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

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

It is cooler today, but if hon. Members are robust enough and wish to remove their jackets, they may do so.

We now come to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments—there are amendments that have not been selected—have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are ordinarily on the same or a similar issue. I appreciate that I may be teaching granny to suck eggs, but some Members may not have served on a Bill Committee before.

Decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated; they take place in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, are taken when we come to consider the relevant clause.

Let me explain that: you will find that things are debated and then not voted on, and you might think, “Oh gosh, we have missed something.” We have not. We will vote on them when we reach the stage in the Bill at which they appear, even though they have been grouped earlier, because they are on a similar subject to something else. I hope that is clear. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or the Clerk—I may not know the answer, but the Clerk certainly will.

A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. Members can speak more than once in a debate, but please indicate that—I do not have second sight. I do not like feeling that someone has been left out because I did not call them, so make sure that you catch my eye, or that of whoever is in the Chair, if you want to speak.

At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment to speak again only if they wish to do so. Before the Member sits down, they need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a vote. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote, please let me know in advance. Before we start, do any Members need to make declarations of interest?

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am a serving councillor on Norfolk county council.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Steff Aquarone]

What you have just described is in the event that the amendment is agreed to. Is that right?

[The Chair]

No, not necessarily. A lead amendment will be moved when we come to a group of amendments, as will happen in our fifth debate. Only the lead amendment will be moved, and it may or may not be agreed to. I will then decide, on the basis of the debate on the grouped amendments, whether everything in the clause has been sufficiently debated and we need hear no more about it, thank you very much. If there are things missing, I will say, “Actually, this still warrants a clause stand part debate.” Other Chairmen may take a different view. I have found, generally, that Members like to take a slightly broader view in debates, which is fine, but you cannot do it twice. What we cannot have is repetitive debates.

Because new clause 22 is grouped with clause 1, I call Paul Kohler to speak to his new clause.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 35 allows LTAs to consider constructing rural bus hubs and defines certain characteristics of such a hub. As I said, local transport authorities already have the flexibility to determine the most appropriate bus infrastructure for their areas, including rural settings, without the need for additional statutory requirements. Embedding such provisions in legislation does not offer any new powers and is therefore not needed. Moreover, the new clause risks fettering the discretion of LTAs by imposing specific conditions on the location and required facilities of a rural bus hub. That could undermine local decision making and limit the ability of authorities to design infrastructure that reflects the unique needs and priorities of their communities. The new clause is not necessary and I ask the hon. Members not to press it.

[Steff Aquarone]

I wish to speak to new clause 35 and amendments 70 and 71 tabled in my name. The Minister has done a very good job of outlining what those proposals seek to achieve, for which I am grateful. I am seeking to remedy the lack of vision for fixing the public transport problems that we face in rural areas.

As I have said, we cannot just throw new powers at rural areas and hope for the best. We have to create workable models for adoption to support areas to use the new powers in the best way possible. There has been great excitement about how to use them to transform the bus networks in our major cities, but in all the conversations here on this issue, rural communities seem to have been forgotten about.

In rural areas, the local bus service is not just a convenience or a “nice to have”, but a real and genuine lifeline. For many, it is the main way they can get to see friends and family, go to medical appointments, and get to the shops and to leisure activities. Bus services keeps many rural villages going. It is no surprise that when the withdrawal of routes in areas like this are proposed, there is fury locally and major campaigns against it.

I asked some of my rural colleagues about their experiences and, unsurprisingly, I was inundated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) has been campaigning to save the X5 between Aylesbury and Hemel Hempstead, which was replaced with an unreliable service that is making it hard for residents to get to key medical appointments. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) are trying to bring back the 84/85 route from Yate to Wotton, a vital route to shopping centres, schools and colleges and for those visiting HMP Leyhill. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) has been working with campaigners to save school bus services in Ancells Farm, with children facing the prospect of long walks down unsafe roads to get to and from school in Fleet.

There are all these communities and campaigns, but we still have not come up with better ways to serve rural areas and protect their access to services. It is telling that when my Transport Committee colleagues and I, several of whom are represented on both sides of this Committee, wanted to go and see some best practice of rural bus networks for our “Buses connecting communities” inquiry—report forthcoming shortly; I am sure everyone will be reading it as soon as it is published—we had to travel to the Republic in Ireland to find them. We simply do not have good examples of successful rural networks here in the UK.

All of that serves to say that it is time for a bold new approach. A good few years ago, when we were researching the Liberal Democrat manifesto for Norfolk’s 2021 county council elections, we undertook research with a number of key local stakeholders to hear what they thought of the local bus network and what we could do to improve it. I personally interviewed bus companies, council officers and other stakeholders. Most importantly, we surveyed local people, including those who do not currently use buses—an often overlooked audience segment. We concluded that we need to combine two of the most successful features of current public transport models to create a new model for rural public transport. Those two things are park and ride services and demand-responsive transport. Pairing them could create a real network that works for our rural towns and villages without the near-impossible task of running an hourly timetable to every village. That conclusion resulted in the rural bus hub scheme outlined in new clause 35.

Rural bus hubs would allow people to get between key towns and villages that they need to visit directly. People in many rural areas suffer from having to take buses in the opposite direction from where they want to go, going to the nearby town or city just to go straight back out again. That adds hours to people’s journeys, the journey is totally derailed if one link in the complicated chain goes wrong, and it is ultimately an inconvenient way to get about. As a result, it does not improve passenger numbers.

Similar to our park and ride networks, rural bus hubs would have facilities to enable those living nearby to travel to the hub independently, either by car or active travel routes. The hubs would have the amenities to charge electric vehicles, and to lock and store bikes safely, so that people could easily return to them to complete the final few miles of their return journeys. The hubs would also be well served by demand-responsive transport for those who are not independently mobile. That would ensure that the network could reach into all areas, including rural villages and harder-to-access communities that may never have had a regular service, if any service, from an existing bus route.

Such passengers, once at the hub, could catch direct, frequent buses to any part of a proper network, getting them to the hub nearest to where they want to go, and linking up with train connections or even hospitals and employment areas. It is a model that could easily be adopted by transport authorities. It would reach the most people possible without seeking to run a regular bus through every village, and it would connect those in rural areas to a proper public transport network that broadens the range of their destinations, rather than just taking them to the nearest city or large town.

My amendment 70 would permit rural bus hubs to fit into the current model of franchising, allowing for specified services to include those running to and from, or between, the hubs. My amendment 71 would add to the review of service provision to villages an assessment of how service in the villages could be impacted by the establishment of rural bus hubs, or how the establishment of the hubs has affected services for villages at the time of the review. That would ensure that, as we assess how villages are faring following the passing of the Bill, we do not simply grow a list of complaints but assess what could be done differently to make improvements and the impacts that those improvements would have.

I grew up in a rural village with a sketchy bus connection. I now live in another, and my children are growing up with the same sketchy connection that I had. That cycle cannot continue. We have to do better for areas like mine, and conventional thinking is not going to cut it. It is time for a radical rethink of how we deliver public transport in rural areas. We have to challenge the old ideas and be willing to seize on something new.

I am sure that the Government will oppose these ideas, but I would gently say that they have not put forward anything equivalent. It is all very well to say, “You could do anything,” but there is nothing of substance to say, “Of all the things you could do, these are the things you might specifically like to consider.” We could feasibly help households to reduce the number of vehicles they rely on, saving them thousands every year. We could encourage active travel by expanding the number of journeys, and the hubs could be a component of that. By expanding demand-responsive transport, we could even remove car reliance altogether, while connecting the carless to a far better range of travel times and destinations than they currently have.

The same old approach is not working. The situation will not magically fix itself with the new franchising powers alone. We have to try something different, and do something to create networked, accessible public transport that works for people, and gets them where they want to go, when they want to go there. I do not think that is asking the world, and I hope that the Government will pledge to look into this idea further to deliver real change for people in North Norfolk, and rural communities across the country.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 3 is not controversial, so I will not make a long speech. Proposed new subsection (2A) of the Transport Act 2000 simply makes it clear that, where more than one area is specified in a franchising scheme, the specified areas “need not be contiguous.” I say no more about that.

Amendment 70, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, adds a reference to bus hubs. As he is my constituency neighbour, our constituents share many of the same experiences, and I absolutely support the sentiments that he eloquently expressed: rural areas are often overlooked, bus policy is designed with the major cities and large towns in mind, and policymakers—perhaps because they have limited experience of life in the kind of rural communities that he and I serve—do not consider the very different challenges that we face. I therefore support the sentiment of the amendment, but the challenge is the cost. We keep coming back to the money—or lack of it—in this legislation, because it is disproportionately expensive.

The hon. Member is absolutely right that park and ride is an interesting hub-and-spoke model for rural areas, but there is also the on-demand model, which I have previously described as the Uberfication of rural transport. The tech is obviously already there. Someone books in and says that they want to go from here to there; the algorithm sorts out the route and how many people can be picked up; and then they are delivered from door to door. Because it is door to door, it has the opportunity to provide an improved customer experience.

The challenge is getting the take-up, because it requires a large number of people to buy into such a scheme, and the set-up costs are expensive. There has been a trial in Wymondham, in Norfolk, where the county council put forward a type of on-demand rural service, but the take-up was disappointingly low. Why was that? My working hypothesis is that, if it is a pilot, hardly anyone knows about it, but if there is wide-scale adoption—“This is the future of rural transport”—and it is backed up with public information so that everybody in the community cannot help but know about it, the take-up will be much greater and that then transforms the economics of it.

As a fellow Norfolk MP, I fully support the concept behind the hon. Member’s amendment, but I am afraid that I question whether it is needed, given the specifics of the drafting. As “places” are not defined under the clause as drafted, I am not sure about the requirement to define a specific place—this is my lawyer’s background coming through; it is a nasty rash I am developing—and I wonder whether there is a legal need for that clarification.

I will move on to clause 4. According to the explanatory notes, it inserts proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(a) into the 2000 Act to clarify that services can be specified by routes or the places intended to be served. I think that is sensible. For example, a franchising authority could specify the services by listing the principal points to be served, so, “The local services to be provided under local service contracts are ones that serve the following principal points,” followed by a list of what they are, such as the hospital, the railway station and the doctor’s surgery.

Another example under this proposed new subsection would be for services to be specified route by route. I will come back to that in a moment, because that is quite an important clarification when we look at the kind of operators that will be in a position to provide these services. Specifically, there is a question about the access of small and medium-sized enterprises to contracts under franchising, which sounds a bit niche but is nevertheless important.

Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(b) of the 2000 Act clarifies that services can be specified by describing intended services in general terms. It is broad and gives franchising authorities a wide range of options for specifying services under this proposed new subsection. That, again, is eminently sensible; I will not go into the detail.

Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(c) of the 2000 Act clarifies that franchising authorities can combine the approaches under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, a franchise authority that covers both urban and rural areas could specify services by reference to the specific routes for the urban areas, in line with proposed new paragraph (a), and then could take a broader approach for the rural areas. Finally, paragraph (d) clarifies the catch-all that franchising authorities can specify services “in such other way”.

--- Later in debate ---

I support such concepts where the finances add up, but yet again the Bill is silent on money. It is no good leading us up the garden path with all the bright, shiny things we should be doing with our bus services but not providing the money to local authorities to satisfy the demands of their communities—in fact, it is almost cruel of the Government.

[Steff Aquarone]

I appreciate the warm support from the hon. Gentleman, who is, as he stated, my constituency neighbour. I defer to his lawyering experience on his salient points about the propriety of my amendments given the Bill’s drafting, but I will ask for his reflections on two points.

First, cost is a big unanswered question in the Bill. If the Minister had access to the Treasury, I know that he would be raiding it to fund improved rural bus services. Does the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agree, however, that at least looking at a hub model makes more sense financially, and for service provision, than trying to establish hourly services in every village?

Secondly, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for amendment 71. Although I intend to withdraw amendment 70, I will push amendment 71 to a vote with his support.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I do not disagree with anything the hon. Member said. I do not have in my head the financial details associated with rural hubs, but it makes more commercial sense as a matter of principle, although it would probably not be profitable, to have a hub-and-spoke approach rather than an hourly service for every village. I do not know whether the hon. Member has counted the villages in North Norfolk, but there are well over 100 in Broadland and Fakenham, so that would be a challenge for any provider.

The Opposition support the concept of new clause 35 if the finances—the missing link—add up, but we question the need for it, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing what it sets out.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have campaigned politically in North Norfolk for nearly a decade; all the while, people have been sharing with me their frustrations with our local public transport network. Since the age of 11, I have been watching different operators’ buses leapfrog each other along radial routes and trying to work out a better way of doing things for everyone.

Too many people find that the current system is not enough of a network to get from where they are to where they want to be at the times they need. One young person in Briston in my constituency is studying to work in childcare. She is eager to secure an apprenticeship at a local nursery, but she cannot get to the nursery in question until 9 o’clock—far too late for the 8 am start time. That has caused her to miss out on a promising opportunity, and her transport options mean that she continues to struggle to break into the sector. Another constituent told me how she had moved to her village because it had a bus service and she hoped that it would give her disabled son the opportunity for greater independence. But the village has since lost that service—and with it, the independence of the residents who relied on it.

Our local buses are so much more than just vehicles for ferrying people from A to B. They are the key to training and employment for those entering the world of work. They are an antidote to loneliness, allowing people to see their friends and family and to take part in community groups and activities. They also have to get our older people to their vital medical appointments. For example, to get to the main hospital in Norwich, someone has to go all the way into the city centre and change buses. That means that bus users in most of my constituency can attend a clinic only in the middle of a whole-day trip.

If only the local authority had the power to design the routes and times that work for the needs of the population—putting on direct services between busy hubs, for instance. This is the problem: for far too long, the importance of bus networks in our area has not been reflected in how they have been treated by those in power.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In my constituency, Reform-led Warwickshire county council has still not appointed a transport portfolio, a month on from the elections. While it dithers and delays, a rural community suffers: bus timetables are being reduced and routes are being cut. Those who rely on public transport most are obviously being punished. Does my hon. Friend agree that bus transport in rural areas deserves urgent and serious attention?

[Steff Aquarone]

I certainly agree. Much as I will slag off Norfolk county council at times, at least it has someone driving a bus, in contrast to her council.

The problem is how the issue is being treated by those in power. It is not the fault of bus operators; I have been grateful for the time and engagement that they have provided me on this issue and they are a valuable source of counsel as we look to the exciting future for rural services.

I am also a huge fan of demand-responsive transport, which could be opened up to serve a much wider range of needs with some common-sense simplification of the rules. No, it is politics that has prevented a bright connected future, not bus operators. The last Government’s funding mechanism for local transport was completely unsustainable, making councils compete for pots of funding rather than supporting long-term strategy. That made for a perfect storm in the Conservative-led council in Norfolk, which could trumpet quick wins from the grants, all the while lacking a comprehensive and overarching vision or strategy for how we create a proper rural public transport network.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I really recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. Under the Conservatives, Bracknell Forest council saw bus miles per head fall from 10.9 to 6.3 miles—a reduction of 42 %. Only under a Labour council have routes now been expanded. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we work closely with bus companies through enhanced partnership models—if that is right for the local area, as it is in Bracknell Forest—to improve local services for our residents?

[Steff Aquarone]

The hon. Gentleman has helped me make progress because the issue is all about attitude and mindset. In Norfolk, a former leader even eagerly told the council that Norfolk is a car county. If only the council had realised earlier that its pipe dream of a quarter of a billion pound link road through a site of special scientific interest was never going to happen, it could have spent the £50 million it has poured down the drain in the past five years while pursuing its fantasy on buses instead.

I hope that the powers promised in today’s Bill are seized on in Norfolk. Bus franchising can be an important first step to what we need in my constituency of North Norfolk. At present, our buses do not link up well with our one train line. There is no opportunity for integrated ticketing and no meaningful link between how the profit generated by the most popular routes can be used to provide those that are socially necessary. A radical rethink of how we deliver these services is needed. I hope that whoever gets control of these powers after the reorganisation of our local government is willing to do it. If those powers were to fall into our hands at Norfolk Liberal Democrats, we would be ready to show what a successful model for rural public transport looks like, just as we have seen happen in our cities.

The Government need to come clean on how bus franchising will be funded. I hope that through the Transport Committee’s inquiry on connected communities, my colleagues and I will help unlock a public transport revolution in every corner of the country.

The ask from the people in North Norfolk who are concerned really is not difficult: they want to be able to catch a bus to the places they want to go at the times they want to travel. This can be our chance to move away from outdated thinking. It is time to create the transport network that would really revolutionise the experience of local passengers. Let’s make North Norfolk’s buses great again!

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

There are so many ridiculous things about modern housing developments, but chief among them is the fact that they are still designed around car usage as the primary mode of transport. An obsession with winding roads to the depths of rabbit-warren estates will never encourage people to use active travel. Instead, we need to build new housing developments with cycle lanes, footpaths and green corridors at their heart.

Current planning legislation gives precious little power to planners when facing the greed and legal appetite of property developers, but we cannot carry on building houses people cannot afford, with designs that are making people unhealthy, car-dependent and isolated. We can ingrain the same walking and cycling culture that my North Norfolk villages have developed over decades for the homes, families and children of the future. The question is, will the Government legislate to make it possible?

North Sea Vessel Collision

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

MCA assets are being deployed currently to assess and monitor any potential environmental impacts of this accident. The hon. Gentleman is right that the area is richly biodiverse. The priority remains extinguishing the fire on the Solong, so that we can properly evaluate the situation. Once we get that done, we will use every resource possible to ascertain the extent of the pollution, and to clear it up.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Let me put on record my thanks and appreciation to the resilience team at North Norfolk district council and its staff, and the port of Wells for its response and preparedness. It is not instantly clear what areas will be affected, and with changing winds and weather conditions, pollution can change course. North Norfolk is 50 nautical miles away from the incident and is currently predicted to be unaffected, but we are keeping a close eye on what happens. Will the Minister confirm that he will keep all MPs along the North sea coastline updated on developments? Will he also confirm that if pollution is set to reach North Norfolk, my fishing communities will get as much notice as possible? They have well-rehearsed plans in place, but they need good notice in order to deploy them.

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member makes an important point about how interconnected our coastal communities are when it comes to this type of incident. Our officials are monitoring where the pollution is going; we are looking at wind direction. I am grateful for the fact that his local resilience team is stood up, and I am happy to keep all Members informed of the ongoing situation, when required.

MV Ruby: Safety

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rupert Lowe]

Apart from the terrible outcome, the Government’s account of events conflicts entirely with the local account of events. The locals claim that the Department for Transport-Secretary of State’s representative drove the process and gave instructions for the sitting MP to be excluded from all communications, convinced that it was a Cobra situation. When finally briefed on 28 November by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) at the Department’s offices, he stated that the locals had made a mountain out of a molehill, the operation was never Cobra and the decision to exclude the MP from briefings was a local one. Somebody is clearly lying and the official briefing pack from the DFT suggests that this is the Government. The hon. Gentleman told me in an email that he was too busy to see me to answer follow-up questions and suggested that I pursue usual parliamentary processes, so here we are. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this debate, which seeks to inform the House where the truth lies. The crux of the issue is the part played by the Health and Safety Executive and its employee, Dr Nathan Flood.

MV Ruby docked in the outer harbour of Great Yarmouth, following input from the Secretary of State’s representative on 28 October 2024, as a ship in distress carrying 20,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. Peel Ports is used to handling this material, which is commonly landed at ports, distributed by road, stored on farms and used to grow our food. Peel Ports notified the requisite authorities, including the HSE, which declined to inspect the ship’s cargo. Peel Ports began offloading the bags of ammonium nitrate on to the sister ship, Zimrida. On 11 November, Peel Ports identified seawater in hold one and some staining on the lower bags. Peel Ports notified the HSE, Dr Flood, and again requested its attendance to inspect the bags and the material. HSE refused to attend and inspect. Peel Ports sent them photographs and videos of the cargo in hold one. Peel Ports employed its own explosives experts, Dr Jim Warren and Dr Charles Owen, to attend and inspect the cargo. They reported that they could wipe the staining off the bags, concluding that it was unlikely the bags were contaminated. Peel Ports again requested HSE attendance, which was refused. Peel Ports’ view was that it could safely unload the stained bags—the ship had previously carried a cargo of coal—on to the dock for analysis and disposal. HSE threatened sanctions and enforcement action against Peel Ports if one bag was unloaded on to the dock. I understand that legal responsibility for the material passes from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to HSE once unloaded. It is also interesting that Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service attended MV Ruby at this time, on either 12 or 13 November, and downgraded the situation.

Dr Flood’s attitude was reported by many of the stakeholders to be aggressive, inappropriate and unprofessional, with the use of foul language and even banging his fist on the table and telling people, “This is going to flatten Great Yarmouth.” Analogies to the Beirut explosion were wholly inappropriate and misleading, causing panic among both local and national Government, who have no experience of handling ammonium nitrate. It is incredible that he did that without either a site visit or proper physical analysis of the material before the dumping. Was he too lazy to do what common sense suggested was the correct cause of action? Dr Flood only attended the site and inspected a small number of remaining split bags of material on Monday 18 November, after being instructed to attend by a Minister. I understand that he put on a new pair of rubber gloves which he thrust into the ammonium nitrate and then threw the gloves on to the table, claiming they smelt of diesel. Other people report that they understandably smelt of new rubber. This was also after the gross act of environmental terrorism. To carry out no inspection before dumping is quite extraordinary.

This kind of behaviour is not uncommon from the HSE, which is a law unto itself, clearly employing a policy of “Do as I say, not as I do”. The question is, who regulates the regulator? When we understand that the HSE is part of the Department for Work and Pensions, no further explanation is necessary or indeed possible. We now find that the Marine Management Organisation, the MCA, the Environment Agency, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the HSE all blame the dumping on the ship's captain. All other possible sensible options were blocked, but does this silence make them complicit in this catastrophe ? I conclude that it does.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on this topic, which has caused great concern to residents of our neighbouring constituencies. In this case there appears to have been a total information vacuum for local people and representatives, which has fuelled fear and speculation. A number of my constituents have contacted me asking simply, “What is going on?” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the event of such a situation in the future, it will be important for all relevant agencies to provide far more clarity and transparency for residents and their elected representatives?

[Rupert Lowe]

I could not agree more. Good government must be transparent government.

I hope that the Minister has his pencil ready, because I have 18 urgent questions for which I believe the House needs answers.

No. 1: Why did the Minister tell me on Thursday 28th November that this was a local issue?

No. 2: Why did the local officials think that this was a Cobra situation when the Minister said categorically that it was not?

No. 3: Why did the Minister suggest that local officials had made a “mountain out of a molehill”? The locals said it was all driven by the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State’s Representative for Maritime Salvage and Intervention. Who is lying?

No. 4: Who gave the instruction that the local MP was not to be briefed except by the Department for Transport? Was that because I am a Reform MP, or because I have experience of ammonium nitrate from farming? What were the roles and reports of Andy Gregory, Stephen Benzies and Stephan Hennig?

No. 5: Was the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) involved in the decision making?

No. 6: Was the resignation of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley on Friday 29 November in any way linked to the unjustifiable outcome involving the dumping of approximately 300 tonnes of potentially contaminated ammonium nitrate with bags? Was it a coincidence that it happened less than 24 hours after my briefing by the Department for Transport?

No. 7: Why was the load described as “potentially contaminated?” Was it physically tested before the dumping? Is there a certificate to prove that?

No. 8: Why were the polypropylene double-skinned waterproof bags dumped with the ammonium nitrate? When used in farming, such bags are emptied and recycled.

No. 9: Did anyone consider that polypropylene bags float to the surface and damage or destroy a ship’s propeller and propeller shaft, apart from this being an act of environmental vandalism?

No. 10: Why was the view of those at Peel Ports—experts at handling ammonium nitrate—not acted upon? They claimed that the double-skinned waterproof bags at the bottom were stained but dry. They suggested unloading the “dumped” material on to the dock for analysis and disposal. Is it true that it becomes the responsibility of the HSE once on land? Pictures that were obtained back up Peel Ports’ opinion.

No. 11: Why did the HSE throw its weight around and threaten Peel Ports with prosecution/enforcement if one bag was unloaded on the dock?

No. 12: Why were local fishermen, local fish markets and Dutch fishing vessels not informed of the decision to dump offshore in my constituency?

No. 13: How close did Great Yarmouth come to evacuation? Why was that information withheld from the elected representative of Great Yarmouth? Who knew what, and when?

No. 14: was the balance of the cargo safely unloaded by Peel Ports?

No. 15: is it fair to say that the owners and operators of MV Ruby were forced into the decision to dump ammonium nitrate in bags at sea?

No. 16: who signed off on this gross act of environmental terrorism without a test certificate? How can this have happened?

No. 17: why do both the harbourmaster and Peel Ports agree that this matter was not handled well, and that there was the wrong outcome?

No. 18: does this House agree that the Government were right to exclude an elected Member of Parliament by diktat, thereby undermining Parliament and showing disrespect for the good people of Great Yarmouth?

As G. K. Chesterton observed,

“A society is in decay, final or transitional, when common sense really becomes uncommon”.

This sorry episode lacked any common sense and resulted in bad decisions by unelected, unaccountable quangos acting in silos. We now need an official parliamentary inquiry, which I strongly request, having researched the matter in great depth. It must not happen again, and the appropriate heads must roll.

On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, all the parliamentary staff and all my fellows MPs a very happy Christmas?

Rural Cycling Infrastructure

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate on such an important issue. He is a great champion of this cause. I know that he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues across Oxfordshire will continue to push for progress in their area.

I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Norfolk county council, but I must declare an even more important interest, which is that I am a rural cyclist. It is for that reason that I am so pleased to respond to today’s debate for the Liberal Democrats.

In my area, we have some fantastic cycling routes. In Wells and Holkham, people can join national cycle network route 1 and travel through the north of the constituency as part of the Norfolk-wide rebellion way. Towards North Walsham, we have the Weavers way, which takes in much of the track bed of the former Midland and Great Northern joint railway.

The Liberal Democrats and I are ambitious for the future of rural cycling across the country. We want to see new cycle networks, and locally Liberal Democrats are working with communities to deliver on new cycling schemes in their local areas. It is a great shame that the previous Conservative Government did not match our ambition or enthusiasm for the future of cycling. They ruthlessly cut £200 million from the active transport budget, just after so many of us rediscovered our love for walking and cycling during lockdown.

That neglect for walking and cycling seems endemic within the Conservatives. Our Conservative-led county council has sunk £50 million into the white elephant that is the 6 km western link road. The legal and exploratory costs alone could have instead funded high-quality cycle super-highways six times the eventual proposed distance of that road. With attitudes like that, it is easy to see how our rural cycling infrastructure has deteriorated so badly over the previous decade, with Norfolk losing many of its routes from the national cycle network in 2020 after years of neglect and lack of upkeep.

Cycling will play a key part in the rural transport revolution, which so many parts of our country desperately need. We must make sure that cycling routes join up with public transport networks, so that people can safely and easily cycle to their nearest train or bus station. In my rural area, we have one of the highest levels of road per person in the country, and we cannot afford to maintain them all. Is it not time that we looked to convert underused and under-classified roads into access-only roads that prioritise walking and cycling? I am sure that many people would far rather hear the dinging of bike bells nearby than large lorries clattering through small country lanes.

I am passionate about seeing an improvement in rural cycling infrastructure across Norfolk and the rest of the country. Making cycling more accessible and attractive has only benefits. It keeps us healthier, it reduces carbon emissions and it gives us greater opportunity to explore and enjoy our natural environment. I very much hope that we hear from the Minister that the Government will match the passion and ambition of Liberal Democrats across the country to deliver better cycling infrastructure for us all.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

Bus Funding

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I am very happy to confirm that we are investing in Plymouth, Plymouth’s people and Plymouth’s buses. Buses are an enormous engine of social justice, because, as I said earlier, the most deprived rely on them the most. I am afraid that is why they have been so badly neglected in this place for so long, but that will absolutely turn around under this Labour Government. Buses are my priority and this Labour Government’s priority.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Norfolk county council.

I am pleased that £15 million of the new funding will be heading to Norfolk to support our rural bus services, but the model for running buses in Norfolk is broken. We need a service that works for everyone, not just routes to and from the city and the occasional shopping bus. Will the Secretary of State assure me that this money will not just disappear into county council coffers or route subsidies, but instead help build the proper public transport network that North Norfolk needs?

[Louise Haigh]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Under the current system, money has been thrown hand over fist at operators, which have cherry-picked the most commercially viable routes, leaving local authorities to step in to subsidise the lifeline routes that people rely on. The benefit of areas being able to move to a franchised system, or indeed to set up their own publicly owned bus company, is that they can cross-subsidise properly across routes, and ensure that public money is spent in the best way and that we design routes and networks that really work for local communities.