Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Transport
Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Kohler
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.

Claire Young Portrait Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
- Hansard - -

One of the consequences for my constituents of losing services like the 84/85, the T2 and the 622 is that they are cut off from health services. Does my hon. Friend agree that such access should be a priority for investment, and that a focus on the increase in passenger numbers when judging investment choices disadvantages rural areas?

Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Kohler
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree. We must not focus only on passenger numbers. It is also about connectivity, and about making sure that rural areas thrive.