Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, it might be helpful to indicate that after the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be a five-minute time limit. I do not propose to drop it any further than that and, given the number of Members here, many may be disappointed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I would like to concentrate not just on purely rural areas, but on places like Surrey. In my constituency, the 514 bus connects Esher and Molesey, two important centres of our community, but it runs only twice on weekdays and once on a Saturday. On Sundays it is never to be seen. The service was severely cut back in 2016. To travel a distance of a mile and a half, people have to get a bus more than five miles into London and out again, which takes 40 minutes—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I have made this point before, but interventions really must be shorter than that. There are many hon. Members who wish to get in.

[Mr Kohler]

I will simply say that I agree with my hon. Friend.

Hon. Members have spoken about rural areas suffering. From 2015 to 2023, Shropshire lost 63% of its bus miles, the largest decline in any part of England. No doubt that was one reason among many that Shropshire voters decided that they had had enough of the Conservatives. In May, they voted a majority Liberal Democrat administration in for the first time.

Although the bus service in Shropshire is one of the worst in the country, it is by no means an isolated case. I have heard from colleagues and residents across the country, just as the House has heard today, that in rural areas such as Norfolk, Somerset and Hampshire, having no buses—or one bus a day, if residents are lucky—has sadly become the norm for many villages. This is not just inconvenient; it is holding back our rural economies and stifling growth. I fear that the measures in the Bill will not be sufficient to reverse that decline.

Lastly, I want to address accessibility, an issue on which my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place and other noble Lords have made good progress and have secured a number of improvements. As originally drafted, the Bill included positive provision on the mandatory training of staff, both in supporting disabled passengers and in tackling antisocial behaviour on board. We support those measures, but the Liberal Democrats believe that true accessibility means more than awareness training; it means fully accessible vehicles, clear signage and announcements, and accessible journey planning tools. Critically, it means accessible infrastructure, from bus stops to ticket machines.

The excellent amendment to ensure accessibility guidance on the provision of floating bus stops, which if badly designed can prove a real hazard to disabled people, was inserted after representations from the Lib Dem transport lead in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon. The inclusion of bus network accessibility plans, after pressure from Baroness Brinton among others, is an important amendment that will go some way towards helping us to understand the barriers that disabled residents face in accessing a vital lifeline. We must not be complacent, however. I anticipate that more work will need to be done in Committee, as the Secretary of State has intimated, to probe the Bill’s provisions and ensure that they are as effective as they can be.

I will conclude where I began. My party and I welcome many aspects of the Bill. After years of Tory neglect, provisions to give local authorities more control of and input into their local bus networks are long overdue and clearly sensible, but we cannot give local authorities tantalising new powers without a practical means of using them. That will require sustained investment and reform of the funding models. I acknowledge that the Government have promised to include longer-term funding settlements in the spring spending review, but noises off suggest that those are unlikely to address the shortfall in local government funding.

The Bill will provide the necessary tools, but if councils are to build something effective with them, they will need not just legislation, but the finance, expertise and flexibility required to give effect to their vision and address their communities’ needs. I urge the Secretary of State to go back to the Treasury and ask for more, because financing a viable bus network is key to growing our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

In Tunbridge Wells, buses are not a luxury: they connect schoolchildren to their classrooms, the elderly to their communities, carers to patients, and people unable to drive to jobs, shops and healthcare. When those links are weakened, lives are disrupted and communities start to fracture. If lockdown taught us anything, it is that social isolation is not just lonely, but incredibly damaging to mental health, and that has knock-on effects throughout our whole society. Without a reliable bus service, people are stuck at home. Dependable public transport is not just a convenience; it is an economic, social and health imperative.

In my constituency, schoolchildren take the 267 from Horsmonden—a route cobbled together by merging disconnected services. It winds slowly through villages and regularly arrives late, meaning that children often miss the start of school. This is a failure to support our children’s educations. Worse, the price of a child’s annual bus pass in Kent is extortionate: parents pay £550 per child for them to arrive late or not at all. Now, with the £2 fare cap rising to £3, a commuter making two journeys a day, five days a week, will pay an extra £500 extra each year, on top of the cost of living crisis, with soaring bills, rent and food prices. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the fare cap to be reinstated at £2.

It is not just schoolchildren and commuters; many elderly and low-income residents rely on buses to maintain independence and reduce social isolation, yet services are still being cut. In Tunbridge Wells, the 289 no longer runs on weekends, isolating residents from Southborough to Showfields. People can commute to work, they might be able to squeeze in a shop on a Tuesday and perhaps they could meet some friends for a drink on a Friday, but if they want to go out on Saturday, they are stuck. There is no bus and no connection—nowhere to go. For those who do not have time to shop or socialise during the week, it is tough luck.

In Paddock Wood, a town of 7,500 people, there is no direct service to Pembury hospital on a Sunday. What message does that send to NHS workers and patients without cars? The lack of weekend service is a constituency-wide issue that disproportionately affects the elderly, disabled people and low-income families. It is not just inconvenient—it is unfair.

Rural villages have seen services slashed. The 255 once connected Hawkhurst to Lamberhurst to Tunbridge Wells, but its removal now cuts communities off from rail, shops, pharmacies, GPs and each other. There is no bus at all to Ashurst, a village five miles from Tunbridge Wells, the nearest shopping and rail centre. Parents drop children to neighbouring villages to catch the bus to school, but still pay £500 for the privilege.

My constituents are waiting for buses that never come, or watching their routes disappear. Over 25% of passengers in Kent are dissatisfied with their bus service and 27% of buses are either late or cancelled. That is why I welcome the provisions in the Bill to empower local authorities to protect socially necessary routes—those that get people to school, healthcare or work. Such measures are absolutely essential, but we must go further; we need to restore and expand services to tackle frustration and isolation.

I welcome the £23 million pledged by the Government to Kent county council for bus service improvement, but that was under the Conservatives. Reform is now running Kent county council, but frankly I would not trust it to run a bath. Its priorities are not public services. Last night we saw the announcement of a DOGE—a department of government efficiency—starting at Kent county council. That is a bit of a joke when we consider that the new Reform administration decided to cancel the first iteration of the audit and governance committee; one assumes that would fulfil the same function as a DOGE.

We must have proper local consultation to ensure that the £23 million is spent appropriately and responsibly by the Reform administration in Kent. With the right investment and priorities, focused on children, the elderly and healthcare, we can bring in a network that brings people together and does not leave them behind.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With a birthday contribution, I call Alex Mayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill. As a public transport user, I know that our buses do not always work for the people and communities that they purport to serve. For many of us, a privatised system with only a handful of companies running routes and setting fares has led to rising ticket prices, without the reliability to go with them.

London’s relatively well-run and highly regulated system has been an outlier in Britain until recent years—that is, until we have had some Labour metro mayors, who have made changes. Despite Huddersfield having had the busiest bus station in West Yorkshire before the pandemic, its bus services declined by more than a fifth between 2010 and 2023. This decline is not just a local issue; it reflects a wider pattern of regional under-investment.

The historical disparities between London and the north on transport spending are stark. In 2017, London received £944 per person on transport spending, while Yorkshire and the Humber received just £335. If the north had received the same amount per person as London between 2008 and 2018, it would have had £66 billion more spent on it. The Bill is long overdue as a starting point to turn things around.

A few weeks ago, at a coffee morning with local residents in Netherton, the key issue raised was buses. Inconsistent timetables, unreliable services and the withdrawal of the local village route have made it harder for people to get to work or appointments or to see family and friends. I therefore welcome the Government’s investment in transport in our region, including £36 million for West Yorkshire’s buses. As part of that investment, I was glad to see the recent launch of the fully integrated Weaver transport network—a nod to our textiles heritage—by our West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin.

We know that funding alone is not enough, however. We need a system that gives local areas the power to design services around local need. The Bill will take us in the right direction: in West Yorkshire, we will see the first buses going under public control from 2027. It will allow more flexible and locally responsive integrated mass transport networks and we will finally get a tram in West Yorkshire, which is fantastic.

It is worth recognising local employers such as Camira in Huddersfield. When you sit on a bus, Madam Deputy Speaker, the fabrics on it are likely to have come from a textile firm in Huddersfield. Camira’s fabrics are used on buses, trams, trains and the London tube, which shows how transport investment supports not just passengers, but skilled jobs in towns like mine.

I want to mention a couple more things, including safety. For many people, accessing bus stations, bus stops or buses at night is very difficult, so ensuring that we have CCTV and safe travel officers will be really important. We also know that there has been inequity in bus service cuts, which have been deeper in low-income areas than in more affluent areas. That is not just unfair, but bad for growth, bad for health and bad for quality.

The Bill is a foundation for getting the implementation right. With strong local powers, fair funding and a focus on equity, we can rebuild trust in our bus network and create a system that truly works for everyone.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

This has been a really enjoyable debate. One of the great benefits of winding up is that we are forced to sit and listen to absolutely everything. Most speeches I enjoyed, but there were one or two that I did not. It is up to hon. Members to work out whether I am talking about them.

The contributions to this debate have been enlightening, because they have exposed some clear differences of economic and political philosophy among the parties. The Liberal Democrats, one after another, argued for improved services, particularly rural services, but were less clear about how to fund them. On the Labour Benches, there was huge optimism and enthusiasm under the perhaps mistaken belief that the Bill, in itself, will improve passenger services for their constituents. The truth is that when we look at the terms of the Bill, it is clear that the focus of its reforms is not primarily on improving bus services for passengers—quite the contrary.

In the other place, Labour whipped its peers to vote against what is now clause 1, which makes the improvement of the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain the purpose of the Bill. I send birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and make a plea on her behalf for her Whips not to be too harsh on her for her support of clause 1. Perhaps she was unaware that it was opposed by her own party in the other place.

Why do the Government not want to put performance improvement at the heart of the Bill? Because that is not the Bill’s primary intention. Labour’s true focus was set out in its background briefing to the King’s Speech. It is about

“accelerating the bus franchising process…building on the success of…public bus services still in operation.”

No mention there of passengers, performance, improvements or cost control; it is the structure of the bus providers that has excited the Government. They intend to increase the number of municipal bus companies, presumably because they think that civil servants are better equipped to run efficient bus companies than private sector operators. I can see that, in some examples, that is possible. I spoke to the managing director of the Warrington bus company last week and I was impressed by the performance figures, although they are very unusual.

However, the Government’s faith does not translate into confidence that the new municipal bus companies could win a competitive tender, as the Bill, perhaps inadvertently, allows local authorities to do away with competition. Extraordinarily, as currently drafted, it would allow any local authority to first create a new municipal bus company and then grant itself a franchise, without any competitive process. If that is deliberate, it really would be the triumph of socialist political ideology: that the state is somehow better.

Franchising is an alternative solution, potentially allowing greater co-ordination of transport provision, but it comes at a cost. It takes commercial risk away from the bus operators and puts it in the hands of local authorities. It requires dynamic contract, design and management skills. It is necessarily complex and, if done badly, risks the removal of the innovative power of the private sector, replacing it with state direction.

Let me say again what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made abundantly clear at the opening of this debate: we do not oppose bus franchising in principle. We support it, in fact, when it delivers value for money and, above all, when it improves services for passengers. But what we have seen from the Government today is a refusal to engage with the very real risks embedded in the Bill. The existing 2017 legislation has been referred to more than once during the debate. It recognises that mayoral combined authorities have the scale and resources needed to manage the development of franchise model. However, even here, political ineptitude and mayoral hubris can make a mess of things.

Andy Burnham’s Bee Network has been touted as the socialist example to follow—[Interruption.] I hear it from the Government Front Bench right now, but let us have a look at what has actually happened in Manchester. Buses that cost the private sector £180,000 cost Andy Burnham £220,000. Bus depots that cost the private sector less than £4 million cost Andy Burnham more than £12 million—in fact, nearly £13 million. Private sector bus companies train sufficient staff for their needs while Andy’s team, having failed to secure enough trained drivers, is in the absurd position of having to pay more than 400 agency staff to drive their buses at inflated hourly rates and with accommodation costs on top. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated at £17.4 million a year and rising.

Who is focusing on cost reductions in Manchester? Well, it is not the bus companies—it is not their job to reduce costs any more. In fact, the bigger the overall contract cost, the more profit they make. Require them to give above-inflation pay rises to unionised staff, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. It goes on the bill, and they get a profit percentage on top. Require them to donate to charity, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. Just add it to the bill, and get a profit percentage on top. Profits go up as the size of the contract increases. While Labour claims to have increased value for money because of the much-touted reduced profit percentage, the taxpayer is quietly fleeced. This is the doublespeak of Labour’s “value for money”.

What is the real cost of Labour’s return to “On the Buses”? Had Andy Burnham stuck to his own business plan, the Bee Network should have been profitable after the transition period, but because of his self-aggrandising hubris and statist ineptitude, the loss for this year alone is forecast to be £226 million and it is likely to rise further in the years ahead—that is £1 billion in under four years. And that is in a mayoral combined authority, although admittedly a Labour one.

Has this worked to increase traveller numbers? Between 2022 and 2024, Greater Manchester has experienced a 34.34% increase in ridership, according to Government figures, but let’s look at my county of Norfolk, which has a Conservative county council: its enhanced partnership has increased ridership over the same period by 43%. Let’s look at Essex—again, a Conservative-run council with an enhanced partnership, which has increased ridership by 52.3%. In the wider context, Greater Manchester has in fact underperformed.

Why does the Bill remove the crucial safeguards that ensured franchising was rolled out by authorities with at least a notional capacity to deliver? Why has Labour walked away from giving the Secretary of State the power to intervene if the worst happens and services fail? Why does the Bill not require a competitive tender process when local authorities decide to run their own bus companies? Labour appears content to let any council, regardless of size, experience, expertise or cash reserves, take on these huge financial and organisational risks. That is not empowering local government; that is setting it up to fail. And that is before we talk about money.

These franchising powers are meaningless without the money to implement them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington made clear, just £243 million of the £1 billion promised by Labour is destined for actual bus services. That does not even satisfy Andy Burnham’s bus habit for a year. What about the rest of the country? Without billions—literally billions—of pounds to back up this Bill, it is just posturing. So where is the money? The answer is that there isn’t any. The Government have scrapped the Conservatives’ £2 bus fare, which was genuine financial support focused 100% on passengers, and now it is rumoured that even the £3 bus fare is due for the chop. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. The Government tell us they have a plan for passengers, but it seems that their plan for passengers is to make them pay more.

The Bill needs to have the improvement of passenger services at its heart. It needs to encourage the innovation and efficiency of the private sector. It needs to consider vulnerable SEND children and their educational needs. It needs to recognise the huge financial risks of franchising and municipal bus ownership, and to provide appropriate oversight and support. Most importantly, it needs a Government who are prepared to think again in Committee and be open to improvements to the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Minister, can I just remind Members—I appreciate that I am largely preaching to the choir here—that they are expected to attend for the wind-ups when they have spoken in a debate. Today, many Members have not had the opportunity to be called, but have sat here throughout; perhaps they will point that out to their colleagues.