Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kohler]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the community on its success, and I agree that we need funding for these critical services.

The placing of socially necessary services on a statutory footing is a beneficial change to the enhanced partnership model, as it ensures that local authorities assess the impact of service changes and consider alternatives. The Bill also rightly lifts the outdated, ideologically-driven ban on municipally-owned bus companies, empowering local authorities who wish to use it, rather than infantilising them. Taken as a whole, the measures create an improved set of options from which local authorities can choose the approach that works best for them.

As the Secretary of State noted, it is important to realise that this is not, and must not become, a one-size-fits-all approach. Not every local authority will wish to pursue franchising, establish a bus company or abandon the partnership model. What works for Greater Manchester or London may not work for Oxfordshire or Cornwall. It must be up to local leaders and, ultimately, local communities to decide what works best for them. I welcome the fact that the Government are not mandating a certain approach.

Therein lies the challenge: empowering local authorities in law is one thing, but enabling them in practice is quite another. Although the Bill hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank. Franchising is complex, resource-intensive and unfamiliar to the vast majority of local authorities. It requires legal expertise, commercial understanding, operational planning and, above all, funding. The Department for Transport has acknowledged those difficulties, yet this legislation provides little to help overcome them.

The Government’s laudable desire to increase their own capacity to advise councils is welcome, but I am not convinced that they are doing enough. The recently established Bus Centre of Excellence, which we will no doubt hear much about during the passage of the Bill, is a positive development, but does it really have the necessary capacity and resources to provide meaningful support to all those who might need it? If we are to see franchising become a viable option beyond a handful of combined authorities, we must take bolder steps to offer councils without either the expertise or the finances more than just a helpline or homilies on best practice.

Every hon. Member in this House knows how overstretched their local authorities are—with the exception of our colleagues from Reform, of course, who are sadly absent from today’s debate, no doubt too busy frantically searching for the untapped resources and savings they confidently promised they would discover in their new fiefdoms. As for the rest of us, we know that most local authorities lack the finances, expertise and bandwidth to use the tools the Bill provides. As a result, only the local authorities that already have the capacity to do so will use them, which will exacerbate regional disparities, not reduce them.

Even if we overcome such problems, that will not remove the continuing role of central Government in securing access and affordability. That is why the Government’s reckless decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3 casts a dark shadow over the Bill. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs for passengers and helped to bring people back on to the bus network. It was precisely the kind of policy of which we need more, not less. Increasing fares by £1 per trip may not sound prohibitive, but for those on low incomes or families making multiple journeys, the change represents a significant cost increase, adding £20 to the cost of a weekly commute to anyone who has to take two buses to work while only saving the Government £150 million.

Let us be clear: this increase is regressive. It will hit the poorest hardest, particularly at a time of a cost of living crisis. Surely the Government should commit to preserving affordability, not undermining it, as raising fares in the absence of service improvements risks entrenching decline, not reversing it. Even more worryingly, rumours are now doing the rounds that the fare cap may be removed altogether. That would be a catastrophic mistake. We must not allow the progress of recent years to unravel in a Treasury-pleasing piece of virtue signalling that will only save the Exchequer a further £150 million.

A thriving, affordable bus network is not a luxury but an essential public service. This Bill must ensure that that is the case. Nowhere is that more true than in our rural areas. As we have seen for years, the current unregulated bus market is failing small villages and remote hamlets, serving them neither efficiently nor sufficiently.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to protect section 22 community bus services such as West Oxfordshire Community Transport, which are now facing a mountain of bureaucracy to re-tender for routes that it built up from scratch against commercial bus operators that have all the abilities to pitch and win, leaving community bus operators high and dry?

[Mr Kohler]

I do agree. We must do all we can to reduce bureaucracy. The Bill goes some way towards that, but it needs to do more.

The Bill as it stands provides nothing specific for rural areas—no dedicated rural funding stream and no obligation to maintain coverage. It is clear that if we are to be ambitious and achieve the economic growth that rural areas need, we must ensure that local authorities have the ambition and financial means to improve public transport. The Bill is missing an opportunity in failing to do so.

Road Maintenance

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State.

Each year, the Liberal Democrats and their friends travel about 800 billion km, while those of us on the Conservative Benches travel about 500 billion miles, and 90% of that is by road. Roads are the backbone of our transport network; they deliver goods, services and, importantly, people. They deliver economic growth and human flourishing—workers to their jobs, students to their schools, patients to their hospitals—and bring families together. It is absolutely right, therefore, that good roads deliver a stronger economy and a stronger society—I think we can all unite around that.

The roads network is divided between the national infrastructure and local roads. Since local roads make up 97.3% of the network as a whole—nearly 204,000 miles—I think it is best that I start there, because local roads are at the heart of the problem of potholes. Legal responsibility for maintenance of those roads lies with the local authorities, but it is too easy for us to blame local authorities and move on, because their funding comes from central Government. The previous Government felt a degree of frustration, which I know is now shared by this Government, that while some local authorities are better than others at clearing up potholes, it is the Government—of whatever colour—who tend to get the blame.

The Prime Minister has taken a view on this issue—he seems to be frustrated as well. Last month, we had the announcement that local authorities are required to publish reports on how many potholes they have repaired. That is not a novel undertaking; they were, as I recall, required to do exactly that back in 2013 or 2014. The risk now is that if they have not repaired a sufficient number of potholes, local authorities risk losing 25% of their increased grant.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that adopting a policy of managed decline, as the Conservatives did in Oxfordshire in 2014, is a disaster, and is really not the appropriate way to fix the problems we have in front of us?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I would absolutely agree that managed decline is not the right way to fix these problems, but I refute the accusation that the Conservative Government managed decline—[Interruption.] Well, let us look at the data.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made reference to the RAC pothole index, which is a very useful piece of information that tracks how much more likely a driver is to suffer a breakdown as a result of a pothole. This data goes back to 2006, when Labour was in power. You may not be wholly surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, to learn that under the previous Labour Government, a driver was more than twice as likely to suffer a breakdown as a result of a pothole than under the subsequent Conservative Government, corrected for seasonal weather effects and improving longer-term vehicle reliability. Those on the Government Benches say that the Conservative Government managed decline, but, in fact, exactly the opposite is true. Breakdowns caused by potholes peaked under Labour in 2009, and have more than halved as a result of the investment of the coalition and Conservative Governments.

Rail Connectivity: Oxfordshire

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I will call Charlie Maynard to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. Interventions, however, are permitted. I call Charlie Maynard.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered railway connectivity between Witney, Carterton, Eynsham and Oxford.

I am here to argue the case for bringing back the railway that connected Oxford, Eynsham, Witney and Carterton, but was torn up 50 years ago. That would cut journey times by 70%, connecting Oxford with Eynsham in roughly 11 minutes, with Witney in 16 minutes and with Carterton in 22 minutes. I have worked for the last four years with many parties, and I am deeply grateful to them all for their help. They include Oxfordshire county council; the district council in West Oxfordshire; town councils in Witney and Carterton; parish councils in Eynsham; the RAF; various landowners and developers, including Grosvenor at Salt Cross garden village; and England’s Economic Heartland—the list goes on and on.

The reason why I put so much blood, sweat, tears and toil into the issue is that we have two huge problems in West Oxfordshire—there are probably others as well, but the two big ones are transport and housing. They are two sides of the same coin. In transport we have the A40 corridor, which links Oxford and points east with Cheltenham and Gloucester and points west. Oxford city is at the centre of that web; it is one of the strongest growing cities in the country and is putting enormous pressure on Oxfordshire. To the west is some of the worst-served infrastructure in the whole county. There is no major railway station apart from Hanborough, which is very small with one train an hour, and there are just a few miles of dual carriageway—yet enormous housing is coming into the district.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree with me that the misery experienced by my constituents in Eynsham and Cassington as they travel on the A40 each day will only be made worse by the new housing developments, unless we find a way of alleviating that pressure? The railway on which he has done so much to campaign is one important solution, along with improving the road, that will make those journeys much easier and open up opportunities to the west of Oxford.

[Charlie Maynard]

I very much concur.

I want to quantify the housing and the scale of what is going on now. Since 2000, the population of Oxfordshire has increased by a quarter. In the 2018 local plan we were signed up for 16,000 homes over the period through to 2031, increasing our housing stock by a quarter in just 10 years. On top of that, as per the new national planning policy framework, there is a 62% increase on our current local plan.

I move on to transport. Our road is under very severe pressure. Some hon. Members might have spent time on the A40; probably more than they would have liked. It is an extremely constrained corridor, which, according to AECOM’s 2021 study, is going to be 30 minutes slower by 2031, which is seven years away—30 minutes slower between Witney and Oxford by 2031. That assumes that the disastrous bus lane project will have been completed, although that is not going to happen because there is not sufficient money. That was something that the previous Conservative Administration signed up for: £180 million for four miles of bus lane, which has turned into two miles of bus lane and a park and ride —not a good investment.

We need a long-term transport policy, which will deliver a number of things: journey times cut by up to 70% and a plan for housing. Many constituencies, including mine, support housing. We all recognise that people need somewhere to live. We want to be grown-ups at the table coming up with a solution, rather than scattering houses willy-nilly around the district with no coherent plan. There is no plan without a transport solution.

We support putting the houses that we will have to take anyway around the railway stations. Just as our Victorian forebears did many decades ago, we will use those houses to fund the railway. That would solve housing; then it would solve the economy. Our economy in West Oxfordshire really suffers. One would think that lots of good employers would come to West Oxfordshire, because we are only 10 miles west of Oxford, but they do not. There are some good employers, but very few now come in, because they know that the transport is completely unsustainable.

The concept is logical: Oxford is at one end with the best universities in the world, and at the other are places such as Witney and Carterton with excellent skills, particularly in the aerospace and aviation sectors because of RAF Brize Norton. Connecting those places with a fast, reliable transport corridor would allow businesses to locate in West Oxfordshire. That would mean less need to commute and jam up our roads. That is a big opportunity.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Railway connectivity is also fundamental to my constituency. Heathrow is a rarity among international airports: large parts of its catchment simply do not have any direct rail access. We need a western rail link to Heathrow. That would reduce carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to 30 million fewer road miles every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that rail is crucial for decarbonisation?

[Charlie Maynard]

Well said—I very much agree. Following on from that, transport is one of the hardest nuts to crack in that decarbonisation agenda. Without a large-scale mass public transport solution, we are not going to get there. That is at the core of Oxfordshire county council’s strategy and this would help to deliver it, just as my hon. Friend’s project would in his constituency.

I have two more points. Vast numbers of people living in West Oxfordshire have to get to hospitals in Oxford for secondary and tertiary care. The unreliability of the road puts enormous stress on their lives; they—including members of my family, as it happens—often have to go backwards and forwards a number of times a week. People have to leave home for a 10-mile journey sometimes two or three hours in advance, because they are scared about missing their appointment. That is only set to get worse on current plans.

Finally, on defence, RAF Brize Norton is the biggest RAF base both in the country and internationally, with 7,500 people working there. It was built there because it had a railway connection, but that connection was ripped up 50 years ago. We must bring back that railway connection now. In times of peace, the lack of the connection is bad news, but in times of war it is truly terrible. Is that really how we want to run our country? The biggest airbase in the country, which runs all our international transport, does not have even have a railway connection. That is a disaster.

What has been going on to date? I give real thanks to the Witney Oxford Transport Group, which really took the charge on this issue in 2014, before I showed up. I am immensely grateful for its having made me chair in 2020. Since 2020, we have conducted a number of technical studies, particularly on defining a route that goes not only from Oxford to Carterton but through the Salt Cross garden village. Those studies gave the county council enough comfort to commission a feasibility study, which was published last November, and this year Lichfields is carrying out an economic analysis. That is all working towards the new local plan for West Oxfordshire, which is being worked up now. As a district councillor, I am working closely with my district council colleagues, as well as Sasha White—the planning and land use silk of the year; many thanks, Sasha—to work the railway line into our local plan. If the line is in there, we have a real chance of getting this railway built.

I used to work in business and I understand that there is really one thing that counts here: money. A key part of our work has been on the funding, and shaking a tin at the Treasury and waiting 50 years is not what we have in mind. Who have we been working with? It has been E-Rail so far, which has just funded 30% of the Ashington-to-Blyth line by going up to landowners and developers along that track and saying, “If you want to bring back a passenger rail line here, sign some voluntary, legally-binding contribution agreements, which will allow you to build houses around those future railway stations. Bluntly, the reason why you should do so is that you will make more money.” They will make more money for three reasons. First, the local plan will allow them to have houses sited around that railway station that would not otherwise exist. Secondly, they can build at higher density around a railway station. Thirdly, each of those houses is worth more because it is next to a railway station.

That might sound radical, but it is what our Victorian forebears did 150 years ago. It is what Japan, Korea and Hong Kong do, and what much of northern Europe does. That is how they fund their public infrastructure, and I would argue that case. Labour sometimes mentions land value, and I really hope that it looks into the issue because it is a way of using private and public funding to get things moving quickly—as opposed to just sticking it to the taxpayer, which is what we have had to do up to now. I really ask for the Minister’s help in exploring that. That would fund about 50% of the railway line, and the other half would come from Homes England. We would be delivering on our side of the bargain by getting all those houses into West Oxfordshire in a coherent and sensible way. Without a railway line, we will not have that solution and we will have an unsustainable, long-term problem.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing this debate on railway connectivity between Witney, Carterton, Eynsham and Oxford. It is clear that he has been a passionate advocate for restoring the rail link, and I thank him for the important points that he has made and other hon. Members for their contributions.

The Government recognise the significance of Oxfordshire and the wider Oxford economic region. It is a global centre for research, learning and healthcare, and one of the most productive economic regions in the UK, so continuing to invest in the region and work with those who represent it is vital. Its transport network is clearly important for providing the connectivity to support economic development, as well as planned housing and employment growth. That is why significant investments are being made in road, rail and sustainable transport improvements. As the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) made clear, housing and transport connectivity must go hand in hand. It is vital that the local transport authority, which knows its local area, can develop and prioritise transport investment projects that support those aspirations.

The Government’s housing infrastructure fund has approved £126 million to Oxfordshire county council for its A40 smart corridor scheme, which will provide infrastructure for better bus travel, and safer walking and cycling along the A40 route between Eynsham park and ride and Oxford. That kind of multimodal approach will be really important. In addition, since 2014, £118.4 million from the Government’s local growth fund has been used by the Oxfordshire local enterprise partnership to invest in the transport network. That included £35 million to deliver the second phase of the A40 Oxford science transit scheme, demonstrating Government’s commitment to investing in this key corridor. I agree that public transport has a vital role to play in improving connectivity and relieving congestion on our road network, and the hon. Member for Witney quite rightly points out future projections and the importance of thinking for the long term to ensure we can cope with rising population in the area, and with the demand for more housing and more growth.

A strategic vision for rail investment in the county was set out in the Oxfordshire rail corridor study report, which was published in 2021. It brought together the views of local stakeholders and the rail industry to assess the impacts of planned growth in Oxfordshire, and identified key investments in the rail network to deliver economic growth and meet the changing needs of the county. An early output from the rail corridor study has been the Oxford station project, which will undertake a series of investments to support new rail services into Oxford, and enable faster passenger and freight journeys.

An early deliverable of the project is to widen the rail bridge over Botley Road, which has been closed since 2023 to enable a series of utilities diversions. I expect that hon. Members will be aware that Network Rail has experienced significant difficulties in delivering those works, which have had an unacceptable impact on the residents and businesses in the area—and on Members’ constituents who commute into the city, no doubt. I can only offer my sincere apologies to those affected. Network Rail has been tasked with developing a plan that enables the reopening of Botley Road, and the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, will be meeting stakeholders and local representatives to discuss that in due course.

The Oxfordshire area also benefits from connectivity through the East West Rail programme, although I appreciate that that is to the east of the city rather than to the west. At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor committed Government support to accelerate works on the Marston Vale line to deliver services between Oxford and Bedford from 2030.

Let me turn to the specific subject of today’s debate: a reopening of the line linking Carterton, Witney and Eynsham to Oxford. I welcome Oxfordshire county council’s recent publication of the feasibility study into reopening the line, and recognise the local and regional benefits it sets out. It is a really good example of why this Government’s approach to how transport projects can be funded is based on local leaders and local transport authorities knowing best which projects to pursue; these bodies are best placed to decide on and take forward transport schemes that will most benefit their local areas.

There are a number of significant challenges associated with the proposed reopening, the most significant of which is funding the estimated costs of £700 million to £900 million. I appreciate that the proposed scheme is described as a long-term project, but it is dependent on other projects that have not yet been funded or delivered; given the associated costs, other options for increasing connectivity in the area may present better value for money. I am sure that the hon. Member is in conversation with the county council about thinking in that way.

[Charlie Maynard]

Just one small correction: from Oxford to Carterton North is £600 million only—we do not need to build out to Carterton West necessarily; that would just be a nice-to-have—and, of that, land value capture would allow something like £300 million. That is the broader scheme of it.