Local Transport: Planning Developments

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Let me start by making something clear: the local people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and the surrounding villages are no nimbys. They are not against housing. They are raising the alarm against top-down national planning that does not serve local housing needs; that leaves local services bursting at the seams without adequate investment, or with investment that is delivered far too late; that fails to deliver the transport infrastructure that communities actually need; and that is eroding precious landscapes, some of which are home to rare chalk streams found nowhere else in the world. Some of those people have joined us in the Public Gallery, and I thank them.

This debate is about the impact of planning on transport infrastructure, and to understand that, we need to see the big picture. The towns and villages in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, including Tring, Redbourn, Wheathampstead, Sandridge and Markyate, are steeped in history. The beautiful Chilterns national landscape can be found around Tring, Berkhamsted and Aldbury. Four rare chalk streams thread through the constituency, alongside the Grand Union canal. Settlements that appear in the Domesday Book can be found, and the old Watling Street runs through the centre of Redbourn. There is also Berkhamsted castle, where the English throne was surrendered to William the Conqueror.

But there are also towns in the constituency that were originally designed for horse-drawn traffic and are now gridlocked with commuter cars. The M1 cuts right through the middle of the constituency, and every time there is an accident, it causes further gridlock on country lanes. The capacity of Luton airport, which is just seven miles away, is nearly doubling, going from 19 million to 32 million passengers a year. That will add roughly a million passengers per month, many of whom will travel on the same routes as local people.

On Thameslink and London Northwestern services, rammed trains are cancelled almost daily—indeed, a group from the Probus club in Harpenden arrived after their train was cancelled today—and bus services have been decimated. That is before we even talk about the impossibility of finding an NHS dentist, the pressures on GPs and the desperate need for additional school places, particularly for children with special educational needs. These old towns and villages are not built for growth of such scale.

We must, then, look at the Government’s approach to planning. Labour has continued the top-down numbers legacy that the Conservatives left behind and, in some cases, made it significantly worse. From top-down targets to grey-belt land, developers are literally having a field day, using loopholes to get unplanned development through. This matters. Giving developers the green light leaves us with an unco-ordinated approach, and infrastructure and communities are coming last.

The new methodology for calculating housing supply has hit St Albans council particularly hard. Its targets have almost doubled, from 855 to 1,660 homes per year, and the numbers in Dacorum have gone from 1,016 to 1,380 homes per year. Both those increased figures will have to be dealt with in further local plans, because they do not even include the massive housing development that we are seeing now.

The changes have left us facing substantial housing sites, such as the 1,400 homes in the Marshcroft development east of Tring, the 850 homes at South Berkhamsted and the more than 700 proposed homes in north-east Harpenden. The Marshcroft development alone would increase the population of Tring by a potential 40%. As Lucy from Tring says:

“It makes no sense…our roads can’t handle it.”

The town got its market charter over 700 years ago, and it has the roads to match. It is also buttressed against the Chilterns national landscape.

I warned the Government from the outset that their plans for development on grey-belt land would hand the advantage to developers rather than communities, which is exactly what has happened. The unclear definition of the grey belt creates a wide-open door for developers, not for communities. Crucially, by focusing protections on towns, the guidance leaves villages, which often have fewer services and weaker infrastructure, far more vulnerable to unplanned development. In Berkhamsted, developers have used the grey-belt back door to push applications adjacent to allocated sites. For example, the grey-belt back door was used in the Haresfoot farm application to get permission to build on green-belt land.

The situation in Redbourn is even more alarming. The latest proposal is a 1,000-home development that is not in the local plan but claims grey-belt status. If that is combined with other sites, Redbourn faces a pipeline of development that could see its population grow by over 70%. As Jen from Redbourn says:

“I am hugely concerned that there is no local democracy that allows villages to stop disproportionate housing development.”

Catherine from Redbourn is equally clear:

“When it comes to measuring green belt, brown belt and grey belt land, villages should not be measured in the same way as a town. This is green-belt land with rare chalk streams, water vole and flora that you don’t find in Europe—it should be protected.”

Redbourn is precisely the kind of village with less infrastructure that has been left more exposed by grey-belt development. Will the Minister speak with colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address the top-down practices that take powers and critical infrastructure away from communities?

Although the previous Conservative administrations left Dacorum and St Albans without adopted local plans, which left our area ripe for speculative development, Liberal Democrat councils in the area have worked hard to finally get local plans to the examination stage, but while the plans remain in inspectors’ hands, the Government give no protection from unplanned development. Despite continuous calls on the Government to help to protect us, we have been left exposed.

All that is before we even consider the wider pressures bearing down on local councils, which leave the looming threat of Government takeover when too many appeals are overturned. Nor have we covered the lack of teeth for neighbourhood plans, or the proposals in the planning legislation to make it easier to build near train stations. All these rules put the power in developers’ hands and take it away from communities—so no wonder developers are popping up across the constituency. Does the Minister agree that tackling unplanned development and giving communities more power is vital when preparing transport infrastructure?

Underlying all this is a structural failure in how infrastructure can be planned. The speculative and unplanned development I have outlined sits entirely outside of planned growth modelling. That means that unplanned sites are assessed site by site, in isolation, and with no cumulative way of seeing what they mean together for the roads, buses, rail, cycling, schools, GPs or dentists that communities need. It is wholly inadequate, fragmented and reactive.

Local plans cannot account for national infrastructure decisions, either. The Luton airport expansion, the Universal Studios theme park, and even a rail freight development, approved by the Government, have taken the place of thousands of potential homes elsewhere, and cannot be accounted for. When councils do secure investment for infrastructure with section 106 money or the community infrastructure levy, the current viability criteria mean they can often get out of building more affordable homes, or limit that investment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this topic to the House. We have similar problems back home in Northern Ireland. From listening to her, it seems that whenever a new development goes up, it relies on private cars, because there is no public transport out in the countryside, so the pressure is always on people to provide their own transport, which affects the local roads and infrastructure. It also seems like private developers are not following the rules that require a detailed traffic and transport impact assessment for all major developments. If that has not been done when the rules indicate it should have, should the councils, Government or local bodies not take enforcement action to ensure that what is required actually happens, rather than sitting back and doing nothing?

[Victoria Collins]

I agree with parts of the hon. Member’s intervention. The developers have armies of legal teams and, as I will come on to, the national legislation is open to interpretation when it comes to roads. Councils are essentially left powerless to enforce the legislation, because developers find the loopholes. They have the money and the power to push past.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that developers have armies of lawyers, and one of the most frustrating things for local authorities is when they come back again and again. Even when planning authorities reject an application, developers will take it to appeal, and even if the appeal is rejected, they will wait a short period and then come back again. They only have to win once, which is incredibly frustrating for the communities that face the threat.

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely. On top of that, councils also warn that when they get section 106 money or funding from the community infrastructure levy, the funding available is not enough for the new roads needed for development. They also warn that if we expect section 106 contributions to deliver all new infrastructure, the burden will often be pushed on to new homeowners, as prices can be pushed up.

What is more, there is no guarantee on the delivery or timing of infrastructure plans, often because major infrastructure depends on external bodies or funding cycles, such as for highways and regional transport, as well as on NHS capital planning cycles or educational funding cycles. The Government must adopt an infrastructure-first approach. How will they empower communities to take a cumulative view of the infrastructure impact of planning? What action are the Government taking to address the train capacity and service issues I have highlighted?

Let us turn to the reality on the ground for transport services, starting with roads. Local people put it best. Fiona from Berkhamsted says:

“The roads are completely overwhelmed by traffic through Berkhamsted.”

Anne captures the absurdity of national planning guidance:

“The biggest issue for Berkhamsted is a one-size-fits-all NPPF”—

national planning policy framework—

“for a valley town where the only place left to build is at the top of valley sides, and ancient narrow streets give little scope for cycle routes—certainly not a joined-up network.”

Having once been a keen cyclist in Berkhamsted, I can confirm that the difficulty of getting around means that my poor bike has been left locked up. Sarah from Berkhamsted asks:

“What’s the point of building new houses if there are no pavements for people to walk or safe roads for cars to use?”

Gill from Harpenden is direct, saying:

“The town has so many pinch points on already narrow roads that are already causing jams.”

As I said, the towns and villages in my constituency are old, and many of the roads were built for horse-drawn traffic. Berkhamsted is a hilly place, but there is not a single mention of topography in the national planning framework. Yet the loose definition of “severe”, in terms of cumulative impact tests for roads and traffic, leaves another door wide open for developers.

If someone cannot get around by car, perhaps they can use the bus. Well, that is a whole other story. Under the Conservatives in Hertfordshire, we saw a 56.5% reduction in bus mileage between 2017 and 2023—the biggest reduction in England. That has left us with inaccessible areas where people need a car to get around. The 307 bus in Redbourn runs to Harpenden station only from 9 am, with the last departure at 2 pm, and on Sundays there is no service at all. There is no direct bus connection to local secondary schools. Catherine from Redbourn says it plainly:

“While you might have had to wait ten minutes in London for a bus, here we have three buses a day to Harpenden—you cannot rely on the buses.”

In Berkhamsted, we worked with local campaigners to bring back the 500 bus every half hour, but the service stops at 7 pm. It is a similar story in Tring. I once tried to get a bus across my constituency, from Wheathampstead to Berkhamsted, but what should have been a 30-minute drive took four hours. The recommended route from Harpenden to Berkhamsted is actually via London and costs £35 one way.

Hannah, a sixth-form student from Harpenden, makes the point well:

“Public transport allows me as a young person to visit friends and do activities outside the House—it gives me independence.”

She adds:

“I have never considered living in Harpenden in the future, because it would be far too expensive to buy a place to live.”

That is a double failure by this Government that needs to be heard. Young people say they cannot afford to stay and cannot get around even if they could.

So what about the train? In the last four weeks, only seven out of 122 daily trains from Harpenden to London ran 100% on time. From Berkhamsted to London, only three out of 78 daily departures ran 100% on time, and from Tring there were also only three. From driver availability issues to Thameslink core infrastructure failures and a bottleneck around Croydon, it seems that things will only get worse as pressures grow around the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton. Beyond housing development, I have mentioned the other pressures from the expansion of Luton and Gatwick airports, and the Universal Studios development.

There is a two-track bottleneck through central London, and when it fails, the whole line fails. Govia Thameslink Railway has asked the Government for funding for a back-up system; has that been agreed? What are the Government doing to work with rail operators to prepare for the pressures that are building up on the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton?

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Like in my hon. Friend’s constituency, there are all kinds of speculative developments in Surrey Heath, but one of the greatest challenges we face is the potential relocation of Frimley Park hospital. When I asked about the budget that had been set aside for the creation of new roads, railway stations, road improvements and road-widening schemes, I was told that no money had been set aside and that any costs might come, notionally, from a contingency fund. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is no way to use a contingency fund? If Government bodies cannot get it right, what hope should we have for private developers?

[Victoria Collins]

Quite frankly, I find it shameful. It is no wonder that communities are pushing back on development if they see that the infrastructure is not there, and if they cannot get around and cannot get a GP appointment, yet they see thousands of new homes being built. No wonder public trust has been lost.

I could not cover every application across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, but the story is repeated across our corner of Hertfordshire and, indeed, up and down the country. I thank the thousands of constituents who have contacted me. Thousands have written to me about their concerns—94 alone with comments for this debate—and, as I said, several have joined us in the Public Gallery.

Here is the nugget of the issue: if I could say, hand on heart, that top-down planning would, in 10 years’ time, truly deliver affordable, sustainable housing, and houses that local teenagers like Hannah could afford, if I could look her in the eyes and tell her she is wrong about not being able to afford a home, and if I could say that the infrastructure would be built, that developers would not squeeze out of their commitments and that trains and buses would catch up and be up to scratch, I would be making very different arguments. But I cannot.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

The latest NPPF makes it clear that transport planning and infrastructure should be designed in at the outset, but my rural constituency has seen continuous large-scale development outside towns, from which it takes 25 minutes to walk into a town centre. There are no buses. It is not like London where, after waiting five minutes, a bus turns up; a person can wait two hours and nothing turns up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the NPPF needs to allocate funding, on top of the commitment to make sure that transport is considered at the outset?

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely; I agree completely.

I come back to the promise that I would like to make to Hannah but cannot. Given that the average house price in Berkhamsted is over £650,000, and in Harpenden is more than £900,000, and given that last year the median new build price across the constituency was £747,500, so-called affordable homes—an average house—in expensive postcodes like ours, priced at 80% of market value, still cost more than half a million pounds. How on earth can we say to local people that they are sacrificing green belt so that their children or grandchildren can afford to buy? Local people know that is not the truth, which is why they are pushing back.

Local people understand the need for housing, but they cannot understand why powers are being taken away from them, top-down targets are pushing expensive homes on to communities that need genuinely affordable housing, and precious landscapes are being sacrificed. They cannot understand why Labour have not learned the lessons from the last Government. Communities will again be left without the transport infrastructure they need, and local people will be forced to move away. I call on the Minister and the Government to hear our calls for infrastructure-first and community-led development. It is the least that our communities deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. I reiterate that the people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and all our local villages are not nimbys. They understand the need for housing—and genuinely affordable housing. However, it is clear that they cannot understand a planning system that hands power to developers and takes it away from communities. This debate has shown that many Members and their local populations have the same frustrations.

What the Minister talked about is a nice display of how, while local councils supposedly have these powers, in many ways the reality undermines their use of them, as I outlined, leaving communities still facing a developer-led system. That means doubling housing targets without doubling infrastructure. Nor can people understand a system that leaves villages such as Redbourn facing 70% growth through the grey belt. As the Minister mentioned the grey belt, I should clarify that it does not protect villages, it protects towns. That is a problem with the NPPF, and something that I will be putting forward in the consultation, and yet local people are also being expected to sacrifice precious landscapes for homes their own children still cannot afford.

Trains cancelled daily; buses that stop at 2 pm; roads built for horse-drawn carts that are now gridlocked—that is the reality of planning without infrastructure. I welcome the current reviews of the NPPF, but what will happen to villages such as Redbourn and others under the current planning system, still outlined by Labour, if they turn out to have been dealt a really bad card? Will they be able to retrofit some of that planning infrastructure? It really is an issue for our local communities.

I would also push gently on the Thameslink question. Some of the proposals are welcome, but it is going to be a massive issue for so many communities all along the Bedford-Brighton link. We really must look again at that infrastructure. There is a real issue at the core of Thameslink, whether around Croydon or elsewhere.

I ask the Minister to take back one message to his team: communities like mine do not want to choose between housing and infrastructure; they both need to be planned together from the start. That infrastructure and community-led development are the least that our communities deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I have travelled on that line and I know the challenges. The Friends of the Barton Line do incredible work to raise issues relating to passenger experience, and East Midlands Railway is working to improve train performance on this route. I will support my hon. Friend and the Friends of the Barton Line to improve the service further.

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

T3. Beyond the legitimate environmental concerns about Luton airport expansion, can the Government explain how an already unreliable Thameslink and packed road network will cope with the 13 million extra passengers a year, as well as a new theme park and massive top-down housing development?

[Heidi Alexander]

When planning permission was granted for the expansion of Luton airport, careful consideration was given to how people would access the airport, by road and by rail, and Luton also has the DART link. When it comes to the accessibility of the new Universal theme park, we are investing in rail networks such as East West Rail at Stewartby.

Railways Bill

Victoria Collins Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I am looking forward to serving on the Public Bill Committee, because this Bill is a long-awaited opportunity to reshape our rail network for the better. It is an opportunity to deliver real value, reliability and affordability for passengers across the whole of the country, but especially in underserved rural communities such as West Dorset. I welcome key provisions such as the commitment to a long-term strategy, a more integrated approach to track and train, the retention of the important regulatory role of the ORR, a strong focus on accessibility and the ambition to simplify a fragmented structure that, for too long and too often, has pushed infrastructure and operations in different directions.

My constituents repeatedly tell me that they want reliability and affordability above all, which is why we also welcome the freeze in rail fares—long campaigned for by the Liberal Democrats—that was announced in the Budget. West Dorset’s rural rail network, including the Salisbury to Exeter line, is crucial for our communities, yet its infrastructure remains outdated and fragile. The recommendations of the “Connecting South West England” report are clear: electrification, upgrading single track sections and additional passing points such as the much-needed Tisbury loop would dramatically improve reliability and capacity, and reduce the delays that plague the line today. Too often, rural lines are left with old, uncomfortable and unreliable trains.

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

My hon. Friend talks about unreliable service. I have in my constituency Thameslink and London Northwestern Railway. Doreen, who is in her 80s, talks about cancellation after cancellation. In her mid-80s, she had to wait until past midnight. Then there is Katy, and others. For those cancelled services, the value is awful. They have to pay £30 for a 30-minute return journey. Does he agree that we need to know from the Government what mechanisms there are to hold operators accountable to make sure passengers get the service they pay for?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100%. I very much hope that the Bill will give us the opportunity to improve that level of service.

End-of-the-line stopping services should not be defined by graffiti, broken heating, limited seating and high fares. What we want are modern trains with reliable wi-fi, working toilets, clear visual and audio information systems for disabled passengers, and safe, well-lit stations.

If the Bill delivers anything, I hope it will deliver the return of the buffet trolley. On rail journeys lasting over an hour, a guaranteed minimum level of food and drink provision should be a basic expectation of modern public transport. Whether it is a parent travelling with children, an older passenger managing a long trip, commuters trying to work on the move, or maybe a Member of Parliament hoping for a gin and tonic on the way home, access to refreshments is important.

I would also like the Bill to support our climate commitments. That means accelerating electrification, expanding battery and hydrogen use where appropriate, and setting clear standards for freight and passenger emissions. A long-term rail strategy must be transparent, regularly reviewed, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and designed with future climate pressures in mind, including the modelling of environmental impacts, such as the soil moisture deficit—already mentioned—that has severely disrupted services in Dorset.

There are elements of the Bill that cause concern. Many will rightly question whether Great British Railways, as currently proposed, risks becoming a rail version of NHS England: a large, centralised body with limited agility, limited parliamentary accountability, and simply an opportunity for ministerial micromanagement. If the Secretary of State wants more power, then accountability to Parliament must increase alongside it.

Passengers deserve clear, measurable outcomes on affordability, reliability and accessibility, not vague commitments that cannot be scrutinised. We need to be able to get answers and get change for our constituents if standards fall below acceptable levels, and not have to deal with arm’s length bodies.

Passengers must be protected from excessive charges and hidden fees. The GBR app and website should never add unnecessary booking fees or administrative costs. Instead, we should push for open-source fare systems that allow passengers easily to find the best deal. Expanding discount schemes, especially for young people through “rail miles” systems, would help people travel more and reduce costs for families.

Finally, the Bill must lead to a railway where back-office systems are rationalised, data is used to improve passenger experience, and long-term planning is not sacrificed for short-term crisis management. Passengers deserve honesty about upcoming delays, clarity on long-term upgrades, and confidence that today’s problems are not simply passed on to tomorrow’s Parliament.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a railway that works: for commuters, for rural communities, for disabled passengers, for young people seeking opportunity, and for the climate. I look forward to working with Ministers and colleagues from across the House to strengthen the Bill in Committee and deliver a railway worthy of the people we serve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has been a great supporter of her local team’s plan for a new home town stadium. Warwickshire county council will receive £68.7 million through the local transport grant, which local leaders can use to support schemes that are in line with local priorities. The Department will issue guidance later this year to support local authorities in deciding how to use their multi-year allocations.

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

Although train stations such as Harpenden and Berkhamsted are still open, to many residents, they feel closed. Frankie says that her train travel costs from Berkhamsted went from £19 to £37, and she can no longer get to work. Oliver from Harpenden says the same thing. Residents cannot use their train stations because the costs are too high, so there is much that we need to do. Will the Minister join Neill in Harpenden in calling for contactless to be linked to the network rail, to make it easier and cheaper for residents to use those stations?

[Lilian Greenwood]

As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the Railways Bill will shortly come before this House. We will create Great British Railways, which will make our railways much more convenient for people across the country. I am sure that she looks forward to debating that Bill.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kohler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Kohler]

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

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

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Victoria Collins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon]

With respect to my right hon. Friend, I will not, because I am conscious that lots of Members want to speak.

Those safeguards are designed to ensure that franchising serves the passengers who rely on our bus services and the taxpayers who pay for them. The expertise required to design, manage and operate franchised networks is not readily available in most councils. That is why the Bus Services Act 2017 limited franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities, which are bodies with the scale, resources and democratic mandate to take on such responsibilities.

Crucially, the legislation we enacted to pave the way for mayoral combined authorities to issue franchising models also required those authorities to demonstrate that franchising would deliver genuine benefits for passengers. The removal of that requirement by this Bill is concerning, and it betrays the view held by those on the Government side of the House that the public sector is inherently infallible. Members will not be shocked that I do not share that view, but they do not need to take my word for it.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

I will make some progress and then give way.

Members should take the word of Centre for Cities, which has made it clear that expanding franchising could expose councils to serious financial risks, because after decades of deregulated services, many transport authorities simply lack the skills and capacity to manage a comprehensive bus network, yet would be financially responsible if an undertaking goes wrong.

These are not just hypothetical concerns. The experience in Greater Manchester illustrates just how easily costs can spiral, leaving the taxpayer out of pocket. The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that initial projections published in Greater Manchester combined authority’s transport revenue budget put the cost of transitioning to a franchised system at £134.5 million for 2024-25. That figure has since ballooned, with ongoing operational costs now forecast to exceed £226 million per year by 2025-26, which is a 68% increase in one year. Over four years, the scheme could cost up to £1 billion—far, far more than anticipated. Moreover, the House will know that the annual level of bus subsidy in London last year amounted to £646 million. Greater London is the most heavily populated and most economically active area in the entire country. It also has the highest level of bus use. Yet even with all those advantages, it requires that level of annual subsidy just to keep the network running.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins]

It is really important that we stop the vicious cycle. In my area of Harpenden and Berkhamsted, the X5 has been cancelled for commercial reasons. The bus company says it is no longer commercially viable, but that has left people who work in the local hospital saying, “I might have to move house or leave my job.” There are children who now have to wait at school or who cannot get back from school because the bus goes too late. We need to stop the vicious cycle and make sure the funding is there, and this is a good start to help bring buses back to the communities that need them.

[Gareth Bacon]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which is that without substantial extra levels of funding from the Government, that simply will not happen. Local authorities may have the powers to do it, but they simply will not have the ability.

The Government have talked about the amount of money they are putting into the Bill and the Secretary of State referred to it in her speech, but it is a mere £1 billion, of which £700 million has been earmarked for bus planning documents, not actual services. Less than 30% is being directed toward the delivery of bus services themselves, which will not touch the sides. Giving local authorities the legal power to do something without the money is mere window dressing. If these challenges can emerge in Greater Manchester and Greater London despite all their resources, planning and political leadership, what should we expect elsewhere? The truth is that we do not know, and that highlights the danger at the heart of the Bill.

On a connected vein, through franchising, we may end up extinguishing a number of highly successful private sector businesses, reducing them to operating for a fee and doing what the state instructs them to do in terms of routes, services and fares. Quite aside from losing the expertise that the private sector brings to the network, the Government risk removing any incentive for the private sector to invest in our bus networks, potentially leaving the taxpayer with ever greater burdens.

Despite my various concerns about this legislation, I would like to recognise that the Bill we see before us was greatly improved during its passage through the other place—improvements driven notably but not exclusively by Conservative peers. The purpose clause, which obligates the Secretary of State to consider service performance, quality and accessibility, was a much-needed addition, as was the amendment requiring an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 fare cap. Successful amendments requiring the Secretary of State to review bus services to villages in England, to develop a programme to eliminate serious injury during bus operations, and to require bus operators to record all data regarding assaults and violent behaviour, were all tabled by peers from other political parties to His Majesty’s Opposition and, collectively, they improve the Bill. The latter amendment was tabled by the noble Lord Woodley, a Labour peer and former joint general secretary of the Unite trade union. It was, bizarrely, opposed by Labour peers, but it succeeded with the support of Conservative peers and those of other parties.

A further successful Conservative amendment was passed, mandating a review of the national insurance burden on special educational needs transport, following the increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that it is deeply regrettable that Labour peers were whipped to vote against a measure designed solely to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society. In opposing the special educational needs transport amendment in the other place, the Government asserted:

“The Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant effect on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment that this amendment suggests.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 1756.]

Leaving aside the breathtaking arrogance of that statement, it is directly contradicted by the very providers tasked with delivering these vital services. The chairman of the 24x7 Group, one of the largest operators of SEND transport in the country, has warned that changes to national insurance contributions could significantly raise employment costs, making some contracts unviable. That has the potential to leave thousands of children without access to the transport they rely on to attend school. To oppose even a review of such consequences is not just shortsighted; it speaks to a worrying indifference about the impact of this legislation on vulnerable passengers.

The Opposition were also disappointed that Labour peers voted against introducing a safeguard against repeated franchising assessments for the same geographical area, which risks wasting public resources and creating instability for operators and passengers alike. Similarly, it was disappointing to see Labour peers not support plans to ensure that floating bus stops do not threaten the safety of those who are blind and partially sighted.

Likewise, if improving passenger services is at the heart of the Bill, I fail to understand why Labour peers were whipped to vote against the amendment that would give the Secretary of State the power to intervene when franchised services fail due to poor local management. Does the Secretary of State really believe that passengers should be left stranded simply because a local authority is unable to deliver? I do not believe that to be the case and I look forward to her amending the Bill as it proceeds through the House.

Why did Labour peers vote against those measures? Once again, it would appear that ideology took precedence over passengers. That is why we will push to reinstate these prudent amendments as the Bill proceeds through the House. The Liberal Democrats supported many of the measures in the other place and I sincerely hope they will do the same in this House, for the benefit of passengers.

In conclusion, franchising may well play an important role in improving the bus networks of the future, but the Bill alone will not get us there. That is because the Bill does not prioritise those who matter most: the people who rely on buses every single day to get to work, attend school, reach appointments and stay connected with their communities. While we welcome the positive changes made by peers in the other place and we will not divide the House on Second Reading, we cannot vote for a Bill that lacks basic safeguards, ignores the risks and prioritises ideology over impact. We will therefore seek to improve the Bill as it proceeds through the House. I urge the House to consider not just the political implications of this legislation, but its real-world consequences for the millions who depend on these services every day.

Airport Expansion

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and, even from this Lancastrian, for his chairmanship of the APPG for Yorkshire. I will say a couple of things. We have five great northern runways, and we need to begin to improve their capacity and connectivity. That is key to regional economic growth. Hopefully, whoever comes forward with the DCO for Heathrow will, as they have in the past, look at spreading the wealth and at logistic hubs right not just around our country, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

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

My local communities, including Flamstead, Markyate and Wheathampsted, are already plagued by Luton airport and very worried about expansion. If the Minister cannot answer questions about evidence for a positive impact on growth and the economy, can he at least guarantee that the Government will listen to their own climate experts and have a framework in place before any airport expansion?

[Mike Kane]

Yes, is the answer. We will come forward, very shortly, with a policy framework. We have not had one for many years. It is more than time to update it—the hon. Lady is right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been campaigning on this issue since the moment she set foot in this House. I would be delighted to meet her to see how we can take forward this important project.

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

Local people in Harpenden and Berkhamsted are already blighted by noise from Luton airport, and are highly concerned about the proposed expansion to almost double passenger capacity. What assessment has the Minister made of the compatibility of the expansion with the views of the Government’s own advisers, the Climate Change Committee?

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

Currently, Luton airport is part of a development consent order, on which I cannot comment as a Minister, but I would remind people that it is always important to balance noise and local economic activity.

Cost of Rail Fares

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for raising this important topic. As the MP for Guildford, I can speak for those of my constituents who commute, and I share in their pain on the daily commute from Guildford. Every single week, residents suffer terrible service on the trains, with delays and general problems. It is no wonder, then, that constituents who commute to London and many other locations across the south-east and beyond feel incredibly frustrated by the fact that fees continue to rise while the service continues to deteriorate. Will the Minister commit not just to hold train companies to account more effectively, but to ask them to freeze rail fares until their services improve?

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

In Harpenden, commuters face the absurd reality that a single off-peak ticket can cost £18.40, but 11 minutes further on people can get an Oyster fare at Radlett for £5.90. Does my hon. Friend agree that this absurd and unfair pricing system needs to be reviewed?

[Zöe Franklin]

I agree, and I completely understand the ridiculousness of train fares across different areas. I have incredibly high train fares for travelling very small distances in my constituency, which it is deeply frustrating.

Commuters find the situation frustrating because they want to switch to trains. If we are serious about tackling the climate crisis and encouraging people to switch their mode of transport to the railways, we must address both reliability and train fares. People look at the train service and say, “It is not convenient, it is not reliable and it is expensive.” We must stop train fares rising, because we need to encourage people to get out of their cars and choose the sustainable transport method that is the railway.