theme of: “So what?” It is all very well to create a plan that just describes the status quo, but there is no requirement to improve. The current effect is to create cost and bureaucratic process with no outcome for passengers.

This is a real problem with both this legislation and legislation more widely: we think process is very important—because we are policy people—so we focus on all the hoops that organisations need to jump through. Too often, however, we forget to take the next step and understand the practical impact of the process on our constituents, in particular those who use buses. There appears to be no positive benefit from the clause as drafted, other than having another document collecting dust on a shelf somewhere.

What is the point of the requirement? It identifies need and describes what the LTA is planning to do about it, but that is it. It feels a bit like virtue signalling without funding, since improvements are expensive, particularly provisions for those with additional needs and disabilities, and do not add significantly to the fare box. What is the practical application of the clause? It applies a significant additional burden on local transport authorities, which have to jump through the hoops that we are creating, but what is the benefit?

New clause 23 in the name of the Liberal Democrats is a different version of the same thing, but I look forward to the explanation and advocacy of it by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The only difference is that the plan would be annual rather than triennial, which would triple the amount of bureaucracy and cost associated with the provision. The new clause would include proposals to improve bus route accessibility but, again, with no requirement actually to change anything. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Member, but both the clause and the new clause are entirely useless without funding attached. Since no reference to such funding appears anywhere in the Bill, that does beg the question, what is the point of the clause and the new clause?

[Mr Kohler]

In answer to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, our new clause 23 addresses the weaknesses in the existing clause 21. According to research by the National Centre for Accessible Transport, 90% of disabled bus users report facing barriers to using the bus network. Those include space constraints, poorly designed bus stops, the lack of step-free access when boarding or alighting, and the continuing absence of induction loops. Buses are not a luxury for many disabled people; they are a vital connection to work, services, friends and family. Putting accessibility front and centre is not optional; it is essential.

The clause is therefore a step in the right direction. It rightly requires authorities to consider how to make bus services more accessible. However, if we are serious about delivering meaningful progress, we must go further. That is why we have tabled new clause 23, to build on the work started in clause 21 by introducing a requirement for annual reporting on accessibility progress.

The existing clause requires the accessibility plan to be reviewed only every three years. We believe that is too long; three years is a long time in which to do nothing. I draw Members’ attention to subsection (4) of our new clause 23, which lists practical things that the report would have to report on to draw attention to the public, the Government and voters exactly where there are shortfalls in, problems with and obstacles to addressing the need.

We need to go further than simply having the requirement. Under the Conservatives, the Access for All programme was left to wither and die on the vine. Unless we actually do something more practical, as we are suggesting, that is what will happen again. I agree that none, or not much, of the Bill will work without adequate funding—that is a given—but we have already made that point, and the new clause would give the oxygen of publicity to what is happening. We think that is important.

We do not think that new clause 23 would impose a significant new burden. It would simply require local transport authorities to produce a short annual update, setting out how they are progressing against the goals in their accessibility plan, to allow for regular scrutiny, course correction where needed and, above all, accountability. If we want a bus system that works for everyone, we must ensure that local authorities do not just create plans, but deliver on them, transparently and consistently. For that reason, we support the clause standing part of the Bill, and we urge the Government to adopt new clause 23.

--- Later in debate ---

Grants

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 23, page 18, line 42, 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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Mr Kohler]

We welcome the powers in clause 23, which enables local transport authorities to design and deliver grants directly to bus operators in their areas. It is a clear step in the right direction, placing real tools in the hands of local authorities, which know their communities best and are best placed to shape the services that their residents rely on.

Amendment 56 builds on that principle. It would ensure that, when designing grant schemes, local authorities must consider the size of transport operators. Too often, smaller bus companies, many of them deeply embedded in the communities they serve, struggle to compete on an uneven playing field, especially when it comes to accessing capital for improvements or expansion. Our amendment recognises the vital role that those smaller operators play.

By requiring authorities to take those smaller operators’ circumstances into account and, where appropriate, prioritise them in their grant making, we would help to protect local choice, preserve vital routes and foster healthy competition in the sector. In short, this is a modest but meaningful measure to ensure that smaller operators are not squeezed out, and that communities continue to benefit from diverse, responsive and locally rooted bus services. We therefore support amendment 56 and the clause standing part of the Bill.

[Simon Lightwood]

The Government recognise the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in driving economic growth. The hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon clearly recognise that, too, given the amendment that they have tabled. This Bill aims to support our economic growth mission by giving local transport authorities greater freedom to decide how best to support their local networks.

Amendment 56 is intended to ensure that local transport authorities that choose to use the new powers to design and pay grants to bus operators consider the needs of small operators when designing those grants. The amendment is not needed, however. Clause 23 would do nothing to restrict local transport authorities from choosing to provide greater support to local small bus operators when designing their own grants, provided that those grants comply with competition and subsidy rules. Local transport authorities are already well placed to understand the needs of their small operators, because most are already part of enhanced partnership arrangements with operators in their areas. It will be for local transport authorities to decide the best way to support their local bus networks as a whole.

Finally, local transport authorities, as public authorities disbursing funding, will need to be mindful of the fact that any grants that they design using the powers under the Bill must comply with any relevant legal requirements, such as subsidy controls that ensure they are not distorting the local or national market. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Wimbledon withdraw the amendment.

[Mr Kohler]

We remain of the view that without the amendment, the proposals will not give small bus companies the benefits that we are seeking to achieve. We are not convinced that that can be done without the explicit mention of small bus companies, as provided by the amendment.

[The Chair]

Does the Member want to withdraw the amendment or press it to a vote?

[Mr Kohler]

I will press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

My party and I were pleased when the Chancellor recently announced funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail to improve connectivity. However, we still do not know on what the money will be spent. Any plan to boost the northern powerhouse must surely include a new main line between Manchester and Liverpool—a vital link that would not only drive economic growth across the north-west but strengthen connections between two of our greatest cities. When will we finally see the detail behind the Chancellor’s announcement, and will she meet with me and my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) to discuss proposals for the better linking of Manchester and Liverpool?

[Heidi Alexander]

The mayors of Greater Manchester and Liverpool—Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram—have made a strong case for improving rail connectivity between their two great cities. The hon. Member is right to say that this Government are committed to improving the country’s rail network. I hope to say more on schemes for the north in the weeks and months ahead. I assure all hon. Members that I will come back to the House swiftly when I have more information so that they can question me further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Worcester Park is a station that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and I know well as it is on the boundary of both our constituencies, and I confirm that my constituents face the same issues of overcrowding. SWR acquired 90 high-capacity Arterio trains to address this issue back in 2019, yet six years later only a handful have entered service. The UK taxpayer is currently spending over £5 million every month on leasing the Arterio fleet, and over £0.5 million additionally every month to store the unused trains. Will the Minister confirm how many Arterio trains are now in use, whether the issues delaying roll-out have now been addressed, and whether he thinks that spending millions of pounds every month on unused trains is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am aware that another two of those trains are now in operation. The new managing director is aware that this is a challenge and we are already beginning to see progress.