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

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—Duty to promote bus services—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) plans for future improvements in bus services.

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

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I think I speak for the majority of Committee members in saying that, as this is my first Bill Committee, I will be guided by your experience and that of the Clerks.

This clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Bill, namely the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the other place. I will take this opportunity to outline the Government’s objectives for buses, which extend well beyond the Bill and explain why the clause is not necessary.

The Government know that for far too long, buses have not been delivering for passengers. Long-term service decline has undermined confidence and contributed to falling patronage. Efforts to buck that trend have not gone far enough. The Government’s vision is for better bus services across the country. We seek to grow passenger numbers and drive opportunity to underserved regions. That means enabling local areas to shape services that connect people to the places where they need to go; that can be counted on as a reliable, affordable, inclusive and better integrated part of the transport network; and that offer bus passengers, in particular women and girls, safety throughout their journeys. Passengers should also be able to access accurate, accessible and timely information about when and where buses will run.

The Bill is an important part of delivering that vision. Local leaders will be given powers to decide how best to design bus services in their areas, whether that is through bus franchising or strengthened enhanced partnerships. The Government are taking steps to ensure that essential services, including those in rural areas, are protected, that safety is improved, and that services are more accessible.

Legislative change alone, however, is not enough. In addition, the Government have published updated franchising guidance. Reforms to how bus services are funded are also being implemented, with the bus service improvement plan and the bus service operators grant funding being combined into a single bus grant. Furthermore, at the spending review, the Government committed £900 million each year to maintain and improve vital bus services; extended the £3 fare cap until March 2027; and announced franchising pilots in York and North Yorkshire, and Cheshire West and Chester.

The clause, therefore, does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. It cannot do so, because our ambitious reform package extends beyond the structural changes that the Bill makes. The clause would also amend the Bill to limit its outcomes to specific aims, which would not take into account the other outcomes that the Government seek to achieve, such as improved safety. I hope that my comments demonstrate to Members the Government’s objectives for buses. For those reasons, the Government will oppose the clause remaining part of the Bill.

I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk for tabling new clause 22. I have explained that the Bill is about empowering local leaders across the country to shape better bus services for their communities. Beyond the Bill, the Department for Transport allocated more than £700 million of bus grant funding to local transport authorities in 2025-26. That included additional funding for local transport authorities to boost their capability, so that they can make the most of the opportunities that the Bill gives them. I have already spoken about the announcements at the recent spending review, including the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March ’27. Work is already under way to ensure that the Government provide active support to local transport authorities, such as those interested in franchising.

The Bill is about giving local areas choice, and with that comes trust. That is consistent with what the Government seek to achieve through devolution. My view is that authorities and operators want to promote bus services in their local areas, which will help their communities to thrive and create growth. New clause 22, however, would place additional requirements and reporting burdens on local authorities and local transport authorities. That would lead to additional pressures on authorities already under resource constraints. That is not the Government’s intention. We want authorities to be focused on delivering better buses and, as I said, we want to give them the tools to get on and do precisely that. The new clause has the potential to compel authorities to divert funding from essential services to other activities. For those reasons, the Government cannot support it and I ask that the new clause not be moved.

[The Chair]

I will give another word of explanation at this point. Ordinarily, I would call the shadow Minister first and then other Members, but because Mr Kohler tabled the new clause, I shall call him first and then the shadow Minister. The first four debates on the selection and grouping list are on clause stand part, which means, literally, that the clause being considered shall stand—remain—part of the Bill. If the clause is amended, the Question will be whether the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

When we come to a group with a lead amendment, as we will in our fifth debate, I have the authority to decide whether to subsequently permit a clause stand part debate. We will debate the amendments in the group, and then I will put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill—but that can be debated. Different Chairmen take different views. My view is that you can have your cake, but you cannot eat it twice. You can have a big debate, which sometimes facilitates a general discussion—that is fine by me—but it almost invariably means that you then do not get a second bite of the cherry with a stand part debate at the end.

If you have any questions, ask. It is a slightly complex and arcane process, but we will get there in the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger.

I rise to endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and to draw further attention to an issue with new clause 22: placing duties on local authorities without money coming in. Central Government are very good, and have been for decades, at requiring things of local government, which naturally leads to increased costs on councils to deliver the relevant duties and comply with the law, but councils do not automatically—in fact, very rarely—get money to go towards complying.

The duties set out in the new clause seem obvious. Subsection (1) says:

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

Subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (g). I will not read them all out, but paragraph (a) says that authorities may consider

“the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options”.

There is also a requirement to report every two years. That looks laudable. One would hope it would lead to better bus services, but it would place a cost burden on local government without money coming to every local authority. That is my concern: placing duties without accompanying finance in all cases. That is why I have difficulty with new clause 22, although I appreciate the intention and sentiment behind it.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I said in my opening remarks, clause 1 does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. The shadow Minister talked about incentives; I think the incentives for local authorities are really clear, if not the clearest. They know what is best for their local areas. They are driven by the desire to tackle the social and economic challenges within their areas, and I do not agree that the clause would add anything to that.

The shadow Minister’s reading of “quality” to include safety is subjective. I do not think it is as clear as he made out. The franchising guidance states that an LTA must

“explain how far it will deliver improvements”

if it franchises. The guidance also has a chapter to ensure that an LTA articulates how it is putting people at the heart of franchising assessments. Although it is not in the legislation, the guidance is clear about driving improvements.

New clause 22 would create an additional reporting burden on local authorities and local transport authorities, which are already operating under resource constraints, while potentially undermining their devolved powers to determine transport priorities in line with their local transport plans. I am not able to support it.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 14—Franchising statement—

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

(2) In section 123A, after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) The power in subsection (1) cannot be exercised until the franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, has published a statement, subject to the requirement in subsection (1B), stating—

(a) their objectives in making the franchising scheme, and

(b) their reasons and evidence for believing that the making of such a scheme is the best option for achieving those objectives.

(1B) It is a requirement that a statement in subsection (1A) must be published before the franchising authority complies with the requirements in sections 123B to 123G.’”

This new clause seeks to ensure that before initiating the formal franchising process undersections 123B to 123G of the Transport Act 2000, franchising authorities must first publish a statement outlining their objectives, reasons, and supporting evidence for believing that franchising is the best option to achieve their aims.

New clause 18—Cost of franchising schemes—

“(1) Where a local authority owned bus company is providing franchised bus services, the authority or authorities must publish annually—

(a) The anticipated cost of the franchise for that year

(b) The actual cost of the franchise for that year.

(2) Where an authority (or authorities) have transferred the franchise from a privately owned bus company to a local authority owned bus company, the authority (or authorities) must publish—

(a) the costs incurred by the franchising authority in transferring the service, including the transfer of undertakings (protection of employment costs); and

(b) a breakdown of how those costs are being incurred.

(3) The reports required by subsections (1) and (2) must be published in a format that is easily accessible on the website of the relevant authority or authorities.

(4) Each local authority which runs a bus company delivering franchised bus services must ensure that time is made available for the reports required by subsections (1) and (2) to be debated at a public meeting of the full council.”

This new clause would require transparency about the costs of franchising local authority owned bus services.

New clause 30—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes—

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

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

(a) rural areas;

(b) coastal communities; and

(c) suburban areas.”

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

New clause 38—Franchising authorities: joint forum—

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

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

[Simon Lightwood]

Clause 2 removes the requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. The measure puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field. It also removes from the process an administrative step that does not provide an effective check on local transport authorities’ plans, given that it occurs before a franchising assessment is produced. I am confident that the measure will make franchising more attractive to local transport authorities by speeding up the overall process.

New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, would require authorities to publish a statement that outlines their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence for deciding whether franchising is the best option to achieve their aims, before they initiate the formal process. The Department for Transport has established franchising guidance; to require local authorities to provide an up-front statement during an exploratory stage would be premature. The franchising scheme assessment also provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise.

Although local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to investigate the right bus model for their area, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The new clause would also make the franchising process slower and undermine the Government’s ambition to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective.

New clause 18 would require local authorities to publish the costs associated with franchised bus services operated by local authority-owned bus companies. Authorities are already subject to statutory requirements to publish detailed information on their spending and financial performance. Under the 2015 local government transparency code, they must regularly publish data on all expenditure over £500, and are required to produce and make publicly available their annual statements of accounts, which are subject to external audit and public scrutiny. The framework ensures a high level of financial transparency and public accountability, making such an additional burden on authorities unnecessary.

New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes that includes specific information on rural and suburban areas and coastal communities. The Department for Transport has published franchising guidance, including on the consideration of neighbouring authorities and on the requirement to consult affected areas. The Department continuously refines the franchising guidance, and plans to undertake comprehensive updates after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The introduction of piecemeal additions without considering the guidance in its entirety would risk reducing its effectiveness.

In addition to the guidance, the Department supports LTAs through the franchising and bus reform pilot. The ambition is to explore alternative models that may suit a local area and help to provide evidence for the decision. Lessons learned, tools, templates and best practice will be shared throughout the pilot programme.

New clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require franchising authorities to establish a forum of stakeholders to address staffing and employment issues in the franchising area. It seeks to increase accountability in areas that choose to adopt franchising. I am sympathetic to the new clause’s aims, but it is not the role of central Government to prescribe how local transport authorities run their services. Franchising guidance that covers driver welfare already exists, giving the franchising authority scope to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services. The new clause is therefore unnecessary and I hope it will be withdrawn.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 2 amends the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the availability of franchising schemes. It is essentially a facilitating clause to allow for one of the really important changes in the Bill, which is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to any local authority other than mayoral combined authorities when deciding whether to embark on a franchising scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will speak to the clause and to new clause 30 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. We have this Bill Committee, Department for Transport estimates day and the forthcoming Transport Committee report on connecting rural communities—we wait for years for the opportunity to talk about buses, and three come along at once.

I strongly welcome the widening of bus franchising opportunities. Rural transport, in particular, needs a proper rethink, and the greater powers that transport authorities can get hold of as a result of the Bill will, I believe, allow local leaders to do just that. People are already welcome the idea of bus franchising. When we visit London, we do not quibble about whether our red bus is run by Transport UK, Arriva, Stagecoach or another franchise holder; we care that it comes at the time we want and takes us where we want to go.

What is lacking in the Bill, however, is leadership relating to how the powers can be used to make a much needed difference to people in rural areas. We have models of urban bus franchising to follow—London has taken the lead and now Manchester is following—but it has never been attempted in a truly rural area. It would be quite reckless of the Government to leave authorities completely rudderless, because some would be guaranteed to go off the rails, and we all know that residents would pay the price in their passenger experience and council tax bills. I gently say to the Minister that this is not about whether guidance is in the pipeline; it is about how far it goes and how robust it is.

Our new clause 30 is the first of our many new clauses and amendments that seek to provide guardrails, guidance and models for those adopting franchising for the first time, in a situation where there may be little evidence to go on. Given the concerns of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about how franchising might work in rural areas, there could be some good news for him in our new clause, but we need to adjust our thinking about what good bus services look like in such areas. While we do not want a top-down imposition of things on rural, coastal and suburban areas, I and other hon. Members believe it would be good for those areas to be given a greater degree of support from the Government than there currently is in the Bill. I also think that specifically outlining such areas in the Bill will help to ensure greater consideration of the unique characteristics of those parts of the country.

Even if the Department pledges to produce guidance, it could fail to address the challenges faced in rural communities in particular. Coming from a rural area, I know how much Government policy feels like it was written by someone who has rarely stepped foot outside the SW1 postcode. Our coastal communities remain without a top-table representative in Government, and I struggle to see how residents of rural communities can trust that such guidance will be forthcoming unless it is in the Bill, or that it will represent the challenges and needs of their areas.

I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to what we are trying to achieve with new clause 30. I do not expect him to accept it, although he is welcome to do so, but I hope that he outlines the steps that his Department will take to provide comprehensive and structured support to those authorities embarking into uncharted territory with their franchise schemes, beyond what we have heard already.

[Simon Lightwood]

I will try not to repeat the comments that I have made already, but I will say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, that yes, the Conservative Government did put franchising in place. They also ensured that it was near impossible to achieve, as there were so many barriers. Instead of playing party politics about Manchester, what the Conservatives should be saying to Andy Burnham is, “Thank you for your vision. Despite all the barriers that we placed before you, you still managed to achieve franchising and improve bus services throughout Greater Manchester.” The shadow Minister also talked about the primacy of passengers—but excuse me if I judge the previous Government on their actions, not just their words, because from 2010 to 2024, 300 million fewer miles were travelled on buses.

[Jerome Mayhew]

There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about which system passengers prefer. The way to really judge that is through ridership—how many people take the buses. It is absolutely right that in Greater Manchester, under the Bee Network, there has been a post-pandemic increase in ridership of about 34%, from memory. However, does the Minister not accept that in Norfolk, where there is an enhanced partnership, ridership has increased by more than 40%, and in Essex, another enhanced partnership area, ridership has increased by more than 50%? The point is that it is not the scheme design that is fundamentally important, but the way in which it is approached. Does the Minister accept that we can have outcomes that are just as good—better outcomes, in fact—through enhanced partnerships as we can through franchising?

[Simon Lightwood]

What the shadow Minister failed to hear in my previous remarks is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to buses. This could be done through franchising; it could be done through municipal bus companies or local authority-operated bus companies; or it could be done through strengthened enhanced partnerships.

Let me touch on franchising, because the shadow Minister talks about Manchester as the full-fat model. A huge number of alternative franchising arrangements are available, including the Jersey model, which I will go into in a moment. Within franchising assessments, there will be a detailed investigation that is then checked robustly for assurance purposes. Obviously, the process as it stands does not provide an effective check on local transport authority plans, because it happens before a franchising assessment is produced.

On the Secretary of State’s consent, as I have said, it is not effective because it is at the beginning of the franchising process. The assessment must look at the finances of the proposed scheme and then be independently assured. Different areas will also have different circumstances when pursuing franchising; the Secretary of State is not in a position to scrutinise them all.

On funding and LTA support, £1 billion of funding was announced for 2025-26, £700 million of which was for local authorities to improve bus services. That is not for franchising per se; as I said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The Government are opening up options to local transport authorities. No LTA is being forced to franchise. No LTA has been forced to franchise through the Greater Manchester model, in fact. The Government are looking at how best to support LTAs, including through franchising pilots, which will include elements of rural communities as well. Funding is provided through the bus allocations for LTAs to decide how to spend. The franchising pilots will look at alternative models, one of which could be a joint venture model like the one in Jersey.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister is right, of course, that all sorts of different franchising schemes and mechanisms are available, and I am looking forward to his description of the Jersey model. However, does he not recognise and accept that, of the authorities that have expressed a direction of travel so far, both Liverpool and West Midlands have also decided to go down what I have described as the full-fat model? It is not just Manchester being an outlier. It is likely that the Bill will ensure—in fact, it is happening already—that full fat is seen as the direction of travel. Does the Minister not think that that is correct?

[Simon Lightwood]

I concede that, at the moment, it tends to be city regions that are looking at franchising, which is why we are doing the pilots to ensure that we have the template approach. We will learn the lessons from the various different franchising models that could be used. As we announced at the spending review, York and North Yorkshire is one of the areas that would be ideally suited to demonstrate the effectiveness of franchising in a rural setting. There was a comment about coastal communities, so let me just put this on the record: this South Shields-born, not SW1-postcoded MP knows full well the importance of buses to coastal and rural communities. In fact, I am the son of a bus driver as well. [Interruption.] I have ticked all the boxes—he was not a toolmaker, though.

Let me touch on Manchester. The figures quoted on franchising costs in Manchester refer to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network, supporting economic growth, greater productivity, access to homes and so on. In 2024-25, the cost of operating the franchised bus network was about £151 million, but it would be misleading to compare that with the £226 million in an attempt to argue that costs have inflated year on year. Greater Manchester was only partway through the three-phase transition to franchising during ’24-25, so the cost was accordingly lower. Transport for Greater Manchester was operating only half of the full network for the majority—nine months—of ’24-25. There is very little additional cost resulting from the adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester, and evidence to date shows that this model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.

Bus depots in Greater Manchester were required to ensure a level playing field when procuring franchised operators; otherwise, there would be an inherent advantage, of course, to incumbent operators. Depot acquisition also recognises the importance of investing to bring infrastructure up to modern standards to deliver a quality service and electrification of the fleet.

Turning to local authority bus companies—LABCos or municipal bus companies—there is a level playing field for arm’s length LABCos, which the existing ones in England are, and for private operators. There is existing legislation and regulations around local authority bus companies.

There will be different ways that LTAs can franchise. Rural areas, for example, could look to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network. It is right to recognise the successes that there have been in Jersey. When I visited in April, I saw at first hand the benefits of franchising and what it has delivered for passengers. A small team have successfully introduced franchising in rural areas. Although that offers useful lessons for rural and suburban communities in England, Jersey offers just one model, and there will be particular local transport challenges and opportunities in other places. Far from stipulating the one-size-fits-all Greater Manchester model, we are exploring and working with local transport authorities throughout the country to demonstrate different forms of franchising to make that a success.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Specification of areas

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 70, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “or places” and insert

“, places or Rural Bus Hubs”.

This amendment is linked to NC35 and would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification for a franchise scheme.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 71, in clause 38, page 41, line 23, after “England” insert—

“(e) the impact, or potential impact, the establishment of Rural Bus Hubs on services to villages.”

This amendment would require a review of bus service provision for villages to include an assessment of the impact of rural bus hubs, if already established, or the impact which establishing them may have on villages.

New clause 35—Rural Bus Hubs—

“(1) Local transport authorities may consider the construction of Rural Bus Hubs in rural areas which are, in the authority’s assessment, not sufficiently well-served by buses.

(2) Any Rural Bus Hub must—

(a) be a facility where bus users can park vehicles for the purposes of transferring to a bus service for the remainder of their journey;

(b) be constructed outside of town or and village centres, and be easily accessible by road, cycle or walking routes and other modes of transport;

(c) be on newly-developed sites or on sites which have been repurposed;

(d) contain car parking, electric vehicle charging, cycle parking and other amenities as the franchising authority sees fit, at a level of adequacy determined by the franchising authority.”

This new clause would allow local transport authorities to create rural bus hubs in areas to create a hub-and-spoke model of bus service delivery.

[Simon Lightwood]

The clause enhances the flexibility of franchising in terms of the areas that can be brought into such a scheme. The Government understand that there is a lack of clarity about whether a franchising scheme may specify more than one non-contiguous area. The clause therefore clarifies that that is permissible, meaning that franchising authorities may be flexible in the areas that they can bring into a franchising scheme. For example, it will allow rural authorities to focus on franchising in individual towns and villages if they so wish.

I thank the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Wimbledon for tabling amendment 70 that would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification of a franchising scheme. The franchised services that a franchising scheme will provide must be specified or formally set out and published. This ensures that the scheme will deliver in a transparent way. The amendment would make it explicit that franchised services could be specified by reference to the rural bus hubs that they might serve. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill already allows franchising authorities to specify places that franchised services will serve. Places can include rural bus hubs.

Alongside clause 3, clause 4 also enhances flexibility for franchising authorities by clarifying how franchised services may be specified in the scheme. This ensures that franchising authorities can more easily make minor changes to franchised services. For example, the clause will give a franchising authority scope to specify services by listing specific places to be served, or by specifying places by the purpose they serve. Purposes could include connecting students to school or employees to work.

The clause allows franchising authorities to combine approaches to specifying services. This will allow adaptability and ensure that franchising authorities can develop franchising schemes that meet the needs of different communities, such as those in urban and rural areas. The clause also has transitional provisions for authorities that have started the process of franchising prior to the Bill becoming law.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am conscious that we are finishing in three minutes, so I will limit my comments to give the Minister some time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I query the premise that public is better than private. The hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned the ability to provide a better service than existing franchise services, but I want to put on record that we can still get £2 fares in South West Devon. There is not necessarily a concrete need for a franchise; it is not necessarily a magic wand. I will fit my other comments in somewhere else, because I am conscious of time.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thought the Liberal Democrats were the party of devolution, but they have a strange habit of wanting to tell local areas what to do and how to do it. Rural bus hubs are not yet widespread and the available data on their impact is limited. I have already outlined that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to improving buses. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, so it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their areas.

I have already spoken about the different models for bus franchising, such as the Jersey model. The pilots will explore the models that may suit rural areas over metropolitan areas. In a rural setting, bus franchising could provide the opportunity to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network, ensuring that it links rural areas to key locations and access to onward travel options.

The Government are also supporting local transport authorities to improve the viability and sustainability of demand-responsive transport. That may be the most viable option in rural areas. The Government are gathering insights from the rural mobility fund pilots and are developing best practice guidance—a comprehensive resource for setting up and managing DRT schemes.

Beyond that, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, such as the dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence’s conference on quality bus services in July and our plans for franchising pilots. The Department understands that there are barriers to SMEs accessing franchise networks. That is why we are listening to the sector about ways to ensure that disproportionate paperwork requirements do not hinder SMEs bidding for franchising contracts.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all Members for their participation in today’s lively debate, spanning across the House. I do not intend to take interventions due to time, and out of courtesy to Members who have spoken already, I intend to respond as best as I can. I would like, first of all, to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) a very happy birthday. This Bill was indeed a birthday surprise just for her!

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out why the Government have introduced this important Bill. Buses are the country’s most popular form of public transport, making up to 58% of all public transport trips in England in 2023. They connect people to opportunities and to jobs they would not otherwise be able to take, and they give freedom to those otherwise facing isolation. Yet despite all this, many communities have experienced the familiar pattern of bus services being cut and fares going up, with the deregulation of buses in the 1980s leaving local areas with few options. We understand that local leaders are best placed to make decisions about how to improve bus services in their areas, and through this Bill we are giving them the tools to do so. We have engaged with stakeholders in developing these measures, and implementation will give us a further opportunity to engage on the detail of implementation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) and the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) spoke about franchising. To make decisions effectively, local leaders need all possible options on the table, and that includes bus franchising. Franchising allows local transport authorities to take control of bus services by determining the routes, service specification and performance targets for operators.

Greater Manchester, the first area in England outside of London to franchise, has seen notable successes so far with punctuality and patronage up across the network, but I recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to franchising. Different models, such as the Jersey model, may suit rural areas better. The Government are determined to put power over local services back in the hands of local leaders across England. That is why the Department recently allocated over £700 million of bus grants to local transport authorities in 2025-26.

I want to address the comments made about the cost of franchising for Greater Manchester. According to data from Transport for Greater Manchester, franchising was delivered on time and to the agreed budget of £134.5 million. That included the whole process, including the acquisition of assets like bus depots. Let us be clear: without the changes made in Greater Manchester under franchising, the bus network would be smaller, less attractive to passengers and more expensive to run and use.

A number of hon. Members referred to socially necessary local services and rural services. Transport authorities that provide their services under an enhanced partnership agreement will need to identify socially necessary local services in their area and include them in their enhanced partnership. Local transport authorities will need to consider the alternative options that are available to mitigate the negative impact on bus users, including demand responsive bus services and community transport, which may work better for rural areas. By increasing the level of transparency around decision making on route changes and requiring consideration of alternative arrangements, the impact of any changes to bus networks will be fully assessed.

The issue of rural services is an important one. As I mentioned before, no one-size-fits-all solution exists. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, and it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their area.

The hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Orpington and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) referred to the fare cap. The Secretary of State set out that the Government have confirmed over £1 billion of funding to support and improve bus services in England and to keep fares affordable. We also took the first step towards consolidating bus funding by bringing together funding for bus service improvements and supporting services under one authority bus grant for the first time. My officials will work with stakeholders to develop and implement a new bus grant allocation for future funding. I ultimately want to create a fairer and simpler formula for bus funding that takes into account local needs.

A number of hon. Members raised important points about accessibility and floating bus stops. The Government are committed to safe and accessible bus transport. The matter was debated in great detail in the other place, and the Government fully appreciate the concerns raised about the accessibility of floating bus stops. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and that design features will be incorporated that promote their personal safety. We know more needs to be done to make these installations accessible for all. The Department is working with Active Travel England and Transport for London to provide further guidance and undertake research to address gaps in the evidence base.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) mentioned the innovative zero emission buses being produced here in the UK. This Government are supportive of the efforts and innovation of UK manufacturers, from which about 60% of zero emission bus regional area—ZEBRA—funded buses are typically procured.

In March, I chaired the first UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which brings together industry experts and local leaders to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus manufacturing. Moreover, the Government are supportive of bus repowering as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses. I commit to write to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock on the eligibility of those buses for the MHCLG funding that he mentioned.

This Bill is about choice—choice for local leaders to decide how their bus networks can best serve local people. It is a passenger-first approach. I think a picture paints 1,000 words, and the picture of the Conservatives tells me that they do not really care about buses. The Bill is a critical part of the Government’s bus reform agenda. I thank all those who contributed to today’s debate, which has been wide-ranging and a useful opportunity to discuss the important issues. I look forward to continuing the discussion in Committee—perhaps with a few more Opposition Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 8 July 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to aconclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Question agreed to.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—( Vicky Foxcroft.)

Question agreed to.

Stockport Railway Station

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss Stockport railway station. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) for their interventions.

Let me start by talking a little bit about this important train station. Stockport station is a vital transport interchange in south Greater Manchester. Sitting on the west coast main line approach to Manchester Piccadilly, it provides access and connectivity across the country to commuters, leisure travel and freight. On average, 501 passenger and freight trains pass through the station per day. That is 10,000 paying passengers a day, with 5,000 to 6,000 passing through the station.

The industry is working collaboratively to engage with local stakeholders who have concerns and a vision for the station. Network Rail’s engagement with local stakeholders is fundamental to shaping plans for the future of the station, and it will continue to welcome input and to be transparent about timescales and issues as they arise.

The Stockport corridor is critical for a range of express, regional and local passenger services and freight. It supports some very important flows nationally as well as offering a key destination in the interchange hub at Stockport station itself. The route from Stockport into Manchester is very constrained, which means that it is extremely difficult to plan any additional services through it reliably. While other interfacing schemes might increase capacity and capability elsewhere on the network, the constraints at Stockport act as a bottleneck when trying to uplift service frequencies overall. Network Rail and the industry are working through the options to address capability and capacity, working with mayors and transport authorities on what future plans there could be for the Stockport corridor.

[Lisa Smart]

The Minister is talking about the assessment of various options. We know that the Treasury is looking at reviewing the contents of the Green Book that measures the benefits and disbenefits of any capital spending. Can he say a few words on how we can ensure that the north, particularly the Stockport area, gets its fair share of capital spending in the future to ensure that existing inequality is not baked into the calculations that the Treasury makes?

[Simon Lightwood]

We obviously want to see growth in every corner of the country, and we are awaiting the spending review outcomes, as is everybody else.

We are aware that our partners will have their own priorities for the future of railways in their areas, and we are open to engaging with them directly on their plans. The core aim of the Stockport station redevelopment scheme is to support future increases in rail patronage and green travel and to drive clean and sustainable economic growth. It will improve the accessibility, attractiveness and useability of Stockport station and reduce town centre severance.

There is an opportunity to leverage a package of works through the Greater Manchester authority’s sustainable transport settlement funding for delivery by March 2027, which would include a refurbishment of platform buildings, with a focus on platforms 1 and 2. Stockport council, Network Rail and Avanti are meeting today to further scope out that work. Avanti West Coast has funds available for the current financial year to undertake works at the station, which will focus on staff facilities that need upgrading and some accessibility enhancements. We will share further information as those plans are developed.

I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for her intervention, and I will touch on Passenger Assist. Avanti has seen a significant increase in passenger assistance over the last 12 months, and it is now reviewing its Passenger Assist process so that it can meet the needs of passengers on that service.

[Navendu Mishra]

I thank the Minister for making that point. I had a conversation with Avanti recently about the Passenger Assist scheme. The west coast main line network that Avanti services is a major network in this country, and Avanti should welcome the fact that more disabled people want to use its services. I am told by members of staff at the station, which has 3.8 million entries and exits per year, that one member of staff on a part-time basis supports Passenger Assist. I am sure the Minister will agree that that is simply not good enough and that Avanti needs to do a lot better.

[Simon Lightwood]

I want to see a railway and a transport system across the country that are accessible to everybody. I will take away my hon. Friend’s comments on this individual case and discuss it further with the Rail Minister.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. I am happy to meet with her to discuss the accessibility challenges that she has raised. I also look forward to meeting with Nathaniel Yates, who my hon. Friend quite rightly highlighted for his work on accessibility.

I will talk a little about some of the other major works carried out by Network Rail in and around Stockport. Network Rail is delivering a £20 million project to rebuild the Greek Street bridge, which carries a major road junction over the Manchester spur of the west coast main line in Stockport. Throughout the work, Network Rail has kept the local community informed with regular drop-in events, which have been well attended, and has received no complaints about the work since the closure of the road. The project team has an excellent presence on site, regularly checking in with neighbours, local businesses, schools and colleges in the area to reduce the impact of the works as much as possible.

[Navendu Mishra]

The Minister is being extremely generous. As I mentioned in my speech, I welcome the £20 million investment in the Greek Street bridge and the £1.1 million investment to clean the viaduct and repair the brickwork. But if we are being honest, the Greek Street bridge and the viaduct are not part of Stockport station. They are of course an essential part of our railway network, but I want to see real investment in Stockport station for passengers and staff members, so I hope Network Rail is watching and takes note of that.

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I hear what he says, but it is important that we point out the wider investment in the rail system there, including the £1.1 million to refurnish the iconic Stockport viaduct, which was built back in 1840.

Let me move on to the issue of step-free access at Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South stations, which I know my hon. Friend is interested in. Since its launch in 2006, the Access for All programme has delivered step-free access at more than 260 stations across Great Britain. Only about half of the stations in Great Britain have step-free access to and between all platforms. However, around 75% of journeys on the GB rail network are through step-free stations, compared with 50% in 2005. I recommend that my hon. Friend and his constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, engage with the local authority and Northern Trains to propose that Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South are a priority in any future funding rounds, as none of those stations were nominated for the last round. In the meantime, the Department will continue to seek further opportunities to improve rail accessibility, and if the industry installs, replaces or renews infrastructure at the stations, that will need to comply with current accessibility standards.

On the services provided at Reddish South station, the Department expects operators to match the capacity and frequency of their services to demand, although they must also be operationally sustainable and deliver value for taxpayers. The Rail North partnership, through which the Department and Transport for the North jointly manage the contract with Northern Trains, which serves Reddish South, will assess any business case that is put forward. The analysis must balance the economic and social benefits of any enhancement with the performance of existing services and the financial impact of a taxpayer subsidy.

I turn to the direct service from Stockport to Manchester airport—an issue I know my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport is keen on. The Sheffield-Manchester airport service, which offered direct services between Stockport and the airport, was withdrawn in December 2022 as part of the timetable developed by the Manchester taskforce, which includes the DFT, the train operators, Network Rail, Transport for Greater Manchester and Transport for the North. We see improved connectivity as an important factor in growing the northern and national economies and would hope that new infrastructure would allow direct services from Stockport to the airport, although I must stress that other towns and cities could make a case for their pre-2022 direct connections to be restored as well.

I thank my hon. Friend again for the debate, at which we have discussed a number of important issues affecting rail services in his constituency. He rightly pointed out that I have visited his constituency not once but twice. I hope he does not take it personally that on each occasion it was a sitting day. I will do my utmost to return to Stockport—as long as he can guarantee that the sun is shining.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking to improve rail access to Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency.

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

Subject to final industry planning, East Midlands Railway plans to introduce an all-day direct Nottingham-Cleethorpes service in December, improving connections at Lincoln for journeys to London. The Rail Minister has been looking closely into possible direct trains between London and Cleethorpes, and looks forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend at their upcoming meeting.

[Melanie Onn]

Local analysis shows that a direct service from Cleethorpes to London could deliver growth of over £30 million a year to our region. As well as LNER, Grand Central has launched an application to operate that service. The project is backed by local businesses, industry and constituents. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that this train definitely leaves the station?

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend is a huge advocate for her constituency. Any additional services will be dependent on funding from the spending review. The Rail Minister will meet my hon. Friend to discuss the proposals further, following the conclusion of the spending review. The Department continues to review the application from Grand Central to introduce open-access services between London and Cleethorpes, and will provide its views to the regulator in due course. Access to the rail network, however, is ultimately a decision for the regulator.

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

As the House will know, I have been raising the prospect of a direct service from Cleethorpes and Grimsby to King’s Cross since 2011. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that he and the Rail Minister will seriously consider the importance of that and actually deliver a service? We do not mind whether it is run by LNER or Grand Central; we just want a direct service to boost the local economy.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I said, a decision is ultimately a matter for the regulator. Open access can provide benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers, but it can also increase costs to taxpayers and create additional performance pressures on an already constrained network. The Department will always look at applications on a case-by-case basis and feed into the regulator’s decision.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

15. What recent progress her Department has made on constructing the lower Thames crossing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

T2. Reliable bus services are not just a privilege; they are the backbone of communities across my constituency, and connect individuals to schools, jobs, financial services and social interactions with family and friends. Rural communities in Northumberland deserve the same opportunities as our more urban regions. Does the Minister agree that as the Government’s better buses Bill proceeds to its further stages, we must not overlook rural voices on the services that they need?

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

Improving bus connectivity in rural areas is vital for kick-starting growth. Our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will give local leaders the powers they need for their communities, including in Northumberland, which as part of the North East combined authority was allocated £23 million in 2025-26 to improve services.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

T5. In Hartlepool, to make a journey of just 2.8 miles from St Hild’s school to the Headland requires two buses and takes approximately 40 minutes. The Hartlepool transport users forum and residents across the town have had enough. Other parts of the country are putting buses back into public hands. Will the Minister mandate Tees Valley combined authority to do the same for Hartlepool?

[Simon Lightwood]

I hope the Tees Valley Mayor is looking at the great work that Labour mayors are already doing across the country to transform public transport in their regions.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

T4. Residents in Cheltenham remain extremely frustrated about the state of the roads. We have too many potholes and the approach taken to the maintenance of our high street by the previous Conservative county council administration has been substandard. The state of our strand and the threat to our promenade are at the forefront of people’s minds. We have finally had a change of administration, with the Liberal Democrats now in charge of the county council. What can the Secretary of State and Ministers do to reassure me that the Liberal Democrat county council will be given the tools that it needs to fix our roads and maintain our high street properly?

--- Later in debate ---

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

In the ’60s, North West Leicestershire lost its only passenger rail service, the Ivanhoe line. In 2025, my constituents still have no direct access to the rail line. Increasing connectivity of railways is crucial to securing economic growth. Will the Minister share the Department’s plans to improve access to passenger rail for communities with no current access?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Airports across the country are participating in the airspace modernisation review. However, there is a clear conflict of interest between environmental imperatives and profit motives. Will the Secretary of State undertake to introduce an independent member on each airspace review panel?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Chiltern Railways faces challenges with ageing trains and is engaged in commercial negotiations to replace its oldest Mark 3 carriages. The Department is collaborating with Chiltern to ensure that the procurement delivers long-term passenger benefits. Separately, the Chiltern Class 168 fleet is undergoing significant refurbishment, including to its interiors, and improvements to reliability.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The 7.58 am train from Sunbury to Shepperton is used by a lot of schoolchildren in my constituency to get to school, but it was cancelled for four days during a recent six-day period, which meant that children were late for school. That appears on their attendance register, which follows them throughout life. The Secretary of State will own South Western Railway by the end of the month. Will she commit to improving the reliability and punctuality of that section of the line?

--- Later in debate ---

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

At yesterday’s Transport Committee hearing, the Minister for Local Transport outlined the measures that the Government are taking to reverse the 15-year decline in bus services. The measures will protect many at-risk bus routes and may deliver a few more, but as they deliver growth and reduce congestion, do the Government have a wider ambition to ensure that all rural and non-city areas in England have at least a basic level of bus service so that everyone can get to school, work and the shops, and use public services without needing to drive a car?

[Simon Lightwood]

I have to say, I really enjoyed my appearance at the Select Committee yesterday. Ultimately, we want people to choose to take the bus because it provides better connections in every part of the country to get people where they need be. It is a more reliable, more affordable, faster and more integrated form of transport, and I hope to see that in debates with Members across the House as the buses Bill proceeds.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Farnborough airport’s noise and emission pollution affects a significant part of my constituency. The airport has announced that it will be launching its consultation to expand in August. This has obviously brought a lot of concern from residents groups and campaigners, who are worried that people will be away at this time. What can the Minister do to ensure that there is maximum engagement with the public and therefore a proper consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

In 2022, the previous Government cut a significant number of Southeastern services that my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford rely on. My constituents continue to raise concerns that direct services from London Charing Cross to Barnehurst and Bexleyheath should be reinstated during the evenings and weekends. Could the Minister provide an update on progress to reinstate those services?

[Simon Lightwood]

Southeastern plans services to meet passenger demand while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. Timetables are kept under review and can be adjusted to reflect fluctuations in demand. I am pleased to say that four additional weekday evening services will be introduced on the route in December.

Cullompton and Wellington Stations

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. First, I reassure the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) that the potential merits of the Cullompton and Wellington rail stations are still firmly under consideration. The Chancellor announced the closure of the restoring your railway programme in her statement to the House last July. Despite the closure of the programme, the Department for Transport continues to consider the project as part of its spending review.

The stations project has already received £6.15 million to complete the full business case and most of the design work. It is estimated that an investment of about £45 million of additional funding is needed to complete delivery of the stations. However, due to the difficult financial situation inherited from the previous Government, it will not be possible for all transport projects to continue, particularly those not yet in delivery, where spades are not in the ground.

Clearly, the Cullompton and Wellington project is not solely about the restoration of historical infrastructure, but about the important benefits that the stations can bring to their local communities and the broader region in future. The two towns share several characteristics and challenges. Cullompton and Wellington are both characterised by low-density residential neighbourhoods surrounding modest town centres, yet despite their rural charm, there is evidence of serious local challenges that affect the towns’ ability to fulfil their economic, social and environmental capacity.

In 2019, for example, indices of multiple deprivation showed that five areas of Cullompton were considerably deprived compared with national averages, reflecting issues such as educational attainment and skills gaps, income deprivation affecting children and young people, barriers to housing and adverse living environments. Despite these challenges, however, Cullompton is projected to have substantial material growth. With development plans in place, the town’s population is projected to nearly double from 8,807 in 2021 to 17,994 by 2033. Further growth, including the second phase of the garden village, could increase the population to approximately 25,000 by 2040.

In short, Cullompton is already nearly three times the size it was when its railway station was closed in the 1960s. It is likely to grow to more than seven times the size it was over the couple of decades to follow. That expansion underscores the urgent need for enhanced public transport to support the growing community. A new railway station in Cullompton would naturally meet that need.

Similarly, Wellington’s population is set to increase significantly due to ongoing and planned developments, including 2,580 additional dwellings. But Wellington is still heavily car-dependent at present, with many residents commuting regionally for employment, education and leisure. The reliance on private vehicles worsens social inequality, particularly for those without access to a car. The result is high levels of deprivation and inequality among parts of the community, with parts of the town having among the highest levels of deprivation in Somerset and falling within the most deprived 20% of wards in England. In turn, those impacts are likely to worsen further with the predicted population increases in Wellington over the coming years.

Car dependency, especially with Wellington’s links to Taunton, the nearest employment hub, has also created environmental challenges due to the impact of commuting on the road network. For example, air quality management areas that cover parts of Taunton and eastern approaches to Exeter have been designated. Somerset and Devon county councils made climate declarations in 2019 and 2020 respectively, featuring reduced transport emissions as a key pillar, and a need to improve air quality in urban areas.

Reopening Wellington station presents the potential for a significant mode shift from car to rail, particularly for journeys between Wellington and Taunton, Exeter, Bristol and Bridgwater. In addition, improved rail connectivity would reduce travel times and enhance journey reliability, while also promoting sustainable transport options.

The strategic objectives for building both stations are clear. As well as benefiting the immediate areas in Cullompton and Wellington, enhancing public transport connectivity will also support economic growth and productivity in Exeter, Taunton and Bridgwater, reducing road congestion, car dependency and associated carbon emissions. The stations would contribute to sustainable development, connecting new residential areas with regional employment, education and healthcare opportunities. With the provision of station calls at both towns, the case for taking a combined approach presents significantly higher value for money, compared with a stand-alone project in either area.

In conclusion, the Department recognises that the reopening of Cullompton and Wellington rail stations would be a strategic investment in the future of those communities. Enhanced public transport connectivity also aligns with the Government’s goals to drive economic growth, reduce environmental impact and improve social mobility, creating a more equitable and prosperous region.

Question put and agreed to.

Rail Services: East Durham Coastline

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on raising the important subject of rail services along the east Durham coastline. I also thank other Members for their contributions today.

The Government’s mission for growth is our No. 1 priority. We are kick-starting economic growth across the country. This means more and better jobs and more money in people’s pockets, but as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, we cannot have good and stable growth without a rail network that performs for his constituents in Easington and everyone across the north-east and the country.

Let me be clear: I am as frustrated as my hon. Friend by the poor service his constituents have experienced using Northern. He mentions overcrowded services, and I fully understand that passengers get frustrated when they regularly have to stand on trains, but I assure him that the Department requires its operators to plan services and rail timetables to meet passenger demand. We issue operators with guidelines on loading, including on standing time, and for most of the north that is currently 20 minutes.

However, services need to be operationally resilient and to provide value for money for the taxpayer as well as a reliable service for passengers. That means that it is not possible to guarantee every passenger a seat on every service, as that would require operators to maintain significantly larger fleets to meet demand at peak times, with trains then standing idle for much of the time. That being said, Northern, like all operators, takes its safety obligations seriously, and if my hon. Friend sends me more details on the specific safety cases he mentioned, I will be happy to take them up with Northern and write back to him.

None the less, it has been made clear to Northern’s management team that its current performance is not acceptable. That is why the Rail North Partnership, through which the Department for Transport and Transport for the North jointly manage Northern’s contract, issued the operator with a notice of breach of contract. We have required Northern to produce a detailed plan to improve its services for passengers, including the constituents of Easington.

That plan will require Northern to follow the necessary steps to match the Government’s ambition for transport across the north. Northern must resolve long-standing disputes with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers conductors to deliver a passenger-focused railway that runs seven days a week, whether on a Monday morning or a Sunday afternoon. It must develop its fleet and train crews and strengthen resources across engineering, control and operations. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of resilience when staff go off sick, which is in Northern’s improvement plan.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister for seriously addressing the issues that I raised, and I hope that he will address my other two principal suggestions. It is all very well talking about resilience, but people’s travel plans are formed by their experience. We are trying to grow the railway and the local economy, but when individuals go to the railway stations at Seaham or Horden with their families to go shopping in Newcastle or Middlesbrough and they cannot get on the train, that experience colours their judgment. The next time, instead of standing there in the rain for an hour, they will choose an alternative method; they will take the X10 or find some other means of getting there. We really need to up our game and provide frequent and regular services from these stations.

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree, which is why the Government are placing passengers at the heart of our plan for Great British Railways. I hear what my hon. Friend is saying very clearly.

The improvement plan aims to tackle the resilience issue by ensuring that the operator develops a structure, from governance to process, that enables the business to better manage staff sickness. I agree with my hon. Friend that the railway industry’s reliance on rest-day working to operate services is not sustainable. That is why the Rail Minister in the other place has instructed Northern to ensure that it recruits and trains to its full complement so that overtime can be used for additional tasks, such as training, rather than running services.

I am ambitious for Northern to get back on the path to delivery by meeting the steps in its improvement plan, which will result in a more reliable service for passengers and my hon. Friend’s constituents. Northern’s overall cancellations are at more than 8%. That is not acceptable, and I share Members’ frustrations. That is why the improvement plan also sets a clear target for Northern: 90% of all its trains should arrive within three minutes of the time listed on the timetable, and cancellations should be below 3%.

I turn to services, because I note my hon. Friend’s comments about the semi-fast Northern service between Middlesbrough and Newcastle. I assure him that the stops chosen reflect the aspirations for a semi-fast service between Middlesbrough and Newcastle, and were chosen in collaboration with Transport for the North and its members. I gently remind my hon. Friend that Transport for the North and its members have never requested additional stopping services on the Durham coastline. The current infrastructure could not support a two trains per hour stopping service as well as one train per hour on a semi-fast service. Given the line’s capacity constraints, including freight traffic and shared use with the Tyne and Wear Metro, adding stops at Horden and Seaham would require remodelling to assess its operational viability.

[Grahame Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am going to make progress. My hon. Friend will forgive me.

I also note my hon. Friend’s support for new proposed services from Grand Central, and I recognise the important role that Grand Central has played in improving connectivity and choice for passengers in the north-east. That is why the Department has provided support in principle to Network Rail’s consultation on the application from Grand Central to extend its existing access rights for an additional 11 years. However, capacity constraints on the east coast main line mean that we cannot support Grand Central’s separate application to operate additional services. That was set out in our letter to the regulator on 4 February. I note that some of those services would call at Seaham, which is in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

I direct my hon. Friend to the improvements that the Government have already made to Northern connectivity and capacity. Although Northern’s procurement of new trains is at an early stage, and at this point I cannot say in detail where any of them will be running, I assure my hon. Friend that the new trains will have greater capacity and, over time, they will replace almost the entire Northern fleet, including those on the Durham coastline.

In Sunderland—home to the best football team in the world, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—we are carrying out the biggest overhaul of the railways in a generation to put passengers first and to deliver punctual, high-quality services. Grand Central trains already run to London five times a day on weekdays and four on weekends. That will only improve from December this year, when Grand Central will run an extra service to replace the withdrawn service from London North Eastern Railway.

Meanwhile, a regular metro service also provides connectivity to Newcastle, where two LNER trains per hour go to London. That will increase to three per hour from December this year. LNER continues to operate one return service from Middlesbrough to London, and although additional services to Middlesbrough are heavily dependent on changes to local station infrastructure, I remain ambitious for improvement.

I assure my hon. Friend that the Department remains supportive of a role for open access services where they provide improved connectivity and choice for passengers. However, we must ensure that they are a good use of taxpayer money and do not negatively impact the operation of the network. It must be noted that although the Department reviews open access applications as part of a standard process, access to the rail network is a matter for the regulator, and no decision on the applications from Grand Central has yet been made.

As I mentioned the east coast main line, I will reassure my hon. Friend about the Government’s commitment to invest in rail. The east coast main line will take advantage of a £4 billion investment when the timetable changes in December. That will mean 16,000 more seats daily between London and Newcastle, an hourly LNER service between both cities, more local trains north of Newcastle, new trains between Sheffield and Leeds, more services between Reading and York, and provision for additional services connecting Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Newcastle, and Nottingham and Lincoln. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for securing this important debate, and I thank hon. Members for their brief but important contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Croydon Area Remodelling Funding: Brighton Mainline

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this debate and allowing us to discuss this critical area of rail infrastructure.

As my hon. Friend has so clearly outlined, the Brighton main line is a crucial artery connecting the south coast to the heart of London, carrying millions of passengers each year. It is a lifeline for commuters, a gateway for visitors and a crucial link for businesses that are driving our economy forward. It also provides a direct rail link into Gatwick, the UK’s second busiest airport. In her constituency, East Croydon station is a major public transport hub, providing links to services across Sussex as well as the London Tramlink. The line facilitates billions of pounds in economic activity every year, enabling businesses to thrive and communities to stay connected. That is reflected in the substantial investment in the line in the recent past. The £7 billion Thameslink programme transformed north-south travel through London, delivering faster, more frequent and more reliable journeys for passengers. Thameslink saw an entirely new, bespoke fleet of class 700 trains introduced to the Brighton main line, radically increasing onboard capacity and improving the reliability of the service. In addition, major stations such as London Blackfriars and London Bridge were entirely rebuilt, and the vital link to the Elizabeth line was created at Farringdon—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Kate Dearden.)

[Simon Lightwood]

Indeed, via the major hub of East Croydon station in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the Thameslink programme also established new direct connections to Peterborough and Cambridge. More than £250 million was recently invested in upgrading Gatwick airport station, delivering a new, more accessible station concourse and doubling the space for passengers.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the investment made in the line historically. Indeed, in Gatwick’s case, a very large portion of the investment was made directly by the airport, rather than by the Department for Transport. This debate is about the fact that in shortly over a decade, the line will be completely at capacity, so any train leaving Brighton will be full by the time it arrives at my constituency of Crawley. Not a single passenger from Gatwick will be able to get on the train to London without these improvements, and we are running out of time to secure the change necessary to avoid that outcome.

[Simon Lightwood]

Gatwick Airport Ltd has applied for a development consent order to bring its northern runway into routine use alongside its main runway. I understand that it has committed to providing a £10 million rail enhancement fund to support improvements to the network required to accommodate additional passengers and mitigate the impacts on performance.

As I said, more than £250 million was recently invested in upgrading Gatwick airport station, delivering a new, more accessible station concourse, doubling the space for passengers, improving the reliability of trains calling at the station and ensuring that it is a fitting gateway to the UK. For too many years, Gatwick airport station has been a major bottleneck on the Brighton main line due to the extended time that passengers need to board and alight from trains. Since the significant expansion of the station and the widening of platforms, passengers can board and alight much more quickly, reducing knock-on delays further up and down the line.

As part of the Gatwick upgrade, the track layout through the station was remodelled to increase capacity and speed, reducing journey times between Brighton and London by five minutes and improving performance. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East and her constituents have started to see the direct benefits of those interventions at Gatwick, be it in the efficiency of their train service or the ease with which they can start their holiday.

Despite those investments, demand and crowding on the line continued to grow up to 2019. It was a victim of its own success, we could say. Before the pandemic, the Croydon area remodelling scheme was rightly identified as a priority scheme to address crowding and provide more capacity on the line. As my hon. Friend has outlined, the complex junction at Selhurst and pinch points at East Croydon and Norwood Junction stations create limits on capacity. CARS was developed to address that through significant remodelling of the tracks and rail junctions north of East Croydon station and as far up as the Norwood Junction station area.

CARS also envisaged a major redevelopment of East Croydon station. At the time, Network Rail estimated that it would take over 10 years to fully deliver the CARS scheme, at a cost of around £2.9 billion. Delivery would also involve significant and ongoing disruption for passengers up and down the Brighton main line. However, the pandemic created significant changes in travel patterns and uncertainty about future demand, while at the same time stretching public finances. In response, the previous Government took the decision to pause the scheme at the 2021 spending review. No development work has been undertaken on CARS since then.

In her spring statement last week, the Chancellor was clear about the challenges facing our public finances and the steps that she is taking to restore stability and support growth. The ongoing spending review is an important part of that process. We are working to carefully assess each element of public spending, including rail investments, ensuring that every penny spent supports our missions and the plan for growth. Given that this process is ongoing, I regret that I am not able to comment on individual projects such as the Croydon area remodelling scheme until the spending review has concluded in June.

My Department and I certainly recognise the substantial benefits that the CARS programme could bring by unlocking development in Croydon and providing capacity for growth across the coast-to-capital region. I also restate the offer made on Thursday by the Secretary of State for Transport to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East to discuss CARS and the drivers for investment she has outlined so clearly. However, I remind her of the multibillion-pound costs of the scheme, in the context of the significant funding challenges that the Government face across a range of public services and infrastructure investment ambitions. We will continue to work with rail industry partners, local authorities and stakeholders across the region, exploring opportunities to improve rail services in the south-east and to ensure that the Brighton main line remains a world-class transport link—one that meets the needs of its passengers and supports economic growth.

Question put and agreed to.

Third Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Friday 28th March 2025 Written Statements

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

On 12 February we announced almost £300 million of funding for walking, wheeling and cycling schemes in 2024-5 and 2025-6. This will deliver 300 miles of brand new pavements and cycle routes to enable 30 million more journeys by walking and cycling every year. It will lead to 43,000 less sick days a year, to ease pressure on the NHS.

The second phase of the spending review is now under way, and the Government will set out our spending plans for future years, including funding for walking, wheeling and cycling, later in the spring.

I am today informing Parliament of my intention to publish a third cycling and walking investment strategy following the conclusion of the spending review. This will allow us to say more on the long-term funding for active travel, as required by the Infrastructure Act 2015. The Government will consult on CWIS3 with relevant stakeholders ahead of its publication.

[HCWS564]

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

2. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the provision of public transport in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

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

Transport that meets local, regional and national needs is vital for delivering this Government’s missions, and I am determined that communities like those in Newcastle-under-Lyme will benefit. The Chancellor announced over £650 million for local transport outside city regions at the autumn Budget, and the Secretary of State will confirm the allocations soon.

[Adam Jogee]

A well-connected transport system is critical to the local economy, a healthy population and a sense of pride in our communities. However, many of my Newcastle-under-Lyme constituents in Betley, Bradwell, Wolstanton, Audley and the rest of the villages have made it clear that they cannot access medical or retail services due to a lack of local bus provision, hurting our shops and the health and wellbeing of my constituents. Will the Minister come to Newcastle-under-Lyme to meet me so that we can establish a path forward to get my constituents the bus services they need?

[Simon Lightwood]

While I would always welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend, I urge him to lobby Staffordshire county council, which will get £11.1 million in bus funding in 2025-26, consisting of £5.8 million in revenue and £5.3 million in capital, specifically to support and improve bus services and infrastructure across Staffordshire, including in his constituency.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to support the aviation sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to promote active travel.

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

The Government recognise the importance of promoting active travel. We recently announced almost £300 million of active travel funding, enough for up to 300 miles of new footways and cycleways. We will say more very soon on the next steps for the third cycling and walking investment strategy.

[Anna Dixon]

Increasing active travel by 50% in England would result in 1.8 million fewer GP visits and 4 million fewer sick days. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment, reiterated by the Minister, to build 300 miles of new cycle lanes and walkways. Will the Minister meet me and the Friends of Wharfedale Greenway to see how we can secure investment to open up this amazing active travel corridor in Wharfedale and boost the health of my constituents?

[Simon Lightwood]

Our investment in active travel will lead to fewer sick days and millions more journeys walked, wheeled and cycled every year. More than £17 million has been allocated to West Yorkshire for active travel. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I will also ask Active Travel England to make contact with the Friends of Wharfedale Greenway about that specific scheme.

[Maureen Burke]

Earlier this week, I was delighted to welcome St Paul’s Youth Forum from my constituency to Parliament. It does amazing work to provide opportunities to young people, no matter their background. One example of its work is the On Bikes scheme, which helps young people stay active by offering repairs and bike loans. Will the Minister join me in celebrating the fantastic work of St Paul’s Youth Forum, and will he consider visiting to see its community work in action?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am really pleased to hear about St Paul’s. Giving young people cycle skills is so important, which is why we are investing £30 million a year in Bikeability cycle training in England. Active travel is a devolved matter, but I am sure my counterpart in the Scottish Government will consider a visit.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Active travel in Eastbourne is being undermined by the poor quality of our roads. We have potholes on Pacific Drive, Upperton Road, King’s Drive and Milfoil Drive, and poor investment in pedestrian crossings. Residents in the Hawthorns cannot cross the road safely on Carew Road or The Avenue. Will the Minister urge Conservative-run East Sussex county council to get a grip of our roads and crossings, and properly invest hard-earned taxpayers’ money to address those transport challenges?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will indeed join the hon. Gentleman in calling on the council to do just that. There has been a 40% uplift in the funding to tackle our highway backlog and potholes. Some of that money can be used on improving walkways and cycleways, which are part of the highway.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Women cycle a lot less than men—71% of women do not cycle, compared with 54% of men. Safety concerns are the main barrier. That gender gap is not acceptable. What are the Government doing to address that?

[Simon Lightwood]

The hon. Lady raises a very important question, and I am passionate about this issue. She will be aware that the Government will be bringing forward a new road safety strategy—the first one in over a decade. Part of that will be looking at how we can address that imbalance and the perception of and actual issues with safety on our highways.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to help improve road safety for gig economy couriers using two-wheeled vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to improve local bus services.

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

Improving local bus services is vital to kick-starting economic growth. Through our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill and the £1 billion we are investing to support and improve bus services, we are taking definitive action to help deliver the better, more reliable bus services that passengers deserve throughout the country. I was delighted to see the results of the recent Transport Focus survey, which show that passenger satisfaction has increased to 83%. We can and will do more.

[Matt Turmaine]

I thank the Minister for his response. In Watford, private bus operators such as Arriva change bus routes on a whim, usually providing less frequent services and sometimes withdrawing them altogether. That leaves Hertfordshire county council scrambling to plug gaps in services through expensive contracts. Does he agree that there must be a better way to run local buses that puts passengers first and foremost?

[Simon Lightwood]

It is vital that passengers have access to a stable and reliable bus network, and our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill includes a measure that offers greater protection to services from being arbitrarily cancelled or reduced. Alongside our investment in buses, including £12.2 million for Hertfordshire, this Government are taking action to help local leaders improve their bus services.

[Olivia Bailey]

Scores of my constituents, including Carole, have told me they oppose the removal of the No. 15 bus service in parts of Calcot, which has meant they cannot get to work, the supermarket, the GP or even the food bank. I am proud of our bus service in Reading, which is a shining example of a locally run service, and I am glad to see the Government commit to strengthening services further. Does the Minister agree that local routes need to serve all those who need them in every part of our communities, and will he back my campaign to reinstate the No. 15 bus in Royal Avenue and Garston Crescent?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I encourage her to continue to speak with the operator to understand whether changes can be made to the route to better meet her constituents’ needs. Our buses Bill, alongside the £2.4 million for Reading and the £1.6 million for West Berkshire, will give local leaders the tools to deliver better bus services for passengers.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Local bus services are part of the integrated travel plans for my constituency, but my constituents also rely on Transport for London to commute into London. One frustration of my community is that concession fares are offered to London residents who live very close to the Hertfordshire border but not to my constituents. As accessibility to public transport remains one of my top priorities, will the Minister push Transport for London to extend those concessions to every TFL user regardless of their address?

[Simon Lightwood]

That is a devolved matter, but I appreciate that TFL also subsidises many routes outside that boundary. I am happy to pick up that matter with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

In my constituency, bus services are a lifeline for residents of all ages, young and old. I was shocked to hear at a recent meeting at Hereford sixth-form college that 21 students this year have had to stop their studies because of problems with the reliability and cost of public transport. Our older residents get free bus travel, but our young people do not. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that every young person is enabled to access education, employment and training? Will he meet me to discuss how the Department for Transport can work with the Department for Education to ensure that all young people can access those opportunities?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The English national concessionary travel scheme provides off-peak bus travel to those who are eligible, including those with disabilities and those of state pension age—currently 66. However, local authorities have the power to go above and beyond their statutory obligations. Areas including the hon. Lady’s area will receive bus service improvement plans funding, which can be used for exactly that, but I am of course more than happy to meet her to discuss this further.

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to improve passenger rail performance.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Improving access to local bus services throughout England is a priority for this Government. Our reforms through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, combined with the £23 million we have allocated to Kent county council in 2025-26, will empower local leaders to deliver better bus services for passengers across Kent.

[Tony Vaughan]

Conservative-run Kent county council recently confirmed that £9 million of the £10 million grant provided by central Government to improve bus services will go solely to propping up existing services. That is despite the decline in access to bus services over the past 14 years in Kent, as key routes have been abolished or restricted. My constituents in Broadmead have no weekend bus service into town, for example. Does the Minister agree that that is a shocking indictment of the services that the Tories have presided over and that change in May at the local elections is how we improve bus services for our constituents?

[Simon Lightwood]

I could not agree more with my hon. and learned Friend. I am absolutely clear that too often local bus services are not delivering for passengers right across the country. That is why our ambitious reforms to bus services, including through the buses Bill, will give local leaders the powers they desperately need to reform services to best meet the needs of passengers, including in Kent. I am proud that our reform to bus funding allocations has meant additional funds for buses across the country, unlike under the Conservatives, who presided over 4.7 million fewer bus miles in Kent alone between 2010 and 2023.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

18. If she will make it her policy to allow holders of category B driving licences to drive community buses.

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

I am sympathetic to the hon. Member’s concerns, but to date there is not enough evidence to prove that the repeal of the legislation would not have an adverse impact on road safety. Since 1997, holders of car driving licences have not received an automatic entitlement to drive minibuses; this is primarily to improve road safety.

[Martin Wrigley]

My constituency is fortunate to have both Dawlish community transport and Newton Abbot community transport. They provide vital services for many people who would otherwise be isolated and lonely but, like many other volunteer groups, they are finding it hard to recruit. Recruiting drivers for their minibus services is a particularly. Anyone who took their driving test before 1997 automatically got a D1 minibus class licence, as I did. Since then, younger drivers have had to take a new driving test; the estimated associated training and costs are between £800 and £1,800. Will the Secretary of State work with me to add exceptions to D1 requirements to cover community transport and other volunteer community groups?

[Simon Lightwood]

Unfortunately, up to 30% of drivers who take the D1 test fail. When we are considering changes, it is important that safety is at the forefront of our thinking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

T2. I have launched a petition in my constituency asking Warwickshire county council to take our buses back under public control. Almost 30% of buses do not run on time, and my constituents are sick and tired of being stranded if they do not have a car. Does the Minister agree that Warwickshire county council must do the right thing and improve the dismal service that my constituents are currently stuck with?

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

We know that too often local bus services are late or, worse, do not turn up at all, blocking passengers from accessing vital services. Our reforms to the bus sector, combined with that £1 billion investment in buses, will give local leaders the tools they need to ensure that services truly reflect the needs of passengers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4.   Electric bikes are very popular in my constituency. However, they travel at high speed—with a maximum speed limit of 15.5 mph—and are heavy, which is causing quite a lot of distress to many residents. They can be speed-limited, and often are in our parks. Has the Secretary of State considered a lower speed limit for e-bikes for safety reasons?

[Simon Lightwood]

E-cycles must comply with the existing regulations, which state that

“electrical assistance must cut off when the vehicle reaches 15.5mph”.

The police already have the power to seize e-cycles and electric motorbikes being used illegally and to fine individuals who fail to stop when instructed to do so.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will recognise that it is very difficult for private landowners and local authorities along the line of High Speed 2 to plan future development when they do not know what will happen to land that is necessary for construction but is not needed for the long-term operation of the line. A land disposal strategy for HS2 is overdue. Can she produce one urgently? When she does so, will she seek opportunities to benefit communities like those I represent, which are suffering the disruption of the line but will not benefit from its operation?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Yesterday, the all-party parliamentary group on cycling and walking published its report on social justice as it impacts on vulnerable road users. Injuries to pedestrians could be cut significantly with simple zebra crossings without Belisha beacons. That would align with the 2022 highway code changes. Such crossings are common across the world, and they are being trialled around the corner from this building at the Department for Transport. Will the Government consider amending the guidance for highways authorities so that these crossings can be rolled out across the country?

[Simon Lightwood]

The Government agree that everyone should have the opportunity to walk or cycle, whatever their background, and we will obviously study the contents of the report in detail, which correctly highlights some of the ways in which cycle to work schemes, for example, might be reformed. The Government agree that adapted cycles, which are included in the report, also play an important role in providing freedom and independence.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

The root cause of the pothole problem is councils’ inability to afford to resurface roads. Wokingham borough council saw no uplift in resurface funding for many years, with no account taken of inflation or new roads. This is a legacy of the Conservative party in government, leading to maintenance funding per mile effectively being halved. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the urgent need for funding for resurfacing of new roads?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I recently met the managing director of Morebus again to call for new services to Hengistbury Head, reinstated services to Throop and better services, such as an improved 33 route and routes to the Royal Bournemouth hospital and the airport. Does the Minister agree that better buses are good for our communities and our economy, and that there is a lot of growth to unlock in Bournemouth and the south-west with better buses?

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend is a fierce advocate for good public transport in his constituency and I absolutely agree with the sentiment of what he said.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Project Willow reported back last week. Among the options is a hydrogenated esters and fatty acids plant producing sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel, and the report recommends a delay in the implementation of the HEFA cap. Is the Department currently considering that action?

Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on raising the important topic of connectivity in the north-west—an area that was a cradle to so many transport innovations and is home to beautiful countryside and some of our greatest cities and towns. It is not quite Yorkshire, but it is still a pretty special place.

Kick-starting economic growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and the economic performance of the north-west is vital to successful delivery. It is essential that we deliver our plan for change to create more jobs, put more money in people’s pockets and help to rebuild Britain—but, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, we cannot have good growth without the transport connectivity to support it.

A truly connected transport network must be designed and built in collaboration with local leaders. That is why the English devolution White Paper published last year is so important. It is an opportunity to reset our relationship with local and sub-national government and to empower local leaders and mayors to make the right decisions for their communities. We are already seeing the benefits across mayoral areas with the introduction of the Bee network in Greater Manchester, alongside mayors in the Liverpool city region and West Yorkshire who are working towards taking back control of their buses. I will just put on the record how pleased I was to hear yesterday that South Yorkshire will also be taking back control of its buses.

The Government will be still more ambitious, however. First, we will make the process for taking buses back into public control faster and simpler through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill. Secondly, we will give mayors a statutory role in governing, managing and planning the rail network, working alongside Great British Railways. Thirdly, through the English devolution Bill, we will put the roles of mayors on a primary footing, setting out a clear and broad set of powers that will be available to mayors and local leaders.

Our transport network has seen decades of decay. Communities have been cut off and short-changed. Fragmented networks have hindered meaningful change, and the state of our local roads is a result of past under-investment. We are determined to reverse that. An uplift of £200 million was secured at the autumn spending review for city region sustainable transport settlement areas for 2025-26, which was welcomed by the mayoral combined authorities, including Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region, which are receiving over £1.7 billion from the current CRSTS programme.

The autumn Budget announcement also included a commitment of over £650 million in local transport funding in 2025-26 to ensure that transport connections improve in towns, villages and rural areas, and a funding uplift of £500 million for 2025-26 for highways maintenance. Of that £500 million, the north-west region is receiving over £64.8 million in additional funding. In the Budget the Government confirmed investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services and keep fares affordable. Local transport authorities across the north-west have been allocated nearly £150 million for the 2025-26 financial year.

The Government are committed to improving transport across the north, including boosting rail connectivity from east to west. We are already taking forward the trans-Pennine route upgrade—TRU—which will improve rail performance and support growth and housing by reducing journey times and providing more passenger services on the line between Manchester and York. We are delivering the Manchester taskforce programme, which is central to the Government’s ambitious multibillion-pound rail investment across the north. As announced in the autumn Budget, we are maintaining momentum on Northern Powerhouse Rail by progressing planning and design works to support its future delivery.

On our strategic road network we are developing a five-year third road investment strategy that will cover 2026 to 2031. The RIS will be published before the end of 2025. Our vision is for a network that connects more people to more places, making our day-to-day journeys easier and simpler, and building a network that can attract investment, whether that is through boosting efficiency or unlocking land for development.

The integrated national transport strategy will be published this year and will set a long-term vision for transport in England, focusing on how transport should be designed, built and operated to better serve all the people who use it and enable them to live fulfilling lives. We will develop the strategy through collaborative and open engagement with our stakeholders and people who use transport.

It is impossible for me to cover every point raised today, but I will touch on a few. On Northern Rail, it has been made really clear to Northern’s management that the current performance is not acceptable. That is why Rail North Partnership, through which the Department for Transport and Transport for the North jointly manage Northern’s contract, issued it with a notice of breach of contract, which has required Northern to produce a detailed plan to improve its services.

On HS2, transport is an essential part of our mission to rebuild Britain, and I am committed to delivering infrastructure that works for the whole country and of course to improving rail connectivity across the midlands and the north. My ministerial colleagues and I are carefully reviewing the position we have inherited on HS2 and wider rail infrastructure.

On the previous Government’s commitments on investment, I will just remind the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about the £22 billion black hole. They left this Government to pick up the pieces.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way.

We acknowledge that rates of step-free access remain low across Great Britain, which is why the Access for All programme is working to address that. In the Greater Manchester area—

[Tim Farron]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way, because I have a lot of points to make, but I am happy to have a conversation with Members afterwards. In the Greater Manchester area, about 50% of stations already have step-free access, approximately double the national average. We remain committed to improving the accessibility of the railways and recognise the valuable social and economic benefits that that brings to communities. However, the programme continues to be heavily oversubscribed, so we welcome opportunities for external funding to improve the accessibility of the network.

The objective of the Treasury’s review of the Green Book is to understand whether it is being used in a way that ensures fair, objective and transparent appraisals of proposals outside London and the south-east of England. DFT officials are working closely with the Treasury on that review and will take forward any relevant actions following its conclusion.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton very much for raising this important issue. I hope that I have been able to reassure her that the Government recognise the importance of transport connectivity across the north-west. That is why we are investing and that is why we are devolving to local leaders. I look forward to continuing to work with her and other hon. Members on this key issue.