High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion on the Select Committee:

That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over):

1. The Committee is to have five members.

2. The members of the Committee are—

(a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and

(b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection.

4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that—

(a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and

(b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.

[Heidi Alexander]

The motions we have before us today are vital for the delivery of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill. It is important that I am clear at the outset about what these motions do and what they do not do. This is categorically not about reinstating HS2 north of the west midlands, and neither are these motions about addressing the longer-term capacity constraints of the west coast main line between Manchester and Birmingham. Instead, the motions are simply focused on ensuring that the Government follow the speediest and most logical consenting route to progressing plans for a new rail line between Liverpool and Manchester—a line that will also call at Warrington and Manchester airport. This new line, which will connect two great cities in the north of England, is part of the second phase of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which this Government committed to last month.

Before turning to why it is important to maintain the Bill’s momentum via today’s motions, it may be helpful if I set out a brief history of the Bill’s passage. Hon. Members will recall that in His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, this Government announced our commitment to carrying over this Bill from the previous Parliament. The Government recognise the importance of rail infrastructure in driving economic growth, enhancing productivity and unlocking opportunity in all parts of the country. The Bill itself is the mechanism by which planning consent for the eastern part of the new route between Liverpool and Manchester can be granted. Given our ambitions for the north of England, it is important that we crack on and get it done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I will ensure that the organisations the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are appropriately consulted throughout this process. We as a Government are determined to work in partnership with all stakeholders —landowners, businesses and individuals—who are affected. The hybrid Bill Select Committee is of course a quasi-judicial process, but on behalf of my Department I undertake to make sure that all appropriate conversations are happening.

Alongside this Bill, we are undertaking development work for the connection to Liverpool via Warrington Bank Quay. We will work in partnership with local stakeholders throughout the development process, and the detailed route from Millington to Liverpool will be subject to future consultation. We will determine the consenting route for this part of the line in due course. We will ensure that work on both the eastern and western section of the new Liverpool to Manchester line is fully integrated, and that we do everything we can to ensure that the new line is open for use as soon as possible once phase 1 of Northern Powerhouse Rail in Yorkshire is completed.

Before I close, I would like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for their valuable work to date on the hybrid Bill Select Committee in the previous Parliament.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks for what must have seemed a very thankless task in the Select Committee.

This is a slightly odd legislative vehicle, but the motion is a practical mechanism used by the last Government to allow for continued progress on railway improvements to create Northern Powerhouse Rail, and it was moved across three Sessions of Parliament. The Conservative Government of the day decided to carry over this Bill to use it as a wrapper to support Northern Powerhouse Rail. The project was championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) during his Administration, so it is no surprise to me that the Government have followed his lead in their proposal to carry it over again.

Back in May 2024, Parliament reduced the scope of a much wider Bill to focus solely on NPR, so the issue now before this House is in fact a very narrow one: whether there is a collective will to progress development of a roughly 15-mile stretch of track as part of this Government’s plans to progress Northern Powerhouse Rail.

The House is also being asked to agree to the establishment of a new Select Committee. That obviously matters because the Bill is a hybrid Bill, and it is through the Select Committee process that outstanding petitions from those directly affected will be considered. It is also the structure through which any additional provisions brought forward by the Government to reshape the Bill will be scrutinised, and those newly affected, if there are any, by any proposal will be given the opportunity to be heard. If this Bill is to be properly repurposed, it clearly makes sense that the work of the associated Select Committee carries on.

The Opposition accept the rationale for allowing the current process to survive the end of this parliamentary Session to give the Government further time to continue their work. However, while we agree that they should continue with the Bill, it is with increasing concern that I look at the lack of progress they are actually making. We are a year and a half into the Labour Administration, and all we got a couple of weeks ago was a fanfare announcement that Labour would commission consultants’ reports on how Northern Powerhouse Rail could be built. There are not just a few reports, but £275 million of reports every year of this Parliament—£1.1 billion of them—but no sign of any significant building works.

Real progress has been kicked down the road, perhaps because the Secretary of State knows that she does not have the money to do what she has promised. His Majesty’s Treasury has capped Northern Powerhouse Rail at £45 billion, yet that was the claimed cost back in 2019. That was before covid, since when, as we all know, costs have soared. She knows that she does not have the money, so she distracts her Back Benchers with castle-in-the-air planning, with the taxpayer picking up the bill. I asked the Secretary of State a fortnight ago for clarity, transparency and even an indication of how the funds were to be reconciled, and she huffed and she puffed, and said she would not be lectured, but she did not answer the question. We are none the wiser as to how the Government expect to fill the gap. What cuts will she be forced to make, and are they to the high-speed section? Perhaps she could tell the House today.

It would have been better for the public to have had such clarity nearly three weeks ago than the spectacle of the Secretary of State signing bits of paper on her rail tour of northern cities. We want to see these schemes come in on budget and in a timely manner, and addressing local concerns so that communities are not just spoken to, but listened to. To get the best possible result for taxpayers, the Government need to avoid overly onerous environmental mitigations that impose huge costs for minimal benefit. They talk of deregulation to speed up the process, but where is the action to deregulate?

We need to see the Government choosing supply chains based on cost and performance, with value for money for the taxpayer right at the heart of their decision-making process, bringing costs down while speeding up construction. However, the Government are not doing this hard work, and we need a Government with sufficient backbone to be honest about what they can afford to achieve. There is no sign of that. It is on actual delivery that this Government will be judged—not just by me and by the Opposition, but by the public, who, right now, are being let down.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Grahame Morris.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in what I believe is a really important debate. I am delighted to support the Government’s motions, as we continue to invest in and transform our rail network after decades of hollow promises and mismanagement under the Conservatives.

The Bill will allow the Government the powers necessary to deliver on Northern Powerhouse Rail, therefore supporting our economy, creating better jobs, delivering new and much-needed opportunities right across the north-west of England. As a frequent user of rail services in the north of England, it is important to me and my constituents that the Government continue to focus on building capacity, reliability and resilience on one of the busiest rail corridors in the country. The importance of our rail network and infrastructure cannot be overstated. Indeed, its success will have a direct impact on economic growth and productivity.

I take the point about the need for or desirability of cross-party consensus, particularly when looking at such large infrastructure projects. On 14 January, the Government announced that Northern Powerhouse Rail represented the biggest investment in rail connectivity in the north for a generation—some £45 billion. More generally, I am pleased that the Government are looking at the three-phase approach. Its sequencing will ensure that our communities benefit as soon as possible. I note that in phase 1—beyond the scope of the Committee—in my own region in the north-east, work on the business case for the Leamside line is to be taken forward. This is a vital project for connectivity, creating new transport links and promoting wider access to the wider regional and national rail network. I also welcome the proposed upgrades to the lines east of the Pennines, focusing on electrification, an issue that was of great interest and importance during my time as a member of the Transport Committee.

I am pleased by the Government’s overall scale of ambition and real focus on regional rail services. The Bill represents an opportunity for new rail investment and infrastructure, delivering new stations and routes as well as major regeneration projects, leveraging private sector investment and creating better links across the north-west—not only north-south, but east-west.

After many years of raised hopes, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assure the House that the Bill is the most effective means of delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail without any unnecessary delay? This is just a thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been here a little while now and I have served on a number of Joint Committees, mostly pre-legislative Committees, with Members of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised valid concerns about representations from the National Farmers Union and others in respect of the route. However, my experience, having served for a number of years on the previous Bill Committee, is that a hybrid Bill Committee, which this Parliament has adopted not just for HS2 but previously, is a very, very onerous and time-consuming method. It makes vast fortunes for the bureaucracy, the lawyers and the lobbyists. Then the whole process has to be repeated in the House of Lords. I just wonder—it is beyond my pay grade, Madam Deputy Speaker—whether someone further up the tree might give that some thought.

A couple of years ago, Members of the Transport Committee had the opportunity to go to Japan for five days. We saw the Shinkansen, the high-speed bullet train. The Bill for that was passed in the Japanese Parliament, the National Diet, in 1959, and was constructed by 1964, in time for the Tokyo Olympics. We cannot say that Japan is not a democracy, or that the country does not have problems of topography, earthquakes and so on, because it is and it does. There is a method that does not take 10 or 15 years.

We are approaching a period of transformational change in public transport, on the railways in particular. Increased capacity and an improved role for freight in taking heavy goods vehicles off our road network is really important. I fully support today’s motions to carry the Bill beyond the end of this parliamentary Session and to establish the Bill’s Select Committee, so we can get Northern Powerhouse Rail charging full steam ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

We have been clear that we expect work to start on the Yorkshire package of improvements in this Parliament. We have also said that we expect work to start on the link between Manchester and Liverpool in the 2030s. The right hon. Lady will recall that Crossrail in London was granted consent back in 2007 and the line was opened in 2022—I make that 15 years. Railways are not built overnight.

To conclude, the Bill will provide the necessary powers to deliver the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester. Progressing the Bill today is the most efficient approach as it makes use of the work that has already taken place. Today’s motions will allow the Bill to continue its passage through Parliament and will allow the invaluable work of the hybrid Bill Select Committee to recommence. This is a vital step in the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Question put.

A Division was called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill if proceedings on the Bill have not been completed before the end of this Session or any subsequent Session of this Parliament (each a “qualifying Session”).

Suspension at end of qualifying Session

1. Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which the qualifying Session in question ends until the Session that follows it (“the new Session”).

2. If a Bill is presented in the new Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the qualifying Session in question—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the new Session;

(c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in the new Session;

(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—

(i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;

(ii) paragraph 4, if the Bill has been reported from the Select Committee but proceedings on the Bill in Public Bill Committee were not begun when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;

(iii) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended (and see also paragraph 9);

(iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended;

(v) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended;

(vi) paragraph 8, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.

3. If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the qualifying Session;

(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the new Session;

(c) all petitions submitted in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the qualifying Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in the new Session in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;

(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;

(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the new Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in the new Session shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;

(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;

(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;

(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;

(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;

(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.

4. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.

5. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee in respect of those clauses and Schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in the qualifying Session.

6. If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.

7. If this paragraph applies—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and

(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.

8. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.

Other

9. If proceedings in Public Bill Committee are begun but not completed before the end of a qualifying Session, the chair of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House as so far amended and the Bill and any evidence received by the Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.

10. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session—

(a) Session 2021-22;

(b) Session 2022-23;

(c) Session 2023-24;

(d) except where the qualifying Session is this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the qualifying Session;

(e) where the new Session is the first Session of the next Parliament, each qualifying Session

11. In paragraph 1 above, the reference to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).

12. In paragraph 3 above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Select Committee

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over):

1. The Committee is to have five members.

2. The members of the Committee are—

(a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and

(b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection.

4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that—

(a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and

(b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.—(Heidi Alexander.)

Railways Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Transport Committee on 26 November, on the Railways Bill, HC 1472; Written evidence to the Transport Committee, on the Railways Bill, reported to the House on 2 December, HC 1472; Correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales to the Transport Committee, on the Railways Bill, reported to the House on 2 December.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of Mr Richard Holden has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There will be an immediate five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I now call the shadow Secretary of State.

M6: Junction 38

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Shannon, this is a very narrow debate, specifically on junction 38 of the M6. I seek an assurance that your intervention relates only to that.

[Jim Shannon]

It is more than that, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is about the main thoroughfare for lorries and traffic going to Stranraer and then to Larne. It is about that road and that junction. [Laughter.] No, it is a fact. I have talked to those who transport agrifood goods from Northern Ireland to the north of England and Scotland and back again. This debate is wide; its subject will impact not just the local area, but all the businesses in Northern Ireland that need lorries to bring their food in and take their food out. The agrifood sector will be impacted greatly.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Morello]

I think I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am afraid that I do not agree that increasing reporting burdens on industry is a bad thing. Every industry will argue that reporting is onerous. The liturgy starts with water companies. Companies will hide behind not having to report. On the need to move forward with technology, I am reminded that Henry Ford once said, “If I asked people what they want, they would say a faster horse.” The reality is that technology will be the route to our achieving our net zero goals, and this is one step on that pathway.

I will finish. New clauses 4 and 5 would strengthen this Bill, strengthen public confidence and demonstrate the UK’s global leadership, and I very much hope the Government will support them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover]

This has been an informative debate on all the new clauses. From a procedural point of view, we are happy not to push new clause 1 to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member raises a very important point. We need to ensure that the benefits of the Act are felt across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and that includes engaging with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I turn to new clause 2. We do not anticipate a substantial impact on SAF production in the event of a decline in UK bioethanol production. The bioethanol market is a global one, and we do not currently foresee any supply issues. Furthermore, the recommendations in new clause 2 are already under way and duplicate measures can already be found in the SAF mandate. In July, a total of £63 million was awarded to 17 projects via the advanced fuels fund. That includes projects that use bioethanol, municipal solid waste and green hydrogen as feedstocks, among other sources. The Chancellor also announced in the spending review 2025 that we will continue to support SAF production throughout the spending review period. The SAF mandate also includes a formal review mechanism embedded in its legislation, with the first review scheduled to take place within five years.

New clause 3 would also duplicate measures that already exist in the SAF mandate. The mandate awards more certificates per litre to SAF with higher greenhouse gas savings, which will encourage SAF developers to continuously improve on their greenhouse gas savings. This will be monitored through the formal review mechanism, with the possibility to update legislation as required.

I hope that this reassures the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that, in many respects, the concerns he outlines are allayed by existing measures in the Bill. I therefore urge him not to push his new clauses.

New clause 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the legislation within a year of it being passed. Such a report would not show the full economic impact of these measures. Contracts will need to be negotiated, signed, plants built and SAF produced and sold before economic impacts are released. Transparency on reporting in relation to the Act’s economic impact can be achieved through regular updates to the House. Therefore, I do not see the new clause as being effectual, if he wishes to evaluate the economic impact of the RCM. I therefore ask him not to move his new clause.

New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), would require the Secretary of State to introduce a regulation requiring airlines to make an annual report on their use of SAF, both in absolute volumes and as a percentage of overall fuel used. I welcome transparency on carbon emissions to help consumers make informed choices. However, we will be providing data on the supply of SAF under the mandate, including what proportion of the total aviation fuel supply is SAF. Furthermore, many airlines already provide public information on their decarbonisation efforts, and I therefore do not believe this new clause is necessary and ask the hon. Member not to move it.

New clauses 4 and 7, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) respectively, relate to power-to-liquid obligations. On new clause 4, the Government have already committed to keep mandate targets under review. The existing legislation enables the Secretary of State to amend obligations under the SAF mandate, subject to consultation with those affected and scrutiny by Parliament. Allowing amendments to the obligations without consulting appropriate parties could be detrimental to our shared ambition of increasing the use of SAF. On new clause 7, the legislation that gave effect to the SAF mandate already makes provision for a review no later than 2030. Given that the mandate has been in place for less than 12 months and the PtL obligation does not come into effect until 2028, it would not be helpful to review earlier than planned. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to move their new clauses.

Amendment 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the RCM on air travel prices. This was spoken to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). The Government are committed to delivering value for money in the RCM scheme by controlling the scale and number of contracts entered into, and through the prices negotiated in each contract. The impact on air fares are likely to rise or fall by less than the cost of a cup of coffee. The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. Passengers should also benefit from the lower prices generated from the lower project risk and reduced cost of capital for SAF producers. Therefore, the Bill and the measures in it will not limit people’s ability to fly. Given that, I ask the right hon. Member not to move the amendment.

I turn to amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, and to amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley. The decisions on the specifics of contract allocation will be made during the contract allocation process. There will be a fair and transparent allocation process that evaluates the key costs, benefits and risks of each project. That will be developed over the coming months and will be subject to consultation with stakeholders. These amendments would reduce the Government leverage in negotiations by setting criteria in advance and would likely reduce value for money in the contracts signed, which I am sure all of us would seek to avoid. I therefore ask that these amendments are not moved.

Finally, I turn to amendment 11, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay. In May 2025, the Government published the response to the consultation on funding the SAF revenue certainty mechanism. It confirmed that a variable levy on aviation fuel suppliers would be introduced, and this was included in the contents of the Bill. The Government plan to consult imminently on the detailed design of the levy, but this amendment would pre-empt stakeholder responses, which will be considered in any design decisions. I therefore ask the right hon. Member not to press the amendment.

I hope that my responses have provided the explanations and reassurances that colleagues were seeking. The Bill is a crucial step towards establishing a SAF industry in the UK and driving investment, growth and jobs across our great country. Once again, I urge the House to give the Bill its full support.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Mr Glover, is it your pleasure that new clause 1 be withdrawn?

[Olly Glover]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Air travel providers’ use of sustainable aviation fuel: reporting requirements

(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a requirement for air travel providers to report annually on their use of sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must specify—

(a) that the annual reports include figures for sustainable aviation fuel usage which can be easily understood, including expressed as—

(i) an absolute volume, and

(ii) proportion of all aviation fuel used; and

(b) that the annual reports are accessible to members of the public including by being made available on their websites.

(3) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the negative procedure.”—(Olly Glover.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Regional Transport Inequality

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. With an immediate three-minute limit, I call Andrew Cooper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might be helpful if I indicate that I will come to the Front Benchers at five minutes past 3. On a three-minute time limit, there is very little time for interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I will do my best to speak at high speed, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood): she was an outstanding Minister and the Department’s loss is the Whips Office’s gain. She will be much missed on the Transport Front Bench.

I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate. She and I represent constituencies in the squeezed midlands—regions home to 10 million people that have historically been denied a fair share of funding and political attention. As has been noted already, the east midlands receives the lowest transport funding per head of any region, although the west midlands held that unhappy status until recently. The rail line between Birmingham and Nottingham is slower, mile for mile, than that between Manchester and Leeds. The west midlands has the lowest share of public transport journeys of any English region, followed by the east midlands. That fuels congestion, road safety problems and potholes.

Birmingham’s roads are a special case. We have one of the last private finance initiative contracts in the country. When originally issued, local government austerity and the high inflation of the early 2020s were not foreseen. The previous Government tried to withdraw support for the PFI contract without a clear plan, which was ruled unlawful. I know that the new Minister will be looking at that closely, and I look forward to working with him to get a fair deal for Birmingham.

Most public transport journeys are by bus and half the industry’s income now comes from public funding, yet public accountability lags behind. This summer, National Express announced major changes to the X20 and 61 routes. People in Allens Cross and parts of the New Frankley estate lost their direct connection to Birmingham, and some older residents no longer have direct bus access to the Queen Elizabeth hospital. I am grateful to the hundreds of people who signed petitions, including one that I organised. I have met National Express and Transport for West Midlands, and I hope that we can find a way forward.

Significant investment has been announced for commuter rail. I have spoken frequently in this House about rebuilding Kings Norton station as part of a midlands rail hub. In the interest of time, I will only say how grateful I am that Ministers listened; I hope that we can make progress on restoring that service’s frequency.

Finally, we must be ambitious. Birmingham Corporation Tramways once ran services to my constituency. The original 1984 vision for a revitalised metro included a loop serving Northfield, Longbridge, Frankley and Rubery. That vision was right, and I hope that we can find funding for a feasibility study for a south Birmingham extension.

Regional transport inequality hinders economic growth and denies opportunities to my constituents. I am glad that the House has had the chance to debate this issue. I think this is my stop, so I will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his timekeeping and the speed with which he included all that. That brings us to the Front Benchers, remembering that we would like to leave some time for the Member who introduced the debate to wind up. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I was all too conscious at Transport questions this morning not only to ensure that I did not, after last night’s scolding, repeat the heresy of “you” or “yours”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to keep my questions brief. Consequently, I did not have time to put on the record—for the third time in less than a year—a formal welcome on behalf of my party to the new shadow Transport Secretary. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is no longer in the Chamber, I formally congratulate him on his elevation.

As former Transport Minister, the right hon. Gentleman knows all about the transformative effect of transport, having only recently hopped aboard the overnight shuttle from Durham to Basildon. On that tortuous journey from the north of England to the south-east, he would have glimpsed the huge inequalities in transport provision across our country. Be it trains or buses, roads or air travel, where people live or their business is situated has a massive effect on their mobility. Mobility—the ability to move from A to Z and all points in between—is key to a modern economy and a cohesive society.

The statistics paint a stark picture of, to coin a phrase, a two-tier system. Last year, for example, transport spending in London was over £1,300 per head, compared with under £400 per head in the east midlands. New research from Transport for the North reveals that over 11 million people in England face a high risk of social exclusion specifically because of inadequate transport systems. That represents a 14% increase—an extra 2 million people—since 2019. In the north-east, well over 30% of residents face a high risk of transport-related social exclusion, compared with below 3% in London. And who are the excluded? It will come as no surprise that, as Transport for the North has highlighted, it is disproportionately low-income households, unpaid carers, the old and the disabled. The very people our transport system should be helping the most are the ones facing its greatest barriers.

It is not just the north of England suffering from these inequalities. Minehead in Somerset, for example, is virtually cut off. The railway station closed in 1971, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) tells me that the No. 28 bus appears to run on a whim. In Stratford-upon-Avon, Stagecoach has stopped running buses in the evening and at weekends, and there is no direct train service between the home of Shakespeare and London, undermining the town’s tourist and cultural economy. Transport is, of course, key to our tourist industry. That is why in Cornwall, the new Lib Dem council has cancelled the previous Tory administration’s plans to sell off Newquay airport, but it now needs more help than is currently being offered by the Government to make the critical investment the airport so badly needs.

Investment in transport is key. Even in London, where Transport for London is the envy of the rest of the country, more investment is needed. Repeated disruption on the District line is caused by some of the infrastructure being up to 130 years old, according to TfL. It sounds grim, but as my constituents are getting tired of hearing me say, we in Wimbledon and the rest of London do not know how lucky we are. Just imagine living in a region where services are sparse or non-existent, bus routes are cut, stations have been closed and the few trains running are routinely delayed.

I am addressing my remarks to the Minister, for whom I have high regard and no little sympathy, because the problems with regional transport inequalities are clearly not of his making, nor his Government’s, but of the past Tory Administration’s. Take buses, for example, where deregulation allowed private operators to cream off the profitable routes and abandon the rest. Between 2015 and 2023, over 1 billion passenger journeys were lost. In the north-west alone, bus routes were reduced from nearly 3,500 in 2015 to half that number in 2024.

Sadly, however, the problem still continues. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) in the south-east of England tells me that three bus services have been cancelled since last summer. In the south-west and north-east, 56% of small towns are now identified as transport deserts or at risk of becoming so.

I do not doubt the Government’s good intentions, evidenced by the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, but in some respects, things are getting worse. The Government’s decision to increase the bus fare cap from £2 to £3, for example, will only accelerate the decline in bus usage, hitting those who are already struggling the most. The Minister will rightly point to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill and its many excellent provisions but, as with the soon-to-be-published rail Bill, no amount of legislation will solve the issue of regional transport inequality without the necessary investment. As we saw with High Speed 2 and, more recently, the spending review, those moneys are not forthcoming.

The electrification of the midland main line from London to Sheffield has now been cancelled, while at Dawlish, the critical work to protect the vital Paddington to Penzance main line from the sea has been put on hold despite the very real risks to regional connectivity. The same is true of our road network, where, for example, the promised widening of the A12, which would have supported the creation of 55,000 new homes in the Chelmsford area, has been cancelled.

As the Minister is fond of telling me, there is no magic money tree, which is why the only way to address regional transport inequality is to grow the economy—a growth that is impeded by the very inequality that growth would help to address. That is why the pump must be primed with more investment in our transport system and a far more ambitious approach to growth, which can be achieved not by wishing on a star or by the PM tying himself in knots with his red lines over Europe but by boldly re-engaging with the EU and thereby completing the virtuous circle of an integrated transport system driven by and driving a dynamic and growing economy.

I end by thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this important debate and all Members for their excellent contributions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not, because I am running out of time. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

What is the big plan? It is one of nationalisation for railways. We must look at the Government’s motive—what do they think it is going to do? It is not about unifying track and train, because that was already in the Williams-Shapps review; that was going to happen without nationalisation. Is it about reducing fares? If so, it is backfiring, because nationalised train companies’ fares are rising above inflation. Is it about increasing efficiency? One would hope so, but through the Government’s nationalisation process they are decapitating the management teams that drive efficiency in the individual rail companies.

Is it about increasing passenger numbers? The inconvenient truth for Labour is that under privatisation passenger ridership on the railway doubled, because the companies were incentivised to chase ridership. That was driven by increased open access routes, yet the Government have opposed every single application for open access since the election. Is it to save money? If so, they are not doing a very good job. On South Western Railway—one of the first to be nationalised since the election—they wasted £250 million on infrastructure overspend with the rolling stock leasing companies due to Government negotiating incompetence.

The truth is that the Government are doing it because it is an article of Labour faith—faith in the big state—and also a key demand of the unions. How has it gone for them? As we have heard, ASLEF has already got a 15% pay rise, and the RMT is striking now. Next time, when GBR is finished, that strike will be national.

The Government are one year in. We have heard in the debate of cancelled scheme after cancelled scheme. We have also heard that prices have increased and that money has been diverted from passengers to union pay. That has done nothing for regional inequality, save for the industrial action that is spreading from London and engulfing the rest of the country. It is why passengers are so disappointed in Labour. They deserve better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Stephen Morgan)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to report an error in the announcement of the Division results for the first vote this evening, which was on new clause 2. I can confirm that the correct numbers were 69 for the Ayes and 300 for the Noes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Teller for that point of order and for correcting the record. I hereby direct the Clerks to correct the numbers and confirm that the Ayes were 69 and the Noes were 300.

Third Reading

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Government believe that reliable, affordable and accessible transport is not simply a luxury to be enjoyed by some, but that it should be everyone’s right to access essential services, travel to work or school, fulfil aspirations and expand horizons. Today we take a step closer to that vision, because after 14 years of failed deregulation, seeing services cut, routes axed and fares rise, we are finally taking our lifeline bus services off of life support. This vital legislation ushers in the biggest change to our buses in a generation. It means improved services for passengers and protection for socially necessary routes. Greener buses will be rolled out faster. Accessibility and safety standards will be raised across the board, and buses will be integrated across local transport so that it is easier and simpler to get around.

Ultimately, this Bill is about where power lies. It transfers control away from private interests and towards the public good, and away from central Government and towards the local leaders who know their areas best. They and they alone will choose how best to meet local transport needs, be it through franchising, enhanced partnerships or locally owned bus companies. My message to the public is simple: buses will get better.

I thank hon. Members for the scrutiny and support they have provided throughout the Bill’s passage. I specifically recognise Opposition Members including the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for holding the Government to account and for their considered questioning. It has been a respectful and constructive process, which I must say has been refreshing.

Many of the measures in the Bill build on the national bus strategy, which I know the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), played a role in implementing, particularly in Greater Manchester. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for his excellent work and dedication in steering the Bill through the House. I know that the genesis of the Bill stretches back a long time, so I also acknowledge the passion and foresight of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), in making the case for the Bill and her advocacy for a better bus network for all. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to all the parliamentary staff, including the Clerks and Chairs, as well as to my officials, who have worked at pace to help deliver this landmark legislation.

Buses connect us to the things that matter most, yet for too long they have been a symbol of decline. That changes now. After committing substantial funding for bus services, we are now getting on with fundamental reform, fixing the faults of the industry, transferring power to the local level and putting passengers and local communities first. Change is coming to our buses. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Holden]

What bus passengers really want is reliable, affordable and cheap bus travel on a growing network. That is what was guaranteed under the last Conservative Government’s £2 fare cap. It was a commitment in our manifesto, and one that worked. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may jeer, but the National Audit Office said—they might want to listen—in praise of the DFT that the

“DFT’s £2 bus fare cap achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage”.

That is a policy abandoned by Labour but stood up for by the Conservatives. This Labour Government scrapped it, and they keep on pretending that a 50% increase to £3 is actually beneficial to taxpayers.

There is zero indication of how the Bill will improve passenger numbers or ensure rural coverage. Indeed, the Bill creates an even more fragmented and inconsistent service across the country. Labour has scrapped a national fare cap and failed to replace it properly, and now it expects local councils to pick up the bill without any extra funding. The last Conservative Government delivered real investment for passengers, backing bus services and improvements in the west midlands, and Greater Manchester with £1 billion. I was there with Mayor Burnham, and anyone would think it was all down to him. I am sure Ministers are finding dealing with Andy as interesting as I did. We also did so in West Yorkshire, delivering bus service improvement plans, and working with local authorities to get real results.

The Bill is the opposite of that. It will drown councils in process, drive up costs and threaten rural connectivity while ignoring what passengers really need. Without significant subsidies, councils will naturally prioritise cities and towns over villages, leaving our rural communities even further behind. Just as we have seen in our courts and our prisons, the Government risk creating yet another two-tier system—this time for buses—where city regions are supported and everyone else is simply forgotten. How else to explain forcing operators towards zero emission bus registration without any plans to help make that transition for them?

After hammering rural communities with attacks on family farms, the Government will do exactly the same all over again with reduced services because they are not providing extra funding. To make matters worse, they are undermining the very infrastructure that buses rely on by cutting roads funding in road investment strategy 3 by 13% in real terms and delaying or cancelling critical projects. The Government cannot promise better bus services while cutting the very roads that they and all other users depend on. In tearing up the safeguards around the Secretary of State’s oversight, Ministers are giving councils free rein to set up municipal bus companies without ministerial sign-off or competitive tendering. Let me be absolutely clear: if those companies fail, the responsibility lies squarely with the Secretary of State, with taxpayers left to pick up the Bill.

Moreover, the Bill has completely ignored the shortage of bus and coach drivers across our country. We have called time and again for 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to be allowed to drive buses beyond 50 km a day. Fifteen months ago, the consultation ended. This Government have had 14 months, yet last week, in answer to a written parliamentary question, they said that they are still considering their response to the consultation. It is a straightforward and common-sense change that would help tackle driver shortages, boost businesses and tourism, and get more buses back on our roads. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor have told this House repeatedly that they will pursue growth by any means necessary, yet when an opportunity clearly presents itself, as this has done, they do not seem to want to move at all.

In this week of hugely damaging and disruptive strikes in our nation’s capital—we will see further bus strikes across the country next week—the Government are putting ideology ahead of delivery and siding with the unions over passengers, with a Bill that fails bus users, fails rural communities and fails to guarantee value for taxpayers. That is why we on the Conservative Benches will vote against the Bill tonight, and I urge all hon. Members to do the same.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Kohler]

My party supports this Bill. After decades of failure, with the deregulation orchestrated by the Tories, this is clearly a move in the right direction. It is not ambitious enough, and I regret deeply your failure to reinstate the £2 bus fare cap, the failure to remove the time limits on concessionary travel for disabled people and your failure to address—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly used the words “you” and “yours” throughout this afternoon’s proceedings. Please can he do better?

[Mr Kohler]

And the Government’s failure to address the awful scourge of headphone dodgers. Most fundamentally, the Bill will not work unless it is properly funded. At the moment it is not, and the Government cannot hide behind localism when it needs proper funding. However, we will support the Bill.

Road and Rail Projects

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I remind the Transport Secretary that it was always open to her to ask for more time for her statement. There is a 10-minute limit—so if the shadow Secretary of State would like more time, he too will get it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

Sometimes I wonder what alternative reality the hon. Gentleman is living in. Network North may have promised everything to everyone, but not a penny of it was funded, and promising local areas schemes that the Conservatives knew would never materialise was no way to run a Government and no way to run a country. This Government are now providing certainty to those areas, giving the green light to important road and rail schemes and being honest about what we cannot afford.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman caught what was said by the former Rail Minister Huw Merriman to the Transport Committee last week, but he had this to say about the record of the last Government:

“A lot of promises were made to MPs and others as to the ambition, but it did not match the amount that was actually being set down. By the time I came into post I ended up with a list that was much longer than could be funded.”

I rest my case.

The hon. Gentleman talked of nothing being new. Let me give him some examples of new projects that we are announcing today. We are upgrading the Tyne and Wear metro, replacing a signalling system that dates back to the 1970s and enabling the extension of the metro to Washington. We are providing new railway stations: Wellington and Cullompton in Devon, Portishead and Pill with connections to Bristol, and Haxby in North Yorkshire, which will connect tens of thousands of people to the rail network. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which Conservative Transport Secretary committed funds to those schemes? He cannot, because none of them did.

Let me also give one of the new roads as an example: the Middlewich bypass in Cheshire. The previous Government rejected the business case for that scheme, but this Government are funding it. New infrastructure, new railway stations and new roads connecting every part of our country—that is the difference that a Labour Government make.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the schemes that are going ahead have been subject to a very robust business case appraisal. We believe that they offer the taxpayer value for money, and can unlock the connectivity that is so critical to driving economic growth across the country. My hon. Friend also asked—I think I understood her question correctly—about capacity on the west coast main line. We are aware of capacity constraints between Birmingham and Manchester, which are predicted to last into the next decade, and although we have made it clear that we will not reverse the decision to cancel phase 2 of HS2, we are reviewing options for addressing those capacity issues in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

People around the country have been plagued and let down by a transport system that was completely neglected by the last Conservative Government. The problems have ranged from potholes to cancelled bus services, along with entirely fictional budgets for rail and other transport projects.

Given that a safe, reliable transport system is vital to economic growth, this capital investment is of course welcome news. We are pleased to see the Government answering the calls of Liberal Democrats and other campaigners for vital upgrades such as new rail investment and improvements on the northern trans-Pennine route. Given the hard-fought campaign by local people in my constituency, I particularly welcome the confirmation of new stations at Wellington—first proposed in the House by my predecessor Jeremy Browne—and Cullompton. I cannot go quite as far as the Secretary of State in agreeing to relocate Wellington in Devon—it remains in Somerset—but both those rail projects are long overdue, and I thank the Secretary of State for engaging with not just me but my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and others on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), who I see is present, on the vital importance of those stations to the regional economy. The long overdue funding for the west midlands rail hub is also welcome.

Let me now turn to the road infrastructure projects. Many of the schemes announced today have been sought for many years. We are pleased to see investment in the A66, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has consistently campaigned, as well as investment in infrastructure in Manchester, Derby and Nottingham. However, we still need clarity on exactly how the funds for these projects will be spent. After years of delays, broken promises and mismanagement—not least on HS2—public confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver major infrastructure is understandably low.

Given the effects of inflation during the 12-month delay of the Wellington and Cullompton stations project, among others, can the Secretary of State confirm that that project will be fully funded and completed in the two years that it will take to construct the stations? When will the Government finally publish detailed plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail? Can the Government give the country a firm assurance that all these projects will be delivered on time and on budget, in a cost-effective manner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I would expect all road schemes that we are announcing today to contribute to our public transport objectives and improve the walking and cycling environment. As I said in my statement, roads are used by everyone and for many different modes of transport. On my hon. Friend’s point about biodiversity net gain, I am assured that all schemes have gone through a very thorough environmental assessment. I will write to him on the other issue he raises.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Markus Campbell-Savours to ask the final question.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

Like many Cumbrians, I am delighted and relieved that the Government have agreed funding for the A66 trans-Pennine project. It never should have been in doubt, and it is clear to me that it would not have been were it not for the financial legacy of the previous Government. Ministers can now look forward to me lobbying for a new roundabout at Brigham and Broughton in west Cumbria—a project rejected by the previous Government. Can the Secretary of State set out what assessment she has made of the benefits to my constituents of the A66 trans-Pennine project?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my 33 years in this House it has always been the practice that a statement of this nature would be made alongside a White Paper, which would be available in the Vote Office to Members as soon as the Secretary of State sits down. There is no White Paper in the Vote Office to explain the detail of the Government’s decision making. Is there anything you can do to elucidate from the Secretary of State whether a White Paper will be forthcoming and when that will be?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure the Secretary of State will have heard his comment.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Today is 4 July and there will be fireworks across the pond, but we want rocket boosters under our space industry. Most of Europe is landlocked—or I should say space-locked—which provides the UK with a unique opportunity to be a launchpad for satellites produced all around Europe. That is the market that we are going for.

The industry has made it clear that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK spaceflight industry. If the Government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors might move to jurisdictions that have more favourable liability regimes where operator liability is limited, or that provide guarantees to meet all claims or those above the operator’s limit of liability, such as the US or France. For those reasons, we are pleased to support the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With the leave of the House, I call John Grady to wind up.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

First, I congratulate Bristol on the excellent job it is doing and the growth it is seeing. We have strict criteria on carbon emissions, noise, growth and pollution at our airports. That is our guiding principle as a Government, but we also want to see local ambition in terms of growth. Those carbon budgets are fixed; we still want to reach net zero by 2050, even with the growth in our air markets that is expected over the next few years.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

As we approach the summer holidays, we know that many families are looking forward to the opportunity to get away. However, in what may come as concerning news, Labour’s Employment Rights Bill could threaten passengers’ ability to travel without disruption or additional costs. This is because in existing passenger rights legislation, under article 5(1)(c)(i) of Regulation 261, passengers are entitled to compensation if they are informed of cancellations less than two weeks before their flight. The Employment Rights Bill reduces the required notice period for strike action in any industry from 14 days to 10 days, increasing the risk of last-minute cancellations. That could in theory cost airlines tens of millions of pounds, which could in turn lead to higher costs for passengers as airlines pass the expenses on to the travelling public. Does the Minister agree that the Government should maintain the 14-day notice period in aviation, putting the interests of passengers ahead of those of their union friends?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We know that people are booking tests in parts of the country where they have no intention of taking a test, because they can swap that for a test in another driving test centre. That is one of the issues addressed in the call for evidence that was launched in December. We have heard that evidence, and we will consult on further changes to the booking system that might address the issue that he raises.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

At the Transport Committee in April, the Secretary of State admitted that under Labour’s watch,

“waiting times for access to driving tests hit new highs.”

For all the talk of a new plan, she then admitted that the Government only aim to reduce driving test waiting times to seven weeks by “summer next year”. That is no good for young people waiting, needing the freedom to drive to get to college or work now, is it? When will the Government see the real urgency for real people and pick up the pace?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support in acting to tackle what is a nuisance not just for disabled people, but for children walking on the pavement and for parents pushing buggies and prams. It is really important that we get this right. I am working speedily with my officials to do so, and I look forward to being able to announce the outcome of the consultation and our next steps shortly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her answers and for all she did on this issue in her previous role as Chair of the Transport Committee. Regulations prohibiting pavement parking already exist in London, but that alone will not solve the problem. At All Saints’ primary school in south Wimbledon, for example, pavement parking is a long-running issue, forcing parents and children into the road and obvious danger, and it is proving very difficult to solve. Has the Minister considered how the public can be better educated and restrictions enforced? Are the Government planning to create a new offence of obstructive parking, as the Minister recommended in her previous role?

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

At the last transport questions, on 27 March, in the context of the Secretary of State saying on television that some strikes are “necessary”, I pointed out that the trade unions have welcomed her rail reform plans and said that

“a just transition to nationalisation would mean the levelling up of pay and conditions for rail workers.”

The cost of that to the taxpayer would be considerable. When I asked the Secretary of State whether she would

“consider a strike over harmonising pay and conditions to be a necessary strike”,—[Official Report, 27 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 1099.]

she avoided answering the question, which was uncharacteristic of her. I will give her another chance now: would that be a necessary strike?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for the Grangemouth refinery. He asks what we are doing: yesterday, we introduced the SAF Bill to bring forward the revenue certainty mechanism, and we continue to consider the Project Willow report and its recommendations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Following the fire at North Hyde substation that closed Heathrow a few weeks ago, various lines on the London Underground were brought to a standstill by another power outage this week. It is clear that we need to do more to improve the resilience of our transport energy infrastructure, so will the Secretary of State commit to a full review to ensure that these incidents do not keep happening?