Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

James MacCleary Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

Provision remains patchy, insecure and vulnerable to cuts.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that in East Sussex, where I am lucky enough to be an MP, the county council has already removed the restriction on timings. Indeed, he has met my former Liberal Democrat council colleague Sean Macleod to discuss that. Does my hon. Friend agree that that creates a postcode lottery across the country, where some people are fortunate to live in places that have removed the restriction and others are not so lucky?

[Tom Gordon]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I highlight the work that Liberal Democrat councillors, including him, have done over the years to ensure that such provision is made. That postcode lottery is completely unfair.

Economically, the argument is equally strong. We know that disabled people already face higher living costs. Removing the 9.30 am restriction would open up work and training opportunities that begin before that cut-off, and crucially, the cost of doing so is modest. Research by Whizz Kidz showed that it would cost about 1% of the current annual spend on concessionary travel, and we know that for each pound spent on concessionary bus passes, it is thought that over £3 is brought back in economic benefit.

Ending the restriction would deliver more than just transport access. It would promote independence, reduce isolation, improve health outcomes and encourage greater use of sustainable public transport. Charities such as Whizz Kidz have shown that young disabled people overwhelmingly support 24/7 access, with many saying it would help them build confidence, friendship and skills.

The amendment has support from leading disability charities such as the RNIB, as well as cross-party support in this House. Now is the time for this Labour Government to show their commitment to improving access and tearing down barriers to inequality by supporting the amendment. The Minister and I have had many interactions on this subject and I am sure he is not surprised to see me pushing for it again today. I urge him to consider it, whether through the Bill or further down the line in different possible measures and arrangements.

It is high time that disabled people had the same freedom to travel, the same independence and the same opportunity as everyone else. That is what the amendment would deliver and I urge all Members across this House to support it. Disabilities do not start at 9.30 am, so disabled bus passes should not either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)]

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 21, which stands in my name. Many members may be unaware that the fare cap that applies to single bus journeys does not apply to services that are provided exclusively to take children to and from school. That is why my new clause calls for the national £3 bus fare cap to be extended to all school routes, and for any future changes to the cap to be applied to school-only transport, too. I am grateful to the Members from across the House who have added their names in support of my new clause.

In Poole and across England, the exclusion of school routes from the fare cap has left families paying more simply to get their children to school—that cannot be right. Local parents, especially those who might have two or more children attending different schools in the area, have complained to me about the unfairness and additional financial pressures that they face as a result. I have raised that with the local bus provider, Morebus, and although it is sympathetic to the arguments, it will not act unless instructed to do so in legislation. I have also raised the matter with the Department and with the Minister, but, as he will recall, I was told that my proposal was too difficult to achieve through the Bill. I therefore urge him to reconsider that approach when he responds to the debate.

I am sure that Members will recognise the very obvious unfairness. The cap applies for a child who gets on an ordinary bus that takes them past their school, but for a child on a school-only bus, the fares are higher. As well as that unjustifiable situation, parents are concerned that they cannot buy their school tickets in instalments and often have to fund the entire cost of their child’s bus journey on a termly basis. That can be expensive and discourages many families from using the bus as their preferred means of school transport.

I see bus services in the way I see most policies: through the lens of making life easier for families in Poole working hard to get by. The Bill offers significant steps towards building a transport network that is genuinely accessible, affordable and reliable. The Government must also be guided by their mission of ensuring that every child has the best start in life. That mission cannot be confined to a single department or a handful of policies. It must run like a thread through Government Departments and be hardwired into how we set priorities and deliver change. Labour values must underpin everything we do.

Extending the £3 bus fare cap to school routes is one practical way that the Government can ease the everyday struggles that parents face and make family life that little bit easier. This simple but impactful measure would reduce the cost of getting children to school, particularly for families with multiple children, and free up parents who would otherwise drive as part of the school run. It would mean lower costs for working families and less pressure on parents juggling a daily mountain of responsibilities. That also lines up closely with the Minister’s ambition to get more people out of polluting cars and into public transport, which I am keen to support.

I recognise that putting more money in the pockets of working people requires broader change, but measures such as extending the bus fare cap to school routes could make a tangible difference to day-to-day life while building a fairer and more accessible transport system for everyone. I therefore urge the Minister to consider new clause 21 seriously and to see how the Government can address the unfair anomaly on school-only bus travel.

[James MacCleary]

Day in, day out, I hear from people across my constituency—from Polegate to Plumpton—who want to use the bus but simply cannot do so. People must be at the heart of transport policy, so let me begin with one example from my constituency. I recently heard from a woman in Wilmington village who wants to get to her job in Lewes by bus but cannot do so at present. To do so, she must travel in the wrong direction to Polegate, wait, then take a slow service through multiple villages. What would be a 15-minute drive becomes an hour or more on the bus, so she drives. That is not a lifestyle choice; it is a failure of network design. This Bill could give us the tools to put that right, if we use them properly.

The A27 in my constituency desperately needs a direct service between Eastbourne and Lewes, and we must make that happen. The stops are on the road; there is just no bus to serve them. That is exactly why I support amendment 2, on socially necessary routes, so that journeys to work, schools and health services are guaranteed, even when the market will not deliver. Franchising powers in the Bill mean that our local transport authority could finally design services around what people need, not what happens to be commercially convenient. The new duty to provide socially necessary routes must make that real. Our amendments would ensure that if the market will not deliver, the authority must step in and be properly funded to do so. The A27 express should be at the top of that list.

I recently heard from a young lady in Stone Cross in my constituency who tries to get to college. Buses fail to appear—one recently sailed by her when she was waiting—and that means lost education time. The powers in the Bill on performance, data and enforcement must bite. We must publish stop-level reliability and give local transport authorities the lever to withhold payment for no-shows and require operator recovery plans. We must also back our “headphone dodgers” amendment, so that authorities can make byelaws against sustained antisocial noise. Safe, civil journeys retain passengers.

Much like the case in Stone Cross, I see the same story repeated in the village of Ringmer. An 85-year-old constituent depends on the bus to reach the Tesco in Lewes, yet sometimes it never arrives, and at other times the driver simply drives on by. That is not a public service; it is a gamble. If people are to use these services, they must be able to rely on them. That is why I back amendment 11, on accessible stopping places and reliability. We must ensure that information is clear, that drivers are trained and that passengers are not left stranded. Rural villages across my constituency send the same message: they have gaps, long waits, and first and last buses that do not work for people’s real lives.

Community transport services are a lifeline in rural areas where commercial routes do not run. In my constituency, volunteer-led Cuckmere Buses and CTLA keep people connected. The Sussex Art Shuttle, run by Cuckmere Buses, shows how small, community-driven transport projects can open up access and enrich local lives. These schemes run on tight budgets and good will, yet they deliver where the market will not. Amendment 9 would recognise their value and ensure that funding streams work for them, not against them.

There is also the Flexibus scheme, a forward-thinking initiative from East Sussex county council showing how a local authority can take control and fill the gaps left by traditional services. With booking available by app or phone, it is a practical, people-centred service that makes rural transport work for many. New clause 8, on VAT rules for demand-responsive services, would make it easier for such schemes, allowing councils to innovate locally and deliver real solutions for communities.

Sadly, in Lewes we have lost our bus station. Years of campaigning could not save it. The result is an interchange tacked on to the Phoenix Causeway bridge—busy, exposed and in the wrong place. It is not possible to grow ridership while dismantling the places where people change buses. We should give local transport authorities explicit powers, duties and funding to safeguard and replace our interchanges as part of franchising schemes. That is why new clause 5, on accessibility reports so that bus stations and interchanges are explicitly safeguarded and properly planned, is so important.

The upcoming Budget must unlock much-needed funding for major roads that are congested and therefore delay bus service. I have raised the A259 in my constituency directly with the Prime Minister in this place. It is a vicious cycle: congestion holds back buses, people turn back to cars, and traffic gets worse. Better buses mean fewer cars, and a transition to a zero emissions fleet must be central to how we plan for the future.

Affordability underpins all of this. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 1 would restore the £2 fare cap, which worked well; it put money back in pockets and passengers back on seats. Lifting it is a bus tax on work, study and care. Our new clause would restore the cap and require a formal assessment of the impact of hikes. We go further: new clause 9 would provide free travel for those on carer’s allowance, and new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), would remove time restrictions for disabled concessionary passes. This Bill will be judged not by what it promises on paper, but whether it delivers for people who wait at the bus stop, and I hope this Government will deliver that.

[Dr Tidball]

I rise to speak to new clause 2, which covers issues of accessibility. My older, younger and disabled constituents often tell me that they are left stranded, enduring painfully long waiting times due to unreliable bus services, and facing distressing situations such as toileting issues, missed NHS appointments or arriving late at school. This is the reality of failed bus services faced by many constituents across my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency as a result of the Conservative legacy. This is unacceptable, as I mentioned on Second Reading, when Reform MPs could not even be bothered to show up—where are they today?

When I was growing up, our South Yorkshire transport system was the envy of the world, but 14 years of the Conservatives’ north-south transport divide and their broken promises of a London-style transport system for South Yorkshire in reality meant that my constituency lost 53% of its bus services, with a paltry 38% spent per head on our doorstep compared with London. And the SL1 tram link bus was scrapped, leaving many of my constituents unable to continue to work or to go to college in Sheffield.

Our local communities have helped build the prosperity of this great nation. From the speciality steelworks in Stocksbridge and the farmers across Penistone, to the advanced manufacturing sites across Chapeltown, my constituents are among the hardest working people we could ever meet.

Pavement Parking

James MacCleary Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Some see pavement parking as merely a nuisance, but in some parts of my constituency it is far more serious, affecting businesses and residents every day. Due to the time restriction, I will talk about just one community—the town of Polegate—where the crisis has become particularly acute.

People tell me every day that cars are parked on pavements in the town, forcing parents with prams into the road, leaving wheelchair users stuck and making the high street harder to use for everyone. Some businesses are even struggling to keep going due to parking. What makes it even worse is patchy enforcement. In Polegate and other communities in the Wealden district part of my constituency, parking has never been decriminalised. That means responsibility still sits with the police, who understandably have other priorities, so offences simply go unchecked. It is a bizarre situation that leaves residents with no effective recourse. I am pressing for urgent action so that parking can finally be enforced and my constituents are not left abandoned.

Meanwhile, there has been action in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I believe there are preparations for action in Wales, too. Yet in England—outside London, at least—we are still stuck in limbo. Local councils want to tackle it and residents demand change, but the Government have left them with a clunky, expensive process that can take months or years to achieve little. We must give councils the powers and clarity they need and back communities like Polegate that are demanding safer streets because, every week it drags on, more families are pushed into the road, more vulnerable people are shut out, and more of our pavements are broken up. It is now time to act.

Oral Answers to Questions

James MacCleary Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I understand how important it is for people to access their high streets. That issue obviously relates to parking, but it is also about the availability of active travel and public transport. I am not going to dictate how local authorities should implement parking restrictions in their area; that is for them to decide. We provide them with the powers and the resources, and it is for local people to decide what is right for their area.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The previous Government spent £250,000 on a study of the A259 coast road in my constituency, yet residents have seen no improvement whatever to the road. The town of Newhaven is particularly badly affected; daily gridlock is affecting businesses and residents, to the detriment of the condition of the road. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we might work together to resolve the traffic crisis on the A259 in my constituency?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to hear more about the issues affecting his constituents and to discuss what we may be able to do to support them so that they have an enhanced road network.

Rural Cycling Infrastructure

James MacCleary Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Please accept my apologies, because I am likely to have to leave before the conclusion of the debate as I am hosting an event elsewhere on the estate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate. It is a privilege to speak on a matter that is of great relevance to communities like those in my Lewes constituency.

While cycling is often associated with urban transport solutions, it holds untapped potential to transform rural areas, if we address the challenges that prevent it from being a viable option for many. Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the Cycle Lewes annual general meeting. That dedicated group has been advocating for safer, more accessible cycling in Lewes and surrounding villages since 1998. Their work, from installing new cycle racks to critiquing transport plans that prioritise cars over active travel, is a testament to the power of local campaigning. However, as was made clear at the AGM, piecemeal progress cannot overcome the systemic barriers to cycling that rural communities face.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank you for your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am from Stroud and for the past six years, even before I became a politician, I have been trying to get a greenway established in the village of Dursley that would run for about six miles to the train station. I found that there was not even funding for a feasibility study, so at the moment, we cannot get it off the ground. So I want to ask the Minister whether there will be a fund to make feasibility studies of new routes.

[James MacCleary]

Not being the Minister, I do not know, but I am sure that he will respond accordingly, and I hope that the answer will be yes, because that would be a fantastic thing to do. I know that county councils and other authorities have really struggled to find the funding for active travel undertakings across the country. We have certainly seen that in East Sussex, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) has in his area.

Cycling is more than a recreational activity. It is an essential mode of transport that can improve public health, reduce carbon emissions and ease the financial burden of transport for households. Nationally, cycling directly contributes an estimated £5.4 billion annually to the economy, including £4.1 billion from reduced mortality, air pollution, and congestion. Every pound invested in walking and cycling infrastructure generates more than £5 in benefits. Cycling also promotes land-use efficiency, requiring far less space than roads or car parks—a critical consideration for creating greener, more liveable communities. For predominantly rural areas like mine, that represents an opportunity to create healthier, greener and more connected communities. Without serious investment, rural residents will continue to face unsafe roads, insufficient cycling facilities and limited transport options.

In communities like mine, the reality is stark. Public transport options are patchy and many depend on cars for short journeys. Safe and accessible cycling infrastructure could provide an alternative that is not only affordable, but sustainable. Where we have dedicated cycle routes, such as the outstanding separated cycling routes alongside the A27 between Lewes and Polegate in my constituency, they are often unconnected to any ongoing routes, which limits the number of people that can use them.

Better road maintenance is required. We need to create conditions in which cycling is a realistic option for commuting, shopping and even leisure—not just for the young, pale and male but for everybody. Inclusivity must be central to our approach. Whether it is for children cycling to school, older residents using e-bikes or families making short trips, cycling infrastructure should cater to a diverse range of needs. It is about ensuring that everybody can benefit from the independence, affordability and health benefits that cycling offers.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear in our commitment to reverse funding cuts and in pushing for a nationwide active travel strategy. In rural areas, that includes prioritising safe cycling routes, linking active travel to public transport and ensuring that local councils have the resources to tackle potholes and maintain pavements and cycleways, as well as to invest in active travel infrastructure. I urge the Government to recognise that cycling is not just a solution for urban areas, but a vital tool for rural communities. By investing in cycling infrastructure, we can reduce transport poverty, improve public health and build a greener future for areas like Sussex. Let us not miss this opportunity to make cycling safe, accessible and inclusive for all.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

It is customary to wait to hear what the Minister says—you might be delighted.

Cost of Rail Fares

James MacCleary Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree, and I can assure my hon. Friend that in the very first week, when the Secretary of State took office, she summoned a number of companies to her office to hold them to account. They will be held to account, and we are determined to see improvements.

Fares revenue is crucial to funding day-to-day railway operations, as well as Government priorities to put passengers first and improve performance on the railway. However, I recognise the serious concern that consumers have about the cost of rail fares. The affordability of the railway is a key objective for this Government, making sure that, wherever possible, prices are kept at a point that works for both passengers and taxpayers. A rise in rail fares can affect the family budgets of working people, including commuters between Woking and London.

Rail fares have always been an emotive subject, and rises in fares are often contentious. In that context, it is vital that passengers know that they are getting value for money. That is why this Government are committed to reviewing the overly complicated fares system with a view to simplifying it. The regulation surrounding the fares system is rooted in the privatisation of the 1990s, so there will be many opportunities to modernise the fares system as we move towards establishing Great British Railways and bringing forward the legislation needed to take on fares, ticketing and other operational aspects of the railway.

However, there is progress we can make now in improving fares and ticketing. We are progressing the expansion of simpler, easier and more flexible pay-as-you-go ticketing across the south-east. Along with simplified ticketing, pay as you go with contactless offers passengers a best price guarantee on the day. For most passengers, it will always provide them with the best price for a single day’s travel. We are also considering how simplifying long-distance fares can unlock better-value opportunities for passengers, as well as smoothing demand to make the best use of capacity while minimising crowding.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Rail fares from my constituency of Lewes to London have increased by 20% since 2020, meaning that if increases go ahead this year, a commuter from Lewes will incur £5,500 of cost for a season ticket. For many people whose salaries have not increased in recent years while the cost of living has gone up, that is a major cost. We have seen quite a lot of success capping bus fares in recent years. For some of our local users that has been an improvement. Will the Minister support a similar cap on rail fares?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Affordability is one of our six key objectives, so that prices, wherever possible, are kept at an affordable point that works for both passengers and taxpayers.

We are supporting LNER to offer its Simpler Fares trial tickets between London and stations around Newcastle, Berwick-upon-Tweed and Edinburgh from 30 September this year. Naturally, we will evaluate carefully before taking further decisions. LNER has published on its website the opportunities the trial offers, including the new 70-minute flex tickets between Newcastle and London, priced at £45 subject to availability. The ticket offers a degree of flexibility at nearly £40 cheaper than the old super off-peak. LNER sets out that, overall, around half of standard class 70-minute flex tickets sold have been cheaper than the old super off-peak, according to its latest figures.

In addition, those and the vast majority of other tickets on LNER are now sold on a single-leg basis, where a single costs approximately half the price of the previous return ticket rather than being priced within a pound of the return, as was often the case. That allows passengers to pay only for what they need by mixing and matching the right ticket for them for each leg of their journey, for example advance tickets with flexible tickets, or peak with off-peak where those exist.

There is a large range of railcards available to make rail travel more affordable for some, with at least a third off the cost of most rail tickets. Once established, I would expect Great British Railways to take a fresh look at the railcard suite, so that we can encourage the highest possible number of passengers to use our railways.

Woking is part of South Western Railway’s critical corridor between Woking and London Waterloo, and is therefore key to ensuring strong operational performance. South Western Railway recorded an 87% overall satisfaction rating in the Transport Focus rail user survey in September this year.