Transport Accessibility for Disabled People

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. We will start with an immediate six-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. After the next speaker, there will be a five-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. With a five-minute time limit, I call Elsie Blundell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her efforts in securing this debate, and indeed the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

At Long Eaton train station in my constituency, the two platforms are well above ground level. They are both accessed by narrow ramps and on both sides of the train line there is a steep upward incline. The ramps are guarded at each end by rails that prevent people from cycling up and down them, but the sharpness of that gradient means that if a traveller has any kind of mobility issues, their journey up to the platform might be rather difficult. The barriers make it effectively impossible for anybody who requires a wheelchair to make it up, and some old tarmac on the ramp often sees people with no mobility issues at all hit the deck every time there is a freeze. From personal experience on my parliamentary commute, I can confirm: not fun.

Thankfully, two lifts were installed at Long Eaton train station in 2012, as part of Network Rail’s Access for All programme, which was launched by the last Labour Government in 2006 and continues to this day. The installation was great progress towards improving disabled access to the platforms, but the operation of the lifts leaves quite a lot to be desired. Travellers can use the lifts only when somebody is on duty at the ticket office, which is during normal hours of nine-to-five. Thankfully, despite the previous Conservative Government’s best efforts in 2023, the ticket office remains open, but travellers are still severely limited. The office is not staffed all the time, meaning that of an evening or weekend, the lifts cannot be used and disabled members of my community cannot access the platforms.

I pay tribute to my local councillor, Dave Doyle—a very good friend of mine—and to Sawley parish council chair, Alan Chewings. Dave and Alan have done great work for many years in raising the alarm on accessibility failures at Long Eaton train station. Indeed, when Dave, Alan and I campaigned against the proposed ticket office closure a few years ago, disabled people’s access was very much what we focused on. Great thanks are therefore due to Dave and Alan for their efforts over the years.

I have previously met Midlands Connect and Network Rail and spoken about persistent issues at Long Eaton station. Struggles with accessibility result from its relative lack of modernisation, but the problems do not stop there. The platform is also unusually short—there is a special announcement every time I get on my train back home. It means that long inter-city trains cannot open all their doors because they cannot be accessed from the whole platform. It leads to missed connections and confusion for travellers across the board.

Additionally, the railway bridge right next to the station across Tamworth Road is 200 years old. It is so low and narrow that it chokes all traffic going under what is an important thoroughfare between Long Eaton and the M1. The road under the bridge also regularly floods, which means that people have to take a 15-minute diversion. The infrastructure we need is just not there.

In summary, we need proper investment to ensure that the station is accessible every day at all times. Long Eaton is a commuter town, ultimately. It is at the heart of the east midlands, with regular trains running to Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, and it is less than two hours door to door to the House of Commons—which is convenient. But it needs to be modernised, and any project that does that needs to recognise disabled people’s rights to accessibility, so that everyone can use the station to get where they need to go.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

It is appropriate to take part in this debate on what is National Epilepsy Day. I am grateful to the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for securing the debate and for her expertise in this area, and I congratulate her on doing so. I thank all colleagues across the House who have spoken, including my hon. Friends the Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who are admirably increasing the pressure for accessibility improvements in their constituencies.

The debate has shown what disabled people have known for a long time: accessibility is still too often treated as a box to tick late in the process, rather than being built in from the start, with the result that people are left trying to navigate a system that may function on paper but too often breaks down in practice. That is why the issue cannot be approached piecemeal—with one part of the system considered in isolation, each body concerned only with its own narrow responsibilities —because what matters in real life is whether the whole journey works from beginning to end. The proper test for the Government is therefore a practical one: can someone get from home to work, to college, to hospital or to the high street, or to see their friends or family, safely and reliably with the same basic confidence as anyone else? For too many disabled people, the answer is still no.

The wider picture makes that clear. Only 31% of British stations had full step-free access as of November 2025, 57% of the working-age population in England live in areas with low public transport access to jobs, and bus journeys have fallen by more than a billion since 2015. Those are not separate problems; they are a sign of a transport system in which accessibility has not been given the place it should have in decisions about infrastructure, service levels, procurement and oversight.

Access to healthcare is also harder where public transport is lacking. Some 66% of elderly people are unable to reach hospital by public transport within 30 minutes. Waits for driving tests remain stubbornly high, which of course is particularly concerning for people who are disabled and rely on driving as their only means of getting around.

The issue is not simply whether there are accessibility duties in law; it is whether accessibility is shaping decisions early enough to prevent exclusion from being built in from the beginning. Failure to get the design right at the outset puts more costs and inconvenience on people and means they have less independence later down the line.

Constituents of mine have raised the situation at the bus stop by the former Three Cups pub in Wellington, where parked cars prevent buses from pulling in so disabled passengers and others cannot board safely and ramps cannot be put out. Street design, parking enforcement, vehicle operation and passenger assistance all need to work together to solve those problems.

I have also heard from residents of Creech Heathfield, who have spent months trying to get a response from bus companies about wheelchair accessibility, but have received no meaningful reply. That, too, is part of accessibility. A system that does not respond when disabled people raise barriers is a system that is failing them. The same pattern can apply to taxi provision: with a shortage or scarcity of accessible cabs, bookings often fall through or unsuitable vehicles arrive instead. If policymakers treat accessibility as a marginal issue, or something that can be covered by special arrangements later on, what develops instead is a patchwork of uncertainty in which disabled people are expected to plan around failure—that is not good enough.

For disabled people, rail matters, buses matter, taxis matter and driving support matters, as do the links between them all. The Liberal Democrats have played their part. I am pleased to have played my part in the campaign to ensure that ticket offices in my constituency were retained, which the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) mentioned. We have also proposed amendments to Bills on accessible information and representation for passengers with access requirements, on bus accessibility and reporting, on extending support for disabled people, and on the rail passenger’s charter. How will the Government embed transport planning from the outset in future projects so that key decisions are made at the right stage, and how will they bring rail, buses, taxis and driving support together into a more coherent strategy for disabled people.

If I may, I will end on a positive note, which I know is unusual in this place. In looking back on my experience, I have a confession: I was a pusher from my childhood to later in life, as my mum was a wheelchair user before the days of electric wheelchairs. I identify with the experience of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) of accompanying people on public transport. In those days, we relied on my mum being an indomitable character who would pressgang any available member of the public—family, porters, taxi drivers—to get her across the country. Before public transport accessibility, that involved planks of wood to ramp across the steps from our house into the taxi, or lifting her into the goods van, where she would rattle around with the mailbags from one end of the railway line to the other. On some of those journeys, it was less like being a helper and more like being an extra in “Around the World in 80 Days”.

Those days have passed, however. Things have improved, and as the voices of disabled people have been heard more, there have been improvements in public transport accessibility. That accessibility should not depend on luck, persistence or whether somebody remembered accessibility late in the process; it must be part of the plan from the start.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

I begin by thanking the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for securing this incredibly important debate on transport accessibility. I thank everyone who has spoken for their thoughtful and powerful contributions, often informed by personal lived experience. Although it does not fall to me to sum up the debate, a couple of specific questions were raised that I would like to address.

The Chair of the Transport Committee asked how the accessible travel charter will be enforced, as well as about the benchmark principles contained in the charter to target improvement. I believe that it would be beneficial for my hon. Friend to see this piece of work happening and informing the Law Commission’s view to see where enforcement gaps exist. She also asked how disabled people have taken part in development of the integrated national transport strategy and the accessible travel charter. I am pleased to confirm that disabled people and organisations have been at the heart of that process. They have participated in our regional roadshows and people’s panels events, and we have worked closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has been fundamental to the development of the strategies.

The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) asked when design standards for accessible rail stations will be published. I can confirm that that will be done ahead of the stand-up of Great British Railways, so that the organisation can begin to rationalise stations under the same core principles of accessibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) asked about rail services and how the Railways Bill will ensure that the rights of disabled people are enshrined. Not only will the public sector equality duty apply to GBR across its public-facing functions, but the Bill will set out an explicit passenger and accessibility duty in legislation. The passenger watchdog will have the power to set consumer standards relating to accessibility that all passenger service operators must follow as part of their licence conditions. The watchdog will ensure operators’ compliance through regular monitoring, requesting improvement plans where necessary and, importantly, escalating serious and persistent issues to the ORR for enforcement when necessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who made many powerful points on this matter in the Railways Bill Committee, once again shared his testimony. He also spoke about the importance of the aviation accessibility implementation group and its recommendations. I am pleased to say that I met the group on Tuesday to reaffirm that air passenger rights remain a priority for the Department. We will continue to consider opportunities to ensure that air passengers have the highest levels of protection possible. The group reaffirmed to me that it believes there are many industry-led proposals that could lead to tangible improvements for passengers with disabilities, and I will stand by it and offer support as that work continues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) raised the case of the locked gate at the train station—it sounds like a Sherlock Holmes novel, but it is in fact very serious. I am afraid I do not know the exact details of the case she raised, but I will be sure to take the pertinent details away and raise them with the Rail Minister.

Transport accessibility determines whether people can get to work, education, healthcare and family, and, importantly, whether they can access community life. Access to transport determines whether people can participate fully and equally in our society. That is why it is important that we reflect on progress, acknowledge the challenges that remain and consider what more we must do to create a transport system that works for everyone.

I do not believe that accessibility is a destination that can simply be reached or completed; it is an ongoing journey that requires constant focus, particularly in a world where transport technology and patterns of travel are evolving rapidly. But let me be clear from the outset that it is unacceptable for anyone to be prevented from travelling, or to find it difficult to do so, because of accessibility barriers across our transport system.

Too often, disabled people have been expected to plan, negotiate, explain and adapt, rather than the system doing that work for them, as any other passenger would expect. Too often, accessibility has been an afterthought, rather than being designed into transport strategy from the start. This Government are taking action to correct that, with a firm commitment to improving transport so that disabled people can travel safely, confidently and with dignity.

The Government welcomed the findings in the Transport Committee report, and accepted its conclusion that more must be done to ensure that transport is truly accessible to all. That is why the Government are delivering a comprehensive programme of reform to improve the accessibility of our transport system. In the time that I have, I will set out how that work is progressing, and how it will deliver lasting change.

I will begin with rail, where we know that change has been urgently needed and is firmly under way. Our Railways Bill, and the creation of Great British Railways, is our opportunity to fix what is not working for passengers on our railways. That will ensure that the interests of all passengers, particularly those facing barriers to access, will be at the heart of decision making. The Bill will also establish a passenger watchdog, which will protect the rights of disabled passengers by monitoring service delivery, investigating issues, setting minimum consumer standards, including on accessibility, and advocating for improvements.

However, we are not sitting back and waiting for the passage of the Bill; we are acting. In November, we published alongside the Bill the Department’s road map to an accessible railway, setting out what we are doing to improve the day-to-day travelling experience for disabled passengers ahead of the creation of GBR. We also continue to implement the Access for All programme, which has already transformed access at many stations and will continue to do so. Step-free access, intuitive layouts and accessible facilities must all be part of the everyday experience of the railway.

Let me move on to local transport, which is at the heart of an inclusive and accessible transport system. Journeys by bus, taxi and private hire vehicle are central to disabled people’s daily travel. Our Bus Services Act 2025 marks a major step forward, and introduces a package of measures to improve the accessibility and inclusivity of local transport. Through the Act, we are helping local authorities to design safer, more accessible bus stations and stops. That measure complements existing requirements relating to the physical accessibility of vehicles, the conduct of drivers and passengers, and the information provided on board, which ensure that people can board the bus, receive the support they need, and travel to their destination with dignity. We are also mandating streamlined disability awareness and assistance training requirements for bus drivers and frontline staff. For the first time, every local transport authority will be required to regularly review the accessibility of its bus networks and publish a bus network accessibility plan.

The accessible information regulations are being implemented, improving buses’ audible and visible information, and the Department has recently published statutory guidance on floating bus stops. These bus stops were often introduced with good intentions, particularly the intention of improving safety for cyclists in congested urban environments. However, as has been highlighted many times, they have in some cases created new barriers, and we know that more needs to be done to make them accessible to all. Our guidance will enable designers to provide safer cycling facilities that meet the needs of bus passengers as well as people walking, wheeling or using mobility aids.

On taxis and private hire vehicles, we are seeking a new power to set national standards in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. That will allow us to set standards, including robust standards that prioritise and focus on passenger safety, and accessibility standards. We intend to use the standards to mandate disability equality training for drivers. As we consider wider reform of the overall sector, increasing the provision of wheelchair-accessible vehicles will be a key priority and an area of focus for our planned engagement this spring. We are also ensuring that local transport planning considers accessibility holistically by developing new guidance on the production of local transport plans, which will set clear expectations that accessible and inclusive transport should be at their core.

I turn to integration, a matter that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), spoke about very powerfully. Accessibility depends on integration and planning. Too often, decisions on transport infrastructure have been made in silos, with accessibility considered too late or not at all. Journeys must be joined up, and people should be able to leave their front door and reach their destination without facing barriers along the way.

Our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy will set out this Government’s people-focused vision for domestic transport across England. It sets out how we will create a transport network that works well for people, and is safe, affordable and accessible, so that everyone can get on in life and make the journeys that they need to easily. Accessibility will be a core priority in the strategy, and I look forward to talking more about our ambitions and the policy covered in the strategy once it has been published.

I have heard the concerns from across the Chamber about enforcement and the burden of responsibility. I am clear that the burden of securing accessibility should not rest disproportionately on disabled people themselves. For too long, disabled passengers have been expected to research, plan, explain and challenge, simply to exercise rights that already exist. That is why we are developing a new accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local authorities.

I hope that I have demonstrated that this Government are taking clear, concrete and co-ordinated steps to realise our shared ambition for a truly accessible and inclusive transport system. I am grateful to Members across the House for their continued engagement and challenge, and I look forward to working with them, disabled people and the transport sector to ensure that this progress continues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Ruth Cadbury to wind up very quickly.

Northern Powerhouse Rail

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Pochin]

No, we haven’t. That’s a lie! [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. That was so loud.

[Hon. Members]

Withdraw!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I would welcome the Member withdrawing that.

[Sarah Pochin]

Yes, I do withdraw that. I am sorry. I apologise. However—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Jo White]

Reform’s betrayal of the north must never be forgotten.

For this to work, we need our council leaders and mayors to play their part. For constituencies such as Bassetlaw, Bolsover, North East Derbyshire and Chesterfield, our East Midlands Mayor must be part of the dialogue on the investment strategy for transport planning and connectivity. We all want to open our doors to businesses on the back of this, so will the Secretary of State ensure that Mayor Claire Ward has a place at the table?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I ask Members to keep their questions short. Otherwise we will not be able to get everybody in, so please help each other out.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Can I begin by expressing my sincere and enthusiastic thanks to the Secretary of State for today’s announcements? I have been campaigning, and some would say badgering Ministers, throughout my entire time in this place to address capacity challenges on the west coast main line arising from the steaming pile of mess left for this Government on HS2. I welcome the announcement that the Government intend to build a new rail line between Birmingham and Manchester, but following 14 years of mismanagement of projects such as this, how can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that these projects will actually be delivered, and how will they be insulated against the backwards, anti-growth, populist forces that we know would reverse these plans in a heartbeat?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Secretary of State has inadvertently misled the House on Reform’s voting record. We have always supported more transport in the north. I ask your advice on how we can correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for letting the Chair know that she wished to raise this matter. However, the Chair is not responsible for how the Secretary of State answered her question.

Railways Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and in particular the donations from trade unions through my constituency Labour party, of which I am proud.

This landmark legislation will finally address the imbalance in the sector. Since Mrs Thatcher’s privatisation of the railways, the taxpayer has been funding the huge cost of infrastructure, while private operators and shareholders have benefited by taking all the profits. For too long, companies have been cashing in while passengers pay the price with poor service. It is time to put passengers first and profits second.

I have raised this issue with the Secretary of State a number of times: Reddish South station in my constituency has one train a week, and that is simply unacceptable. Friends of Reddish South Station, who I have met a number of times, have been campaigning for proper passenger rail services at the station for many years. I hope that, with GBR, proper rail services will be restored to Reddish South station. In the latest reporting period, the station recorded 102 passengers in an entire year. The recent increase in housing around Reddish South and changes in Reddish over recent years mean that we need proper rail services and connectivity.

Sadly, three out of five train stations in my constituency—Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South—do not have step-free access. I want the Access for All scheme to be increased in size. Unfortunately, the scheme is very slow and the roll-out tends to involve a need to apply for funding. The north’s rail stations have poor accessibility; fewer than half the stations have step-free access. Some stations in the north have benefited from Access for All, but progress has been slow, with an average of only three stations per year in the north benefiting from step-free access.

In response, the north’s mayors and political leaders have been pressing for the devolution of Access for All funding to mayoral strategic authorities, to ensure that decisions on local stations are prioritised locally and taken locally. It is simply unacceptable that disabled people, people with mobility issues and people with health conditions are discouraged from using the railways by issues with step-free access. I pay tribute to Nathaniel Yates, a young local campaigner who has been campaigning for step-free access for a long time; Nathaniel was able to say hello to the Rail Minister during a recent visit to my constituency.

At Stockport station, which is one of the five stations in my constituency, and which recorded over 4 million entries and exits in the latest reporting period, the Passenger Assist scheme is not adequately staffed. Avanti is responsible for staffing at the station, and a number of staff members and passengers have told me that the coverage is simply not good enough. Davenport station is in a neighbouring constituency, but I also want to see step-free access there, because many people from my constituency use Davenport station. Local councillors Wendy Wild, Paul Wright and Dickie Davies have been campaigning for step-free access at the station for a long while.

Sunday services continue to be a significant issue with Northern Rail. I have met Friends of Heaton Chapel Station twice in recent weeks, and a number of passengers and members of the group tell me that Northern’s Sunday services are simply not good enough. Northern is also failing to staff ticket offices adequately, in particular at Brinnington, in my patch. I raised that with the company in October; it is now December, and the station still does not seem to be staffed adequately. The ticket office needs to be staffed properly.

I have also raised this issue previously in the House: funding for British Transport police is quite concerning. We had the sad attack in Huntingdon, and I pay tribute to the rail workers and passengers on the train, but British Transport police’s coverage is not good enough. It needs more funding. Staff at Stockport station frequently tell me about the low presence of BTP officers. I met British Transport police recently, on 28 November. Unfortunately, crime is up by 5.4%, antisocial behaviour incidents are up by 9% and violent offences are up by 14%. BTP is facing an £8.5 million shortfall in the next financial year after receiving just a 4.6% uplift against the force’s 9.8% request.

I have very limited time, so I will finish on the point of rolling stock companies, which are one aspect of the large-scale profiteering on the railways. The firms typically pay in excess of £200 million per annum in dividends, and Office of Rail and Road data tells us that they paid out £275 million last year. I would like to see more work on that. Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

The hon. Gentleman might find that the Bill is also rather lacking in detail on how future rail improvements will be funded. However, he is right in the sense that we need to get costs down. That is why a rolling programme of electrification, new stations, rolling stock and so on would get costs down. It is not just me who thinks so; Andrew Haines, the former chief executive of Network Rail, said in testimony to the Transport Committee that the evidence is “incontrovertible” that a rolling programme of electrification would reduce costs.

I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) that we need a greater voice not just for combined authorities but for local authorities. Only with those changes will we see a railway that is innovative, ambitious and aligned with the needs of our economy, passengers and freight end users. For now, the Bill, despite its good intentions, needs further work before it can move forward. Therefore, with some sadness, Liberal Democrat Members cannot support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate four-minute limit, I call Martin Vickers.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Review of the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a report reviewing measures to encourage the supply of materials for sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an assessment of the impact of the closure of bioethanol plants on the ability to encourage overall increases in sustainable aviation fuel production;

(b) options for mitigating any adverse impacts on the availability of supply of sustainable aviation fuel by the closure of bioethanol plants;

(c) recommendations for any necessary Government action to promote a stable supply of bioethanol for sustainable aviation fuel.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report outlining measures to encourage the supply of materials for SAFs, including considering the impact of bioethanol plant closures on encouragement to increase supply.

New clause 3—Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report which sets out a strategy for increasing the greenhouse gas emission saving resulting from the promotion of sustainable aviation fuel production in the United Kingdom.

(2) The report required under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to—

(a) proposals for incentivising the research and development of sustainable aviation fuels that maximise greenhouse gas emission savings;

(b) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, the minimum required greenhouse gas emission reduction in order for a sustainable aviation fuel to be issued a SAF certificate;

(c) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, minimum ratios for renewable content in blended sustainable aviation fuels, for the purpose of more quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(3) Twelve months after the publication of the report required under subsection (1) and within every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report which—

(a) sets out progress against the strategy; and

(b) makes any necessary adjustments to the strategy as a result of developments in the sustainable aviation fuel industry.

(4) In this section, “SAF certificate” has the meaning given in article 2 of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.”

New clause 4—Reporting of Sustainable Aviation Fuel targets—

“(1) The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024 is amended as set out in this section.

(2) In paragraph (3), after sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State may vary the table in paragraph (7) in order to increase the obligation in any given year.”

(3) In sub-paragraph 33(2)(c) leave out “, and”

(4) After sub-paragraph 33(2)(d), insert “and

(e) consider whether the SAF obligation set out in the table in sub-paragraph 3(7) of this Order should be increased for any given year, and if so, set out steps the Secretary of State will take to effect such an increase.”

(5) After paragraph 33(2) insert—

“(2A) A copy of a report published under this article must—

(a) be laid before Parliament; and

(b) be sent to the relevant select committee of each House of Parliament.

(2B) In sub-paragraph 33(2A)(b), “the relevant select committee” is—

(a) in the House of Commons, the Transport Committee, provided that—

(i) if the name of that Committee is changed, reference is instead taken to mean the new name, and

(ii) if the functions of that Committee with respect to Sustainable Aviation Fuel become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, reference is instead taken to the committee by whom the functions are then exercisable;

(b) in the House of Lords, any such Committee as the Chairman of Committees may appoint.””

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.”

New clause 6—Economic Impact of the Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the Act.

(2) This report must include, but shall not be limited to—

(a) the impact on the UK’s aviation fuel industry;

(b) the impact on the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel supply including the impact on all small, medium and large producers and potential importers of sustainable aviation fuel;

(c) the impact on international and domestic tourism in the UK; and

(d) the impact on passenger air fares.

(3) The report required by subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.”

New clause 7—Targets for power-to-liquid aviation fuel usage—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the power-to-liquid aviation fuel targets as set out in section (3) of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.

(2) The review carried out under subsection (1) must only consider—

(a) the effectiveness of the existing power-to-liquid aviation fuel target and;

(b) whether the target should be increased.

(3) In carrying out the review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) producers of power-to-liquid aviation fuel;

(b) airlines;

(c) experts in sustainable aviation fuel production; and

(d) any other persons the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(4) A report setting out the findings of the review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

Government amendment 1.

Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”

Government amendments 2 to 5.

Amendment 11, in clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out from “pay” to end of line 22 and insert

“to the designated counterparty in each month a standardised levy on their relevant disposals of aviation fuel products in the preceding month that must be publicised on invoices expressed in pence per standard litre.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers.

Government amendment 6.

Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty to report on—

(a) the impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the proceeding 12 month period;

(b) a projection of the expected impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the following five year period.

(4) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph 3(a) before Parliament.”

This amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact that the revenue certainty mechanism has on passenger air fares.

Amendment 9, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty, where a venue certainty contract would result in a new production facility, to prioritise entering into any such contracts with producers that will use UK owned technologies in that facility.”

This amendment would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts.

Amendment 12, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make a direction under subsection (1) which requires the designated counter party to prioritise entering at least one revenue certainty contract with a producer of Power to Liquid sustainable aviation fuel if doing so will allow for at least one plant to reach Final Investment Decision by 31 December 2026.”

Government amendment 7.

[Olly Glover]

Global demand for aviation continues to grow; it is projected to be two or three times bigger by 2050. In 2024, there was a record rate of increase in carbon emissions, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, and there was a new daily record for global aviation emissions in July 2025. Nearly half of all the carbon emissions to date from aviation have occurred since 2000.

Sustainable aviation fuel has been talked up for years as the solution, yet there has been a poor track record of unambitious targets not being matched by delivery. For example, in 2010, Boeing announced the target that 1% of aviation fuel globally should come from SAF by 2015, and in 2019, the International Air Transport Association set out hopes of reaching 2% by 2025, but today, globally, the figure is just 0.3%. The UK’s published figure this year of 1.29% is better, but it nevertheless shows how far we have to go.

The Conservative Government promised back in 2022 to have five commercial UK SAF plants operational by 2025, but there is still only one. It is therefore right of the Government to have introduced legislation to attempt to make sure that the latest set of SAF targets move from fantasy to realistic, credible and deliverable plans, although these will ultimately need to transition us towards the development of truly zero-carbon flight technology. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for their contribution to the Bill Committee, and I hope that Members from across the House will consider the Liberal Democrat amendments.

New clauses 1, 2 and 3 all increase the chances of the intention behind the Bill being realised. New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to assess and report on the potential for disused oil refineries and similar industrial sites to be used for the production of sustainable aviation fuel. New clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to assess the measures being taken to encourage the supply of materials for production of sustainable aviation fuel, and has a focus on bioethanol plants. That is especially important in the context of the expected closure of the Vivergo bioethanol plant near Hull, following the Government’s decision not to provide it with financial support.

New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the development of a strategy for analysing and maximising the potential of sustainable aviation fuels to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

I also speak in support of two new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), both of which would improve the Bill by providing greater rigour and scrutiny of progress towards sustainable aviation fuel targets. New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State the power to increase SAF production obligations where necessary, and to ensure that reports on progress are laid before Parliament and relevant Select Committees. New clause 5 would introduce requirements for air travel providers to report on their use of sustainable aviation fuel, and to provide annual reports to the public via their websites. Collectively, new clauses 1 to 5 would strengthen the Bill and increase its credibility when it comes to SAF production and reporting on progress.

The Government’s SAF mandate requires just 22% of aviation fuel to be sustainable by 2040. That compares poorly with the European Union’s target of 32% by 2040. It is hard to square an objective of net zero aviation by 2050 with just 22% of fuel being sustainable a decade earlier, unless we put in place measures alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate-friendly flight a reality. We urge the Government to clarify their plans for achieving their targets, particularly as hope for SAF progress is being used to state that Heathrow and Gatwick expansion are compatible with our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Prime Minister promised that certain papers would be published as soon as they could be, but he did not give a time. Has there been any indication of when those papers will be published? We are still waiting for them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. While that is not a matter for the Chair, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he said.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Regional Transport Inequality

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Catherine Atkinson, who will speak for about 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. There is an immediate four-minute time limit.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses.

Within my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) are two sites of the UK’s largest bus manufacturer, Alexander Dennis, which employs around 400 people in Falkirk, with thousands more jobs dependent on the buses created at Falkirk. Manufacturers will welcome new clause 38 and the certainty that it gives by consolidating the provisions of the Bill in Scotland.

Bus manufacturing in Britain has been in difficulty in the past year, partly due to the failure of the previous Government to deliver on their pledge of 4,000 British-built, zero emission buses by 2024. In the end, they supported just over half that number, with just under half being bought from abroad. The Tories funded too few buses and got far too many of them from elsewhere in the world.

Then there was a second policy failure, this time by the Scottish Government’s recent ScotZEB 2 programme, which saw less than one fifth of its buses come from Scotland’s only bus manufacturer and more than three times more come from China. Standing up for Scotland—aye right! Both the Conservatives and the Scottish National party did not take the protection of the domestic bus manufacturing sector seriously, and their failure has jeopardised hundreds of jobs in my constituency and potentially thousands in the supply chain across the country.

All this is to say that the future of a domestic industry that we will need if we want to see a green, clean, safe and effective bus network is contingent on legislation that supports the effective domestic procurement of buses and enables local authorities to make decisions that are right for their area and put the passenger first. The Bill does an excellent job of delivering on those priorities, with a streamlined and more flexible franchising process, stronger powers for grant funding from local authorities, and local authorities able to order in bulk, as in the case of the Bee Network in Manchester.

The Bee Network was bolstered by 254 buses ordered from and built in Falkirk. I will never miss an opportunity to remind the House that the Bee Network’s buses were reliant on the skills and craftmanship of bus manufacturing workers in Falkirk, more than they were reliant on any other place. That is thanks in no small part to the instincts and political foresight of the Mayor of Manchester to work in the national interest—instincts that will be empowered across the country by the provisions in the Bill. If only we had the same foresight from the Scottish Government, who must now deliver on their commitment to a prospective rescue deal for Alexander Dennis workers following the excellent engagement and flexibility of our Transport, Cabinet Office and Scotland Office colleagues.

It is welcome that, following consultation, the ban on registering non-zero emission buses for local services will start no earlier than 2030, as moving too fast on the necessary transition to zero emission vehicles would create a degree of risk for domestic manufacturers in the current market. This year, the industry reported that 35% of ZEV buses purchased in the country by local authorities and operators will come from China, compared with 10% only two years ago. That is an alarming share to have been taken out of our domestic manufacture. We must address that before we throw ourselves head-first or too fast into building an exclusively clean, green and foreign fleet across the country.

While I am sympathetic to the well-intentioned environmentalist calls in amendments 62 and 63 from the Green party to accelerate the non-zero emission buses ban, that approach would risk creating a situation in which authorities and operators would likely be compelled to buy from abroad, further undermining the competitiveness of our domestic industry, on which my community relies. I would more than welcome Green Members’ engagement with the all-party group to discuss how the House can align British industry with the laudable intention of those amendments. The UK timeline will align with the transition in Scotland, as I mentioned, as is addressed in the Secretary of State’s new clause 38 and amendments 46 to 48.

Accelerating our ambition beyond what domestic capacity allows would create a risk that local authorities and operators would be compelled in the long term to buy an unsustainably high proportion of their fleet from abroad, from manufacturers who have received decades of state subsidy elsewhere. I repeat the ask of my all-party parliamentary group for Ministers to use the work of the bus manufacturing expert panel to map out a fully funded and coherent pipeline of zero emission bus orders that can be met by our world-leading domestic manufacturers, and provide the certainty that the sector—especially workers in Falkirk this week—needs before the ban comes in in 2030.

As I mentioned, Falkirk has already seen the benefit of local authority-controlled bus networks, with Labour-controlled Liverpool and Manchester combined authorities making clear strategic commitments to partner with UK manufacturers and ordering significant numbers of buses from Alexander Dennis. Considered strategic and small-p political local leadership can often make more effective policy decisions than the private sector or—I acknowledge—lazy franchisers, who all too often simply look to the cheapest price rather than considering our national, industrial and economic interests.

More authorities operating like that, in tandem with the upcoming changes to the local authority procurement framework, could see us not just protect jobs in Falkirk in the short term but materially enable an expansion of the industry. That is essential to delivering the socially positive outcomes clearly articulated by hon. Members in new clause 45 and amendments 7 and 16, to mention just a few. We cannot forget the social benefit of an industry that provides an additional 3.25 jobs per job hired in manufacturing. The benefits are seen in quieter and smoother journeys, but also in jobs created and protected, taxes paid and communities strengthened.

The Bill seems on the whole to be about building up the powers of our local authorities, but it also gives us an opportunity to build up the bus manufacturing industry while we set our minds to the task of improving local transport. The Bill on the whole is better for passengers, better for local authorities, and hopefully better for British workers. With the Bill we can deliver a transport system that is clean, affordable and reliable and a bus manufacturing industry that thrives for decades to come. First stop, Falkirk.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Tom Gordon.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I will start by speaking to new clause 2, which stands in my name and is supported by over 70 colleagues from across the House. It calls for the removal of time restrictions imposed on disabled bus passes.

Under the English national concessionary travel scheme, eligible disabled people are entitled to free local bus travel. The policy rightly recognises that, for a variety of reasons, disabled people rely on public transport to access healthcare, work and education, as well as for family and community purposes. The policy also recognises that disabled people are more likely to require financial support, as they face disproportionately higher costs of living. Yet from 11 pm to 9.30 am on weekdays, that entitlement becomes void, dependent instead on whether travel authorities choose—or even can afford—to extend the benefit. Disability Action Yorkshire, a charity in my constituency, first highlighted the absurdity of the restriction to me last year. Since that meeting, I have been campaigning to have the time restrictions removed. I have met and received support from a number of charities that work with disabled people, including Transport for All, Whizz Kidz, Bus Users UK and the RNIB. The consensus is clear: the current restrictions have huge impacts on the everyday lives of disabled people. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to remove the time restrictions imposed by the ENCTS, allowing disabled passengers to travel for free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of their postcode.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank my fellow members and the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee for the work they did; I felt work on the Committee was very constructive from the different Opposition Members. It followed some very constructive amendments that were made and agreed in the other place, too, including on villages and vision zero for road danger. I was sad to see so many good ideas defeated and removed in Committee. I think this issue crosses party boundaries; it should be about practicalities, not party politics.

On road danger, I am pleased to have tabled new clauses 41, 42 and 43, with support from members of the RMT, which seek to improve safety through driver support and wellbeing. These measures are all necessary to achieve vision zero for road danger for our buses.

I am full of support for new clause 2 and other measures that seek to remove time restrictions on concessionary bus passes. Having these time restrictions is a major disincentive to working. The Government cannot keep dodging this contradiction in their stated policies, and must act to enable disabled people’s mobility and enact real equality.

Young people, too, have received attention with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and in Liberal Democrat measures. I myself have tabled new clause 44, which seeks simply to enact a policy that is already in place in Scotland in order to give free bus travel to anyone under the age of 22.

Today, however, I want to advocate mainly for clean air, as the promoter of the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—Ella’s law—and for toilet access to be taken seriously by Government in relation to buses. My amendments 62 and 64 would help to fix those policy gaps. The clauses in the Bill on zero emission buses seem to block the highest ambition by not setting the earliest date for a mandate on new procurement of zero emission buses until 2030. That is a really long time still to be buying dirty, diesel-powered buses. It is extremely poor when dirty air is a killer, and when in certain streets and hotspots—often where the least advantaged live—cleaner buses can make a real difference and it is in the gift of public authorities to deal with it. I believe that the Mayor of London and Transport for London began procuring zero emission buses only as long ago as 2021. Given that some London routes are very long indeed, such buses could be introduced in other areas much sooner. With the right help and investment, the infrastructure could be built and good, green jobs could be filled, as implied by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). I have yet to hear good reasons from Ministers why the clause is so tragically unenterprising.

Another vital issue of equality is ensuring that access to toilets features in local transport plans for bus infrastructure and facilities. This is the ideal time for me to be talking about this topic; I apologise to Members who have also been in the debate for a while. As Age UK said in January in its delightfully named “Lifting the lid” report, for older people, those with health conditions and many others, the availability of public toilets can determine whether they feel able to leave their homes. It is basic equality of mobility.

My Green colleagues on the London Assembly are famously very persuasive. Working with groups including Age UK, they have gained consensus and won investment, and targets have been set for toilet access on the tube network—toilets should be no more than 20 minutes of travel time away. The Minister talked about creating more accessible stopping places. That kind of standard access to essential toilet facilities on bus routes would enable mobility, and it is so achievable. I hope that Ministers will listen and take these proposals forward in their work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have had an interesting debate with around 25 to 30 speakers, and some themes have developed from it. A number of speakers mentioned disability access, particularly issues with floating and shared-border bus stops for those who are visually impaired or blind. Other speeches focused on concessionary travel during rush hour and concessionary companion passes. We also heard a number of descriptions of local bus needs in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, particularly focusing on rural needs.

I want to pick out two or three speeches for commendation, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke in support of amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34. He highlighted a concerning failure by his Liberal Democrat county council, so if we want to improve bus services, we know where the Liberal Democrats can start. I commend the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who put his name to and championed new clause 47, which aims for companion passes to form part of the concessionary travel scheme.

I would like to mention the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), because he had a tiny pop at the Conservatives, particularly about new clause 10 relating to antisocial behaviour. I think this requires a bit of explanation. It was right of him to highlight that the position of His Majesty’s Opposition has changed on this measure, and I will explain why. When we discussed new clause 10 in Committee, the hon. Member will recall—if he does not, he can always refer to Hansard—that I was very sympathetic to the objective of his new clause, but, as I now accept, I took a rather narrow objection to its drafting. The new clause adds a description to a non-exhaustive list and is therefore technically not required, because the definition was already employed. The definition is one of nuisance, and audible antisocial behaviour is, by definition, nuisance. It was the lawyer in me coming out, and I was being slightly otiose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I completely agree, and unlike the Conservatives, we actually got it funded.

I thank hon. Members for the new clauses and amendments on the provision of socially necessary services. Clause 14 requires areas with enhanced partnership schemes to specify a process that will apply when a local transport authority wants to change or cancel a socially necessary local service. In franchising areas, existing legislation and measures contained in the Bill set out a detailed procedure governing changes to a franchising scheme. That includes changes to services specified in a scheme. Careful consideration has been given to the Bill’s measures, ensuring that there is an appropriate balance between consultation and burdens being placed on local transport authorities. The consultation requirement proposed by new clause 32 would be duplicative.

On amendment 2, when the Bill was debated in the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail made a statement to the House to officially confirm that medical and educational establishments come within the definition of essential goods and services. My Department is also producing bespoke guidance for LTAs, which will emphasise that point.

The desired effect of amendment 5 is already sufficiently covered by the Transport Act 2000. On amendment 6, following the spending review settlement, LTAs will be allocated a significant amount of support through the bus fund to decide where they can invest in their services. My Department has committed to ensuring that funding is fairly allocated. The amendment runs contrary to the Government’s aims. Amendment 7 is contrary to the Government’s view that local leaders are best placed to make decisions on how they spend their funding. Restricting the range of choices for how a local authority does that would therefore go against the spirit of the Bill.

On amendment 8, the Department already publishes bus data through the bus open data service. That provides timetable, bus location and fares data for local bus services across England. The Department also publishes bus statistics through gov.uk. The majority of the statistics are updated annually, with information on bus fares made available quarterly. Providing further information directly to Parliament is therefore not necessary.

Amendment 60 would create practical challenges and may not provide the benefits the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is seeking. The needs of communities evolve over time. Services that previously ran may have been integrated into other bus networks through changes intended to make the bus route better reflect current needs. I also note that the amendment does not work because an operator cannot amend or cancel an already cancelled service. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask hon. Members to withdraw those amendments.

Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), with the support of the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), would include training on domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, in the mandatory training for bus staff on crime and antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for Wimbledon tabled the same amendment in Committee. In Committee, I said that clause 34 captured domestic abuse because it is already a criminal offence. However, I must clarify that there is no specific criminal offence of “domestic abuse”. Under existing legislation, if someone commits a criminal offence and that behaviour also satisfies the definition of domestic abuse under section 1 of the 2021 Act, it is treated as an aggravating factor in the commission of the underlying offence, and that can also be considered during sentencing.

The definition of “abusive behaviour” in the 2021 Act includes physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, and psychological, emotional and other abuse. The measures in the Bill already account for abusive behaviours that are also criminal offences. However, that is unlikely to be the case for parts of the definition from the 2021 Act—namely economic abuse, or psychological and emotional abuse, which may not be criminal offences. Those abusive behaviours are less likely to be apparent, and I do not consider it reasonable to expect bus staff to be able to identify instances of such behaviour in the course of their duties. Should an incident escalate to a criminal offence that would cause a victim or potential victim to fear for their personal safety, it would be covered under the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw amendment 14.

On minimum service levels, I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) for tabling new clauses 22 and 45 respectively, and those who sponsored the new clauses. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley)—I always look forward to her reminder about Sunday services in Shrewsbury, and hope that those days are numbered given the Bill’s progress. The Bill will empower local areas across the country, including by giving them the tools to decide where to run services and their frequency. The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the transport needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts, as set out in the Transport Act 2000. I clarify for the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire that section 108 of that Act requires an LTA to develop policies that meet the transport needs of persons living, working, visiting or travelling in the authority area.

If an area chooses to franchise its bus services, it must consider lots of factors to determine the right level of service needed to support its communities. That level is likely to be different in different areas. Similarly, when an LTA considers an enhanced partnership, a lot of work is undertaken to understand the service level that the local area requires, and it will then work with operators to investigate how best to proceed. [Interruption.] I believe that I am being hastened on. [Hon. Members: “More!] I have never been so popular.

Finally, let me address the amendments on zero emission buses. In developing the Bill, we have taken into account the need to provide the industry with sufficient notice before the measure comes into effect, and with reassurance that it will not happen suddenly. We have also considered the impact on bus manufacturers. A significantly earlier date could impact on bus operators and passengers. The costs of decarbonising sooner could lead to reduced services, increased fares and an increase in car use. With that, I bring my remarks to an end. I thank Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 38 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes

“The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”—(Tom Gordon.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The result of the Division is as follows: the Ayes were 69, the Noes were 400.

Department for Transport

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £20,121,455,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Keir Mather.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that point, but I understand why he is keen to raise it.

In conclusion, I would say that for too long and in too many places a degraded bus network has been symbolic of wider national decline, with each poor service reinforcing a sense of things not working as they should. That ends now. This Bill represents a brighter future for bus travel. For the first time in 40 years, we are taking back control of our buses, transferring power from operators to local leaders and from Whitehall to the town hall, where it belongs. I truly believe that the transport needs of my constituents in Swindon are different from those of passengers in Scunthorpe or Southend. That is why buses will rightly look and feel different across the country, reflecting the identity and priorities of local areas.

This Bill is just the start of the journey. Throughout its passage and following Royal Assent, we will continue to work with the bus industry, passenger groups and colleagues in both Houses as we set out further regulations on the standards that we and millions of daily passengers expect. Better buses are around the corner, with increased reliability, greater accountability and services that passengers can finally depend on. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Road Maintenance

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, the views take your breath away. Sadly, so do the potholes when your car hits one—not just when it happens, but when the repair bill arrives. According to the RAC, the cost of pothole damage to vehicles is around £600 on average, with more severe repairs costing considerably more. Potholes do not just damage cars; they damage people. One constituent has told me that when his disabled father is driven to the doctors or to hospital appointments, it is almost inevitable that they hit a pothole on the way, which causes him pain. Another Scarborough constituent told me that the journey she needed to take to York hospital to attend the pain clinic was too painful because of the quality of the roads, and that she therefore stopped making it, despite being in a huge amount of pain.

The Conservative-run North Yorkshire council says that keeping our roads in the best condition for the money it has is one of the biggest challenges it faces, and that is why it is brilliant that the York and North Yorkshire combined authority will soon be receiving its share of the Labour Government’s record £1.6 billion road maintenance funding. This is the biggest one-off road maintenance funding settlement that councils have ever been given. For Mayor Skaith in York and North Yorkshire, it is £62.1 million, an increase of £16.6 million. Of course, I have spoken to the Mayor about the importance of ensuring the quality of repairs in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby.

Maple Drive in Scarborough is home to Northstead community primary school. It is a very busy road and it is littered with potholes, which are regularly reported to the council using its online tool. Workmen duly arrive to fill the potholes, but my constituents report that they soon reappear, bigger than before, leaving Maple Drive looking like a patchwork quilt—but, it has to be said, not a particularly attractive one. It is vital that we abandon the patch-and-run approach and focus on permanent and innovative repairs, especially given the cold and increasingly wet winters we encounter on the coast.

I welcome the caveat attached to the money, which means that the combined authority will need to publish annual progress reports and prove to the public that the work is being done to a high standard. After years of Conservative neglect, drivers in Scarborough, Whitby and the villages can, thanks to this Labour Government, look forward to smoother, safer local roads.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With the leave of the House, I call shadow Minister Jerome Mayhew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you give me some advice? Where the Minister has misquoted me and refuses to give way, what steps can I take to correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I think that is a matter of debate, and it is now on the record.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As the Secretary of State said earlier, this Government inherited crumbling roads with local highway authorities struggling to stay on top of an ever-increasing backlog of maintenance. Of course, there are many reasons for that, including the weather and the increasing volume and weight of traffic using our roads, but it is abundantly clear that the funding provided by the previous Government was simply not enough to allow local authorities to deal with the problem.

No one knows this better than Karen Shore, our Labour candidate in Runcorn and Helsby, who served for many years as the cabinet member for highways on her local council. As she and we remember, the Tories made promises for 14 years but, in reality, any funding uplifts were short-lived and never fully materialised. It is perhaps not surprising that the Conservative Benches have been so empty during this debate.

This Government are determined to ensure that things will be different, and we will do better.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for bringing this short but crucial Bill before the House. I commend him for delivering such a brilliant and informative speech and for managing to cling on for as long as he did; some would call him the “Rocket Man” of Parliament. I thank all other Members who have spoken in the debate. Speaking of stars, I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) a very happy birthday for yesterday; I hope he had a stellar time.

I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the full support of the Government. Before I begin, let me outline some general observations about the UK and spaceflight. The UK’s approach to launch positions the UK as a leading international partner in the space sector, ensuring Europe’s independent access to space. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has responsibility for co-ordinating civil space policy, working closely with Departments across Government to ensure that space services can support their needs and that space science and research can act as an enabler across the economy, while building strong links with the wider science ecosystem. To achieve our ambition, Government have invested more than £57 million through the LaunchUK programme to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital spaceflight.

The UK has one of the most advanced and trusted modern space regulatory frameworks in the world. On 8 October, the Secretary of State for DSIT announced the new Regulatory Innovation Office, to reduce the burden of red tape and speed up access to new technologies that improve our daily lives. The RIO has made space one of its top priorities, and we look forward to working with it on our wider regulatory reforms to enable innovation.

This Government are implementing a series of space regulatory reforms stemming from the recommendations published in the space regulatory review in May 2024. The Government have worked with the sector to determine a prioritised approach to the reforms, to maximise the growth and innovation potential for the sector.

One recommendation involves the implementation of a regulatory sandbox to stress-test the regulatory framework for enabling rendezvous proximity operations. The sandbox commenced in October 2024, with stage 1 due to be complete in March 2025, providing vital recommendations to enable the growth of these novel missions and to strengthen the UK’s capabilities.

We are also exploring financial tools, incentives and market access schemes that promote sustainable activities and encourage self-investment, inward investment and support a level playing field for UK companies. Alongside the regulatory reform package, work is under way to develop a range of new innovative regulatory measures to support the growth of the UK sector, new mission types and to incentivise the uptake of space sustainability measures.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, the Bill will amend two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the 2018 Act. This short, but crucial Bill will go “far, far away” to encourage much-needed investment into the sector.

Before I outline why the Government fully support the Bill, and boldly going where no man has gone before, I will briefly outline some of the UK’s achievements in spaceflight. On 9 January, the UK made history by conducting the first ever orbital launch attempt from UK soil through Virgin Orbit at Spaceport Cornwall, demonstrating the UK’s growing launch capability and position as a leading spacefaring nation. In December 2023, SaxaVord spaceport on the Shetland Islands became the UK’s first vertical launch site to receive a spaceport licence. In January 2025, Rocket Factory Augsburg became the UK’s first licensed vertical launch operator. The UK’s approach to launch positions the UK as a leading international partner in the space sector.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, Scotland makes a vital contribution to the wider UK space ecosystem. Scotland’s space sector is home to advanced satellite manufacturing capabilities, and has a fast-growing satellite launch market. In fact, Glasgow builds more small satellites than anywhere outside of California. The UK is now the second-most attractive destination for commercial space investment after the United States.

This Government have made clear that unlocking growth is vital to rebuilding the UK and supporting high-tech jobs, which unlocks investment and improves living standards across the country. We are capitalising on the UK’s excellence in science and innovation to ensure our world-class research translates to commercial success, rebalancing the system and setting up the financial services sector to innovate, grow and seize the opportunities for investment in business, infrastructure and clean energy across Britain.

The space sector is hugely valuable to the UK’s economy. It is worth more than £18.9 billion and directly employs more than 52,000 people. It supports more than 126,000 jobs across the supply chain and at least £346 billion of the UK’s GDP is supported by satellite services, such as navigation, metrology, communications and Earth observation. It is now possible to launch satellites from UK spaceports, rather than relying solely on overseas sites to launch UK-built satellites into orbit.

As I previously mentioned, in January 2023, Virgin Orbit conducted an historic first launch from the UK at Spaceport Cornwall. In December 2023, SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands became the first licensed vertical launch spaceport. This year, we hope to witness the UK’s first vertical launch by German company Rocket Factory Augsburg, with more to follow. Growing our launch capability is already creating high-skilled jobs and opportunities in communities right across the UK, as well as catalysing investment across the supply chain.

The Government are investing in new launch companies such as Orbex, which has built factories in Scotland, creating hundreds of new jobs, ready to take advantage of the new opportunities that the Government have created. SaxaVord spaceport anticipates that by 2025, the spaceport site could support a total of 650 jobs in Scotland, including 140 locally and 210 across the wider Shetland region. Other launch operators, such as Skyrora, a UK company based in Glasgow, are thriving. It has indicated that it will conduct its first sub-orbital launch from the UK in the near future.

The UK’s space industry already supports an industrial base of over 1,500 space companies. It provides high-skilled, high-quality jobs across the UK, with over 77% of employees holding at least a primary degree. Building on the success of the UK’s space sector, the Government will continue to support business through a stable policy environment, strengthening our economic institutions and giving investors the certainty they need to fuel growth. The Government recognise the important contribution that the space sector makes to ordinary people’s lives. Growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and the Bill has the potential to drive growth within the sector by encouraging further investment.

It is important that the UK builds on the successes of an already thriving and dynamic space sector. The Government are delivering our plan for change with investment and reform to deliver growth. We will ensure, through the measures that we are taking to deliver growth, that the UK becomes a leading provider of commercial small satellite launchers in Europe by 2030.

To achieve our ambition, the Government will continue to support spaceports and launch operators to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital spaceflight. The Government are committed to making improvements to both the Space Industry Act 2018 and the space industry regulations to ensure that our legal framework and regulations remain effective and internationally competitive. The UK has one of the most advanced and trusted modern space regulatory frameworks in the world.

Let us explore for a moment what liabilities are covered by the 2018 Act. There are two types of liability covered. Section 34 places a strict liability for injury or damage caused to persons or property on land or water in the UK or in the territorial sea to the UK—or on an aircraft in flight over such land, water or sea—by a craft or space object being used by an operator carrying out spaceflight activities in the UK. The uninvolved general public suffering injury or damage can bring a claim against the operator without having to prove fault. Section 36 places a liability on the operator carrying out spaceflight activities to indemnify the UK Government, or a person or body listed in section 36(2), for any claims brought against them for loss or damage caused by those activities. Therefore, UK nationals have the same easy recourse to compensation and protections as foreign nationals have under the UN liability convention.

The Government recognise that the question of liability and insurance is of utmost concern to the space sector. In response to a consultation on the then draft space industry regulations in 2020 and a call for evidence to inform orbital liability and insurance policy in October 2021, the industry made it clear that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK’s spaceflight industry. The industry has advised that it is impossible to obtain insurance for an unlimited amount, and therefore impossible to obtain insurance that will provide full coverage of an operator’s liability to indemnify the Government and their liability to uninvolved third parties. Furthermore, potential liabilities for spaceflight are not easily quantifiable. If the Government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors would instead look to more favourable regulatory regimes in other countries where Governments share the risks involved by limiting an operator’s liability or by offering state guarantees, such as in the United States or in France.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East explained, there are powers in the 2018 Act to limit a spaceflight operator’s liability when carrying out spaceflight activities from the UK. The Act enables commercial spaceflight activities, which include launching a spacecraft and operating a satellite in orbit, for example, or other activities such as the operation of a spacecraft and management of a range to be carried out under licence in the United Kingdom. The Act sets out the broad licensing and regulatory framework for carrying out such activities and is underpinned with more detailed provisions in the Space Industry Regulations 2021.

The 2018 Act currently provides powers for the regulator to specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability in the licence, but does not make it mandatory. Currently, section 12(2) provides that an operating licence may specify a limit on the amount of a licensee’s liability to indemnify under section 36. Current Government policy is that the regulator should use those powers to specify a limit on operator liability in the licence so that no operator will face unlimited liability.

The Government fully support the Bill and its further progress. It is consistent with our policy that all spaceflight licences should have a limit on liability, so it will not impose any more liability or risk on UK taxpayers than the current policy. The Government also recognise the value that industry ascribes to legislative certainty on this matter. The space sector continually expresses its concerns about the use of the word “may” in section 12(2 of the Act. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for the Bill, which, by amending section 12(2), will meet a key request from the sector.

As a the Member of Parliament for Wakefield and Rothwell, let me end by paying tribute to the proud Yorkshireman and inter-cosmic former captain of the USS Enterprise, Patrick Stewart—“Star Trek: The Next Generation” being far the best iteration in the Star Trek franchise. I will leave the House with this: “Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the UK Government. Our continuing missions: to kick-start economic growth and make Britain a clean energy superpower; to seek out and break down barriers to opportunity and take back our streets; and to boldly build an NHS fit for the future.” Make it so!

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The Member in charge of the Military Action Bill gave instruction earlier today that he wishes to defer it until Friday 4 July.