Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

The Lib Dem spokesperson is right to identify the fact that passengers deserve access to a rail network that serves their needs, which is why accessibility will sit at the heart of Great British Railways. It will have a legislative requirement, with the licensing watchdog ensuring that accessibility is always considered— there will be an accessibility duty within the Railways Bill. On fares, the Bill and the rail fare freeze will save passengers £600 million in 2026-27; contrast that with the period from 2010 to 2014, in which fares rose by 60%. If the Lib Dem spokesperson is interested in the rights of passengers and affordability on the railway, he should have supported the Railways Bill on Second Reading.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle the illegal use of e-scooters on public roads and pavements.

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

People using private e-scooters on the road or the pavement face criminal prosecution, having points added to their licence, and having their e-scooter seized. The Government have committed to legislate for micromobility vehicles, including e-scooters, when parliamentary time allows. This will help the police crack down on those using them unlawfully or irresponsibly.

[Tom Hayes]

In Dorset, we have just seen record numbers of e-scooter seizures. The police and crime commissioner, David Sidwick, and I are prioritising tackling this issue, because not only is it a form of antisocial behaviour, but it is an ideal way for drug dealers to get around. Residents in Littledown and Iford are particularly concerned. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that if parliamentary time allows, he will bring forward a Bill. Can he say whether that Bill might include mandatory registration and identification plates for e-scooters, among other things?

[Simon Lightwood]

As part of any future legislation, any regulations—including potentially requiring registration or licence plates—will be publicly consulted on before they come into force.

Free Bus Travel: Over-60s

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. Central Government have to support local government in properly funding bus services. As I will come on to say, that is exactly what this Government have been doing, but the critical question will be whether those local authorities spend the money in a way that benefits passengers.

Mrs Hickman’s view is that this policy should be centrally administered and nationwide. According to the Local Government Association, making the policy nationwide would cost central Government roughly an additional £250 million to £400 million a year. Without that money, evening and weekend services would likely collapse. Losing more bus routes would be damaging for over-60s who rely on buses to get to work.

As the LGA suggests, many councils argue that £1 fares for apprentices and students offer a higher economic multiplier than free travel for the over-60s. That is especially important when we are desperately trying to raise our economy’s growth rate and reduce unemployment. There is also a strong argument for focusing more on getting apprentices and students to use buses, because that cohort of young people will develop the habit of getting on a bus, which will help to secure a more stable long-term revenue stream for bus operators.

As I just said, what we need is ample central Government funding for local authorities so that they can decide how best to run the bus network. The Government are backing our bus network with a £3 billion multi-year bus funding settlement for 2025 to 2029, helping to create more certainty, stability and predictability for our bus system. The aim of the funding settlement is to deliver lower fares and more frequent and reliable bus services, and the national single bus fare cap was extended to run until March ’27. The Government’s Bus Services Act empowers local authorities to take greater control of bus services, and makes them more reliable, accessible and affordable by enabling franchises, lifting bans on municipal bus companies and mandating zero emission buses.

In this debate we are rightly talking about the 60s, but it was the ’80s when it all started to go wrong for our bus network, with its reckless privatisation under the Transport Act 1985. The Bus Services Act takes a completely different approach by allowing local government to create locally and publicly operated and owned bus services.

Local authorities across the country have received significant funding boosts to improve local bus services. For example, the petitioner’s council, Reform-run Lincolnshire county council, received a boost of £11.8 million to support better bus services. In my area, Reform-run Kent county council this year received a boost of £42 million to spend on better bus services. The Government are not being partisan with funding decisions; Reform-run councils are receiving cash boosts to improve bus services from now until 2029, and the public should expect Reform to deliver in places such as Kent and Lincolnshire. We must hold them to account in ensuring that they spend the money not on political advisers, or mad adventures such as the Elon Musk-inspired DOGE 2.0 cuts programme, but on making bus services work more accessibly, reliably and affordably.

In December, I ran a bus survey to hear from my constituents how they would like the £42 million of extra bus funding to be spent. Many told me that bus services are not frequent enough and are often unreliable, with too many late and even cancelled services. Many highlighted the issue of affordability. They want Reform-run Kent county council to spend that £42 million of extra funding on protecting existing routes from private sector cuts, more frequent bus services, cheaper fares, improved evening and Sunday services, and better bus links to schools, colleges and hospitals.

One constituent suggested extending free bus travel to the over-60s, but many of my constituents talked about wanting routes that had been cut under the failed experiment of privatisation to be reinstated. They asked for changes such as frequent, direct bus services from Folkestone to the William Harvey hospital, more evening and weekend bus services across Kent, and the reinstatement of routes such as the 73, 77, 78 and 111 services in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Before I was elected, I ran mental health services, including for older adults, so I understand the importance of older people being able to access services in a way that means they do not lose their appointment. We have 47,226 over-60s in Bournemouth, and many decisions about bus routes have not been taken with their views in mind, particularly in Throop, where I am trying to reinstate a bus service, but also across Southbourne and Tuckton. It sounds like my hon. and learned Friend might agree, but does he also agree that we should be using our new bus legislation to make sure that those communities that have been disenfranchised, left behind and left out are considered by local councils when they are deciding on routes?

[Tony Vaughan]

The situation my hon. Friend describes is symptomatic of what I call the begging bowl approach of trying to reinstate routes, where a private company decides how it will run the service, it cuts the routes that are more difficult to make money on but which people really need, and we all go with our begging bowl, banging on the door and asking the company to sort it out for our constituents. The way that all local councils should be using the Government’s legislation, now they have the money, is by actually listening to what local people want and providing services that allow our communities to be joined up. What he describes is exactly what I have experienced in my constituency and why these changes are desperately needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.

London’s Freedom Pass model is the envy of older residents across England, and it has become embedded in the expectations of many that free public transport is one of the benefits of living in our capital city. However, free travel for older residents is not the only element of a successful transport policy. Regular, reliable routes, safety on and off the bus and non-polluting vehicles all add up to a successful public transport network. All the characteristics of a proper bus service are more possible now than they have been for years, as a result of both the investment put in by this Government and the Bus Services Act 2025, which gives transport authorities the powers to make bus services more affordable, more reliable and safer.

Kent county council, which commissions the buses in my part of the world, East Thanet, has 7.5 million fewer bus miles now than in 2010. That is 7.5 million fewer opportunities for people to get to work, healthcare appointments or simply go out and have fun—and that reduction did not happen by magic. It happened as a result of choices made by the Opposition, who probably rarely, if ever, take buses outside London and therefore have little or no experience of the impact of their neglect and obsession with privatisation, which have battered our buses over more than a decade. The Government have changed that. Our multi-year funding means that there is now a £3 billion boost to end the plight of bus routes being scrapped at short notice and tighter requirements for cancelling vital bus routes.

That £3 billion, however, translates to £42 million in Kent. I would and should be celebrating that investment in opportunities for our county council to improve bus services, but unfortunately the decisions by the administration in Kent mean that very little of that investment will come to Thanet. Leafy and well-heeled Tunbridge Wells will receive more than £3 million-worth of investment in its bus services. Thanet, with some of the most deprived communities, including the poorest pensioners, is receiving a mere £500,000.

We may all agree that decisions should be made by government as close as possible to the communities that they serve, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) pointed out, but the way that Kent county council has gone about that allocation is grossly unfair, and suggests that it is not interested in investing where bus services can significantly benefit the community. Thanet is effectively receiving only 2.3% of Kent’s bus subsidy funding.

The Bus Services Act gives Kent county council the power to restore vital bus services, such as the No. 9—I say that in the same way that my hon. and learned Friend mentioned several bus numbers from across his constituency. Bus numbers matter to communities; they are the difference between being able to get out and about and being locked at home. Buses need to be regular and reliable, and they also need to be affordable, safe and clean.

When I conducted my bus survey we received a number of representations, one of which was specifically about the No. 9—to put it in the context of free public transport and bus travel for all of the over 60s, there would be no point in having free bus travel for many of my East Thanet constituents trying to get to a hospital appointment in Canterbury, because there is no bus to get there. They cannot shop in Canterbury, whether the bus is free or not, because there is not a bus to take them there. When we are developing a bus service for our communities, we must ensure that it has reliable routes as well as affordable fares.

I have received representations in support of the Transport Committee’s recommendation for free bus travel for the under-22s—representations that I am extremely sympathetic to. We have young people who simply cannot get to work when they are on apprenticeship wages, or cannot get to their colleges because they do not have significant and sustained income. They are being penalised for trying to do the right thing.

[Tom Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, as per usual. Just before Christmas I held an inclusive bus roundtable, to which I invited Bournemouth Gateway Club and the Cambian Wing college. The Cambian Wing college calculates that it costs around £300 a year for its students to reach the college, because it opens at a time outside the operating period of the concession pass. That is clearly bizarre, but it is particularly bizarre because the Cambian Wing supports people who have special educational needs, and we as a Government are trying to provide more workplace opportunities for people with special educational needs, and also with wider needs. Would my hon. Friend agree that, as a major part of our work and welfare programme, having not only reliable bus routes, but affordable buses is absolutely critical?

[Ms Billington]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. When talking about increasing the opportunities for young people in my constituency, I find it frustrating when people say that young people need more aspiration. I remind them that, frankly, young people need a bus service that gets them to where they can fulfil the aspirations they already have.

In Thanet, our allocation will not be able to meet the needs and ambitions of our community, and that is deeply depressing. It is important, however, to put on record that the strongest message from our survey about people’s experience of the bus service in East Thanet was the friendliness and helpfulness of our bus drivers. That should not be underestimated when we talk about the experience of going on the bus. There is no point if the service is not there, and there is no point if it is grumpy. Our coastal communities in particular lack connectivity. Buses are essential, and can help us to move away from reliance on cars, but free bus travel is of little value if there are no buses. Concessionary travel for disabled people and for young people, as my hon. Friend says, are strong contenders for investment.

Finally, I ask the Minister: when will the Department for Transport acknowledge that bus journeys are as good an indicator of economic activity as car movements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for putting the key points across so well when he opened the debate. I thank the 226 people in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough who added their name to the petition.

Free bus travel is already available to people aged 60 and over in London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The provision also exists where local authorities have chosen to finance it, such as in Merseyside. Across the rest of England, an older person’s bus pass gives access to free bus travel for people who have reached the state pension age, but that age is set to increase in due course. Over the last decade, and certainly under the last Government, we saw a stark decline in the number of bus journeys taken, with 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. Bus services have been chronically underfunded.

Everyone should have convenient, affordable options for getting around, whether to get to work or to the shops, to visit friends or family, to go to school or to hospital, or to access other vital services. That is particularly important to those aged 60 and over, who face greater odds of social isolation and who might have less access to private vehicles or active travel options.

When I speak to people in my area, and across Yorkshire as a whole, I am particularly concerned by the loss of other services that might have offered a replacement for or an alternative to bus provision. Councillor Andrew Hollyer talked to me about how City of York council failed to replace the Dial & Ride community transport service that many people who are 60 and over could have used in the two years since it folded. I recognise that the petition is trying to increase provision for people who might experience such inequality of access.

Frequent and affordable buses are important for quality of life. That is of particular concern in rural areas, where transport options are limited. Sadly, far too many parts of our country do not have a decent bus service. Under the last Conservative Government, bus services withered, isolating pensioners and breaking up friends and families. Many rural communities have been effectively cut off from the public transport that they need, and between 2015 and 2023 fares increased massively, by an average of 59%. The Liberal Democrats are campaigning to restore and expand bus services and better integrate them with other forms of public transport, so we welcome the funding and new powers introduced in the Bus Services Act, but we want the Government to go further.

Earlier, the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) mentioned that we end up with what many describe as a postcode lottery, where different local authorities have different offers. That is a key point. Just last month, before Christmas, I held a drop-in with Whizz Kidz, and we had the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, there. He talked about Manchester’s two successful trials of removing some restrictions on certain types of bus passes, including for older persons and for disabled people. He is now looking to make those changes permanent. He said that although that is a great local decision that his powers and funding allow him to take, a national funding fix is needed. We heard the same from Bus Users UK and from Whizz Kidz: where these powers exist without the funding to go with them, there is not really a choice. I have mentioned that extensively to the Minister in debates and questions, and I am sure he is not surprised to hear me making that point again.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank the 207 people from my constituency who signed the e-petition. Liberal Democrats run Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council. Next year it will receive £3.7 million, then £4 million the following year, £5.3 million the year following that and £6.3 million in the year following that—2030. It also gets the benefit of long-term funding certainty. Does he welcome the fact that the Labour Government are working together with the council to enable it to get on with making the funding allocations to give people the routes and fares that they are entitled to, particularly given that the Liberal Democrats tend to enjoy their time in Bournemouth whenever they hold a conference?

[Tom Gordon]

This is an issue where party politics can be left at the door. It is about ensuring that we have better bus routes and better access across the board. I absolutely want people to get around the table and work collaboratively where possible. I have worked with several colleagues, including the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), on access to disabled bus passes. I do not think anyone needs to be overtly partisan and tribal on this issue; it is about improving public transport, which is often a lifeline for people.

Earlier, the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) talked about her constituency and leafy Tunbridge Wells. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) well, and his constituency is rural. Obviously, the hon. Member for East Thanet has challenges in her constituency, but this is not about dividing and conquering or pitting people against each other. We want good bus services everywhere. We do not want anyone to lose out; we want to raise the bar across the board for everyone.

The Bus Services Act gained Royal Assent last year. The Liberal Democrats supported many positive measures in that Act, such as those that empower local authorities to operate bus services and implement services for socially necessary local routes. However, we want the Government to go further to fully address the needs of rural areas, tackle lack of provision and assist local authorities in the transition to net zero buses. We believe that bus services should remain affordable, and we will continue campaigning for the restoration of the £2 bus fare cap, which is vital to passengers who struggle to meet the cost of living and to deal with the effects of bus route cuts made under the Conservatives.

Last year, I went on a visit with the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes and spoke to some clinicians, who said that restrictions on bus passes and a lack of free travel mean that people miss appointments, do not turn up on time or, quite often, do not show. That frustrates me, because expanding concessionary travel to people over 60 or people with disabilities might create greater savings in other services and other parts of Government. The cost of a missed hospital appointment pales in comparison to the cost of a bus fare. We need a bigger, joined-up approach to buses to fund vital services down the line through savings. What economic assessments have the Minister and the Department made of how extending the English national concessionary travel scheme might save other Departments and services money? If that has not been done, will he look into it and assure us about it?

I fully support the aspiration to see free bus travel for people over 60. I think the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe mentioned that it would cost £250 million, which does not exactly sound affordable in this current climate, but I think it is the direction of travel in which we should be heading. Expanding disabled bus passes, which cost on average only £75,000 per year per travel concession authority, would be more affordable than free bus travel for over-60s. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that.

Connected and Automated Vehicles

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for securing this debate. In this debate, I want to talk about place and the role of connected autonomous vehicles within it—but before I do, I want to follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who talked movingly and importantly about the role of accessibility. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the campaign for civil rights by disabled people, which culminated in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and a key part of that campaign was for accessible public transport. Thirty years on, as we look to the future, we must think about how we can have accessible transport with all these technological changes.

I am thinking about what Bournemouth’s future roads will look like. Will we see self-driving cars going anywhere anytime soon? By what date this side of 2050 might a majority of driving miles in Bournemouth be completed by machines and not humans? At what point in the future might the Minister’s car become a museum piece? When we talk about technology, we think about novelty in the future. Bournemouth has not just lived a sense that technology is advancing faster than society can keep up; it has even helped to engineer the feeling. Bournemouth University has published important research into topics such as cyber-security and connected autonomous vehicles. We are a town with remarkable scientific minds and technological innovators, and we want to contribute towards that new future.

Indeed, the future is usually with us for a long time before society sees the recognisable breakthrough of a certain technology. With the onset of motorisation, early cars were referred to as horseless carriages and many shared features with horse-drawn predecessors, while others used technology from the bicycle industry. With the onset of electrification in the early 20th century, the petrol-powered car was briefly less common than either steam or electric-powered ones. The electric car disappeared by the 1930s, reappeared in the 60s, slipped back and then reappeared with gusto in the last decade.

Thinking of autonomous vehicles, General Motors sponsored Norman Geddes to design the Futurama exhibition at the New York World’s Fair in 1939, where he depicted the first driverless car. In the 1960s, the Slough-built Citroën DS19 was trialled in the UK as an autonomous vehicle. This issue has been with us for a while and we politicians have a duty to think about what that means. We have a duty to make choices before the disruptions that such technologies cause reverberate throughout our daily lives—the good, the bad and the ugly.

Issues such as how we get around will affect our lives and the future prosperity of the communities that we represent—and we are often behind the curve: it was only compulsory for rear view mirrors to be fitted to cars from 1 January 1932; driving tests were only introduced under the Road Traffic Act 1934 and were made mandatory in January 1935; driving licences were introduced by the Motor Car Act 1903, yet cars have been around since 1895. Are we keeping pace with change?

We must also think about some of the negative side effects. In 1894, The Times estimated that by 1950, every street in every British city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure because of the horse’s dominance of transport. That did not quite turn out to be the case, but it brings me to the point with which I want to close in a couple of minutes: are the Government looking properly at how technology is changing? Where in Government are we thinking about those changes? How are we developing laws and policies that are as smart as the cars that are going to be on our roads? Do we have a Parliament filled with people who have the knowledge, the experience, the expertise, the access and the contacts to shape the laws that will ensure that our prosperity is secured and that our roads are being cared for?

When we look at polls, on balance, British citizens tend to lack trust in autonomous vehicles—partly because they have a lack of knowledge. That is unsurprising, given that AVs are theoretical and elusive; only a small number of self-driving vehicles are on our roads today, mostly test vehicles unavailable to the riding public. As AVs become more commonplace, they could become more popular as people become more educated. As MPs, we clearly have a role in helping to achieve that.

I will close by considering a few ways that we must think about AVs, because of the impact they will have on how we use our streets. Pedestrians will discover that AVs can halt when they detect human movement, and many may feel confident to cross the street anywhere. What might that mean for the smoothest flow of traffic through our streets? I recently discovered that, because of people’s tendency to look at their phones at traffic lights, some places are installing silent light-emitting diode strips on the ground so that people can see when a traffic light is being indicated, because they are often not paying attention to the noise.

Technology is already changing. How do we think about that with AVs? An AV can drop a person off, circle around Bournemouth, then come to pick them up wherever they want. If people think that Bournemouth’s roads and streets are choking on congestion—and they are—just wait until somebody goes to a meeting in the town centre, tells their AV to drive around continually and then calls for it to come and pick them up.

AV use will free up space currently reserved for parking for entirely new purposes, which will prompt local authorities to think about how they will generate income from the parking they provide. What do we do with the space that is made available? Do we turn that into housing, playgrounds or green space? How does that change our urban landscape? Wider use of AVs could risk increasing traffic congestion by drawing people out of other types of transport and into private car use. What does it mean for cycling, which we know helps people to get around their towns and cities and enhances their physical health? What will it mean for bus travel? Pool shuttles might become more important in order to avoid single-passenger AVs congesting our roads and fixed-schedule services could become a harder thing to sustain. There may be a move to on-demand services. Park and rides will become more important, because AVs could arrive at the outskirts of towns or cities and people could disembark to board shuttles that will take them to work. Indeed, AVs could communicate with park and rides or even public shuttles, relegating waiting around to the history books and ensuring non-stop journeys. Just as we relied on a mix of horses, trams, bikes, buses and cars during the first half of the last century, we could see a similar rivalry again during the first half of this century—a rivalry between human-controlled cars, semi and fully automated vehicles, bikes and buses.

What is the new hierarchy of transport? How society draws the balance will be critical. The Government and Parliament have a critical role to play because we cannot leave it to councils, even though councils cover geographies larger than our constituencies. We need national laws and frameworks that provide consistency across all the places we represent. We need foresight and we need to pre-empt potential future disruption. We must continue to improve the machinery of Government so that it can look to the future and make changes in response to technology. If we maximise the benefits, we minimise the costs and when our grandchildren look back on our decisions they will be able to believe that we made them with future generations in mind.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is a fine champion for his constituency and the fantastic city of Edinburgh. An expanded Heathrow could open up more regional connectivity to cities such as Edinburgh. Improving the rail network between our two capital cities is absolutely essential as well, and we are committed to doing that.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

We urgently need to modernise and expand British airspace—it is at capacity, and our growth depends on it. I was at Bournemouth airport last week. We are close to a bus service and a public transport interchange, but Bournemouth airport cannot easily connect with European airspace, as most traffic joins it at a single space. That is particularly problematic, given that I hope the Cherries, who are contesting for European football, get to play European teams next season. Will the Government review and modernise our airspace and back regional airports such as Bournemouth’s?

[Heidi Alexander]

As I said in answer to a previous question, the work that the UK airspace design service will do to modernise our airspace will start with the London area. It will not be limited to the London area, but we need to make that a priority. I appreciate the case that my hon. Friend makes with respect to Bournemouth.

Regional Transport Inequality

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

We know that when it comes to transport inequality, as we have just heard, the people who are left behind most are younger people, disabled people, people on low incomes and older people. Madam Deputy Speaker, I note that when you were the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, you called for an older people’s commissioner. In this respect, that could provide real value.

In the time available to me, I will major in as many transport forms as possible. Yesterday I spoke about buses. In Bournemouth, we are crying out for a better No. 33 bus, the reinstatement of the bus route in and to Throop, and a bus to the airport that is better and goes more frequently. We need a stronger provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure; it is typically concentrated in more affluent areas, and where it is concentrated in public areas it does not work. When it comes to trains, I am campaigning for an accessible Pokesdown station and faster trains to London.

I want to talk particularly about the problems that people experience locally with accessing driving tests. The Labour Government have committed to 10,000 additional driving tests, and we have four additional instructors in Poole, but people in Bournemouth East have to travel to Poole to take their test, because their centre was closed in 2019. Operators are using bots to sweep up months-worth of test dates and sell them to parents and learners at a high profit. That is not fair, and it is an example of inequality. I have written to the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency, but it is nowhere to be seen on this issue. I want this Government to be on the side of learners and to tackle the driving test backlog.

I welcome the fact that we have £1.1 million in funding coming to Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council for the improvement of transport infrastructure, and that we have an extra £2 million to invest on potholes. I particularly want to make the case, for the first time in this Chamber, for the resurrection of a tram network in Bournemouth, which I think is really important. [Interruption.] I can hear murmurs of assent from my hon. Friends. Everyone loves a tram. Trams foster economic, social and cultural growth around them. In Bournemouth, which has joined two other towns to create a super-city region, we are falling behind in economic growth opportunities because we do not have the interconnectedness we need.

I was going to say more, but I will just briefly say that if we can have faster trains to London, accessible stations, the potholes in our roads filled, better bus services, more driving tests and a tram network which, because of its permanence, attracts businesses, organisations and people to move into our areas—those areas are already thriving, but could thrive so much more—Bournemouth would no longer be left behind; Bournemouth would thrive. It is a fantastic, beautiful town, which I am so proud to represent, and with the elimination of our transport inequalities, there would be no limit to the success we could achieve.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

North Shropshire is a very rural constituency, and it is nestled in against the Welsh border, which is wiggly—I think that is the best way to describe it. That means that my constituents’ experience of using buses can be problematic, and I have tabled some new clauses that I hope the Minister will reflect on.

Shropshire is one of the worst-served counties for buses, having lost 66% of its bus miles since 2015. It has lost more bus miles, by percentage, than any other county in England. The average loss of bus miles is about 20.9%, so it has been a severe experience for my constituents. Towns such as Market Drayton have almost become isolated, because their bus service is so poor. I am sure the House has heard me say before that there is only one bus running in Shropshire on Sundays. I am lucky enough to be able to report that it runs from a town in my constituency, but it is hardly an acceptable situation for my constituents.

New clause 37 is sponsored by 30 colleagues from across the House, revealing that my constituents’ experience is shared by people in many parts of rural Britain. It tries to address the problem of poor bus services in market towns by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that a service must be available seven days a week, and that she consults the relevant bodies to ensure that constituents using the bus service can access essential services. My Bus Services Bill, which aims to get people to hospital and other health services when they need to do so, has that requirement, but it could equally be applied to schools, colleges and other important destinations for people who find themselves isolated.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

In Bournemouth East, I am campaigning to get a better bus route to Bournemouth airport, to improve the No. 33 and to reinstate a service in Throop, where the community feel very disconnected. Does the hon. Lady agree that one benefit of this Bill is that it empowers local authorities to run their own bus companies so that they can reinstate those routes?

[Helen Morgan]

I am broadly supportive of the Bill, because I think it will do that. My point is that the power to franchise bus services is all very well, but the funding needs to follow the power. Otherwise, constituencies such as mine will not see the improvements for which they are desperate.

Colleagues have talked about the bus fare cap. I am supportive of measures to keep it at £2, but I must point out that in constituencies such as mine, which has little in the way of bus services, a cap has not made a huge difference. Some of the operators have not opted into that cap, so it has had limited impact for my constituents, important as it is.

The £1 billion fund announced by the Department for Transport last November promised to give rural and coastal areas a real sea change in their bus services, but in Shropshire—as I mentioned, it has had the worst drop-off in its services in the whole country—only £2.5 million was allocated. That is the critical point and why I am fully supportive of the Bill’s measures that will allow local authorities to decide where bus services are essential. The funding needs to follow them, regardless of whether areas are in a combined authority or have a mayor, and it should follow need, not just structure. I urge the Minister to take that on board.

Although we are not voting on new clause 37, across the House, including on the Government Benches, 30 Members have sponsored it. Many similar amendments have been tabled that likewise seek to improve bus services for people living in rural areas, and ensure they are adequate to access essential services. I urge the Minister to consider the intentions of my new clause, and those of similar amendments tabled by colleagues, and commit to some kind of improvement for rural areas when he makes his closing remarks.

I mentioned that North Shropshire is pressed up against the border with Wales and that the border with Wales is very wiggly. That gives my constituents a specific challenge with their bus passes. If they want to catch a bus between two destinations in England but it stops in Wales or they need to change in Wales, their bus pass is not valid. I think that is a bit crazy. For example, if they want to go from Oswestry to Chester and they need to change at Wrexham, their bus pass will not be valid. That is the one service that runs on a Sunday. We need to ensure that people can use their bus passes when they are crossing the border. That is a very low-cost thing, which ought to be very easy for a Government to sort out. My new clause 39 would require the Secretary of State to liaise with the Welsh Government and come up with a workable solution for what is probably an unintended consequence of devolution between England and Wales. I hope the Minister will take that on board and consider a workable solution for people using their bus passes across the border.

I also tabled new clause 40, which replicates that requirement for Scotland. I appreciate that that does not impact my constituents in North Shropshire, but I tabled it in the name of being inclusive.

I am proud to have been one of the first signatories to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I will not take any of the credit for the new clause because he has done all the hard work, but I will urge the Minister to consider accepting new clause 2 because it is so important. Disability does not stop at 9.30.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Tom Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I have been campaigning for a reliable, affordable bus route to Bournemouth airport. As a fellow Dorset MP, does my hon. Friend recognise the need for a dedicated service to the airport every 30 minutes, especially as it increases the number of flights that it will be handling?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I am happy to support my hon. Friend’s campaign, and I will be meeting him shortly to discuss how I can best do so. Given that Bournemouth is the airport nearest to my constituency, my constituents would certainly benefit from that bus connection.

I am desperate for the Bill’s reforms to be introduced as rapidly as possible across South Dorset, which is why I plan to write to the leader of Dorset council to encourage the council to take advantage of the new powers as soon as possible. I look forward to sitting down with its officials to finally improve bus services for the communities in Winfrith, Lulworth, Crossways, the Grove and Southill. I know that other bus passengers and communities throughout my constituency will be looking to the council to use its new powers to improve bus services in their neighbourhood. We cannot keep treating public transport, especially our buses, as an afterthought. For communities across South Dorset, Labour’s bus services Bill provides a chance to finally reconnect and to deliver good-quality bus services to many more passengers. It is time to crack on.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not, because I am very conscious of the time.

If we want to encourage modal shift and improve health through transport, we absolutely must improve safety on the roads. People will only change their travel behaviour if they feel that it is safe for them and their families. As has been mentioned repeatedly, too many people, including children, are killed and seriously injured on our roads. That is precisely why this Government, alongside investing in active travel, are developing the first road safety strategy in more than a decade.

I wholeheartedly agree that we can and should do better than a decade of stagnation when it comes to road deaths. The Department is considering a variety of road safety measures for inclusion. As we develop the strategy, I am committed to continuing to engage with hon. Members, stakeholders and road safety organisations. I very much welcome the many suggestions made this evening, and I look forward to publishing the strategy in due course—I hope that that will be sooner rather than later.

One issue often mentioned by members of the public that can have a significant impact on the school run, and in particular on more vulnerable road users, is pavement parking. Many hon. Members have raised it in this debate. Interestingly, by coincidence, I met Guide Dogs, Living Streets, Sustrans and Transport for All just this afternoon to discuss the issue. The Department intends to publish a formal response to the 2020 consultation and to set out next steps on this policy area in due course. In the meantime, highway authorities can of course introduce and enforce specific local pavement parking restrictions if they so wish.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Cycling is great for young lungs and kind to the environment. Will the Minister join me in commending Avonbourne boys’ and girls’ academies, Avonwood primary school and King’s Park academy in Bournemouth East for their fantastic work in spotting cycling infrastructure opportunities and getting them built?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am delighted to recognise that fantastic work. Giving children the opportunity to walk, wheel or cycle to school is fundamental to their development and, as many people have said, builds good habits from an early age. When a quarter of children leaving primary school are overweight and 40% of primary school children are being driven to school, now is the time to provide healthier alternatives.

A number of hon. Members talked about school streets. Active Travel England recently published guidance that will assist local authorities in planning, developing and implementing school streets. As a direct result of its funding, 180 school streets have been developed, and of course there are many more. They are a great opportunity, and the benefits speak for themselves: cleaner air, fewer cars, less congestion, improved physical and mental health, and of course safer roads. I would love to mention the school streets trial in Hackney, which has provided fantastic evidence; my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Select Committee, talked about the evidence from Hounslow, and we also heard about Ealing.

Alongside school streets, Active Travel England is funding a wide range of support to enable more children to walk, wheel and cycle to school, including Bikeability cycle training, which I am keen to see, the Living Streets Walk to School outreach programme and Modeshift support for travel planning.

I am conscious that I have run out of time. We have announced a further £300 million for active travel and we will set out plans for future years following the spending review. I had better sit down now, but I am sure there will be many more opportunities to discuss these vital issues in the days ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered road safety and supporting active travel to school.

Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The number of new cars sold in the UK last year was 1.9 million, and the market grew by 2.6% on 2023. The number of new EVs sold last year was 382,000, which was nearly 20% of the market and represents a 21% growth on 2023.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I commend the Secretary of State for standing up for cheaper and cleaner British cars in the face of the global chaos being forced on our economy—particularly in the light of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal, which wrecked Britain’s car industry and lost this country a decade of golden British manufacturing. My constituents in Bournemouth East are crying out for charging infrastructure. The Secretary of State said that nobody would be left behind. Can she outline how she will invest in charging infrastructure to make sure that everybody who wants to can be part of the electric vehicle revolution?

[Heidi Alexander]

This is a partnership between public investment and the private sector. I assure my hon. Friend that we will be paying attention to Bournemouth, as we will to all other parts of the country.

Road Maintenance

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

For 14 long years, road users in Bournemouth got a raw deal. Motorists pay their taxes, but they have got little back. Bournemouth and the south-west have been left behind and left out, but no longer. The broken roads that our Labour Government inherited are not only risking lives, but costing working families, drivers and businesses hundreds if not thousands of pounds in avoidable vehicle repairs. Fixing the basic infrastructure that this country and our town rely on is central to delivering national renewal, improving living standards and securing the future of Bournemouth and Britain.

This is also a question of trust. When I was going around knocking on doors in the two years before the election and during the general election itself, people said to me on the doorstep, “You seem like a nice guy. We want to vote for you, but how do we know that when you go to Parliament, you will not turn out like the last lot and not deliver on the promises you said you would keep?” I can now go to people’s doorsteps and talk about this Labour Government’s prioritisation of fixing our roads, matching words with deeds.

We have committed significant sums of money, at a time of difficult fiscal circumstances, to repair our roads. We are not only investing an additional £4.8 billion to deliver vital road schemes and maintain major roads across the country to get Britain moving as part of our plan for change, but handing councils a record £1.6 billion to repair roads and fill millions of potholes across the country. My own Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council has received more than £10 million from the Government to fix our roads over the next 12 months. I spoke to our council leader on 28 March to make the point that we need to use the money or lose it. She has a long list of roads that need fixing, and I am confident that they will be fixed.

The lack of investment to date is a false economy, because when we do not invest in our roads in the first instance, we just store up bigger problems and bigger repair costs. My hope is that by investing in our roads now, we can save the taxpayer money and finally have roads that are roadworthy. Investing in roads saves local councils money. In 2023, BCP council had to dish out £16,000 in compensation because of the frailty of our roads. We also need to get our fundamentals right. We have heard in this debate about how utility companies will swan in, dig up a road that has been repaired and make it worse. We need to ensure that that does not happen.

We also need to think about our pavements. I have lost count of the number of elderly ladies with whom I have spoken on the doorstep who say that they would go into our district centres and town centres, but they are too scared of slipping on broken pavements, cracking a hip and not being able to get the hip replacement they need quickly enough, because they know that the NHS was ruined under the last Conservative Government.

I commend BCP council and the council officers for targeting the key roads in my constituency that need fixing. I am pleased that Cranleigh Road and Gainsborough Road have had major work completed, and I am pleased that treatment work has been completed on Wheaton Road, Abinger Road, Leaphill Road, Scotter Road and Roberts Road. I called for those works on constituents’ behalf.

I am pleased to see plans for the resurfacing of sections of Ashley Road in Boscombe as part of the towns fund, which is a much-needed investment in that area. I am also pleased that we will see significant works on Holdenhurst Road. That is particularly important to support not only road users—households and families—but our tradespeople. When I knock on doors and talk with our small business owners and tradespeople, they constantly talk about having their tools stolen and the fact that repairing or replacing them can cost up to £2,730. The threat of crime is a constant worry, but their roads just are not being fixed, despite the fact that they pay so much money in taxes.

I will close by saying that road safety is not only about repairing the potholes on our roads; it is about making sure that we invest in pedestrian crossings. I have been working with Councillor Sharon Carr-Brown of Queen’s Park and Charminster ward to introduce a zebra crossing on Queen’s Park Avenue to enable schoolchildren to more easily access that busy street. Currently, the Department for Transport does not permit the use of side road zebras on the public highway. Using them would allow stretched council budgets to go further in improving the public’s ability to safely cross the roads. I have been calling on the Department for Transport to support local councillors’ calls, and my own calls, for better zebra crossing provision.

I am glad that we are ending the pothole plague. I commend my residents and constituents for calling for improved roads, and I will continue to work alongside them to make the case for more funding and better investment in our roads.