Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I will talk to the Rail Minister and ask him to meet my hon. Friend. We cannot have a leaking roof in Luton station.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Padiham Greenway bridge has been closed since 2021. In December last year, this Government gave £280,000 to Sustrans to get the work finished, but there is a shortfall. The Government have given £19 million to Lancashire county council through the active travel fund and the capability fund to get this project online. Does the Minister agree that Lancashire county council should prioritise this and get it done? I thank him for his extensive correspondence with me on this topic.

[Simon Lightwood]

I know my hon. Friend is a very active campaigner in this area. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss what further pressure we can apply to ensure this project is delivered.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The national fare cap has been successful. We continued to expand it to ensure that it was affordable across the board. I hear what he says, but I go back to my points: we were giving local areas the power to do exactly what he is talking about.

We are undertaking an evaluation of the £3 bus fare cap. The outcomes will be known in the coming year. I hope hon. Members will withdraw the amendments.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that the £3 fare cap is an essential lifeline for people taking the bus from Burnley to Blackburn hospital, which was a service that I managed to secure through work with local transit companies and Lancashire county council?

[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.

Road Maintenance

Oliver Ryan Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew]

I had hoped the hon. Gentleman and I got on better than that, but I am grateful for the question. Everyone in this Chamber can point at potholes and say that more needs to be done, and we would all be correct. We have far too many potholes, and we need to build, repair and improve our network over time. I accept that it will not just be by voting Conservative that we reduce potholes overall.

There is a question of prioritisation of funding, and that applies under both Labour and the Conservatives. How funding is provided is also important. The overall amount of funding for the repair of potholes is obviously crucial, but how it is provided in the long term is essential for local authorities to schedule their repairs. Long-term funding would increase their efficiency. it would not be the stop-start feast or famine that we hear so much about at the moment.

Local authorities could also increase the number of potholes being repaired for the amount of money spent. It was for exactly this reason that the last Conservative Government committed to a 10-year £8.3 billion investment for the repair of potholes. That long-term approach made an enormous difference. The RAC welcomed the news and said that the plans would “give councils certainty of funding”, allowing them to “plan proper long-term maintenance”.

The Asphalt Industry Alliance—I am sure you read about them often, Madam Deputy Speaker—said that there is a consensus among local authorities that

“guaranteed long-term funding helps increase efficiency and provide a more resilient road network”.

It said that

“security of funding helps authorities to plan with more confidence and drive greater cost and environmental efficiencies through the promotion of proactive asset management techniques.”

The point is that long-term, predictable funding increases the number of repairs undertaken and reduces the cost we have to pay for it.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

The hon. Member has mentioned a couple of figures, including one from 2006, when I was nine. To quote a more recent figure from the annual local authority road maintenance 2025 report, when the Conservatives left office they left us with a backlog of £16.8 billion-worth of pothole repairs. What does he say to the people who are still driving over those potholes?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member may have misunderstood me; the figure I was referring to was from 2009-10—the very last year of the Labour Government. Since then, although there have been variations because of winter and summer, the number of potholes leading to breakdowns has more than halved, according to the RAC, which is of course independent. I know there are lots of examples of people driving into potholes, including me and everyone here who drives, but the overall data demonstrates beyond doubt that people are better off under the Conservatives than Labour if they want to avoid potholes that cause breakdowns.

Long-term predictable funding leads to an increased number of repairs at a reduced cost, but Labour has cancelled that long-term approach, so predictability of funding for local authorities has gone. The efficiencies associated with that predictability of funding are gone, as are the cost savings. Instead, we have had an announcement of £1.6 billion until 2026, which is very welcome; I have constructive opposition to this issue, so when more funding comes for the repair of potholes, I welcome it.

However, if we look beneath the bonnet, we see that the Labour Government have at the same time increased costs to local authorities through their national insurance contributions hike of £1.1 billion. They give £1.6 billion with one hand, but they take away £1.1 billion with the other. It does not stop there. Their hike on vehicle excise duty over the course of this Parliament means another £1.7 billion being taken from motorists. They take £1.7 billion from motorists, and they give £400 million net back for road improvements.

What happens after 2026? Do we know? Does the Secretary of State herself know what happens with the funding after that? The Government have been entirely silent, leading local authorities to be deeply concerned about their ability to plan long-term repairs, not just to potholes but to road infrastructure as a whole. It is an unfortunate example of this Government chasing headlines over responsible government.

Let us move from local roads to the major road network. Labour’s first act on coming into Government was not to back our road infrastructure or improve repairs but to cancel five vital road improvement schemes. Those were the A5036 Princess Way, the A358 Taunton to Southfields, the M27 Southampton junction 8, which was obliquely referred to earlier, the A47 roundabout at Great Yarmouth—the other end of the Thickthorn roundabout, which the Secretary of State is continuing the previous Government’s improvement of—and the A1 Morpeth to Ellingham.

Labour is not prioritising roads or road users, despite taking another £1.7 billion out of vehicle excise duty. It is dipping its hands yet further into the pockets of motorists while cancelling major road improvements. That contrasts with the Conservative record of 2015 to 2025, where we invested £40 billion into England’s strategic road network. Short-term headlines over long-term planning—that is Labour.

What is to come with Labour’s road maintenance plans? I hope this debate will shed light on it and clarify the future of funding for road maintenance. Perhaps the Secretary of State can whisper into the ear of the Minister for the Future of Roads before she winds up so she can tell us what happens after 2026, because local authorities deserve better than to be marched up a hill with road repairs and then left in a hole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I receive countless emails and letters from local people across the constituency about the shocking state of our roads. People are rightly frustrated about potholes, and about the little and long waits for repairs forced on them by Bradford council. This is perhaps one of the most important issues that all of us, as MPs, get correspondence about. Why? Because it impacts us each and every day, whether we are commuting to work or simply getting out and about in the car to go and do things. We all care about the state of our roads right outside our door.

I want to take you through my constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, referencing a few roads and highlighting the level of concern that constituents rightly raise with me. Take Elliott Street, which runs through the centre of in Silsden in my constituency. I was first contacted by residents on this major road years ago, and the situation was poor then. Over the last few years, it has only got worse, to the extent that people on social media described the state in which Labour-run Bradford council had left the road as a mere joke. Despite having consistently raised the matter with Bradford council, it took years for the council to finally get on with it. I am pleased that in just the last two weeks, the resurfacing works have now finished. The works are welcome—of course they are—but residents on Elliott Street and across the wider Silsden area should not have had to wait years for such a busy and important road to be repaired.

Elliott Street is just one example. There are similar stories in Keighley, on Westburn Avenue, on Oakworth Road, on Halifax Road and on North Street—the list goes on. In Ilkley, we have a difficult junction at the top of the Cowpasture Road, north of Ilkley grammar school. Local Conservative councillors David Nunns and Andrew Loy have consistently lobbied Bradford Council to look at this dangerous junction.

In the Worth valley, the sides of Hill House Edge Lane are crumbling, with cars getting stuck in the ditches as they pass one another. Again, local Conservative councillors Rebecca Poulson, Chris Herd and Russell Brown have consistently lobbied Labour-run Bradford council to sort the issue out, but no repairs have been undertaken.

[Oliver Ryan]

I do not want to make this too political, but I think it should be noted—although I am not a Bradford Member—that £350 million of revenue funding has been cut from Bradford council since 2010. The council is doing an awful lot under difficult circumstances brought about by 14 years of the hon. Member’s Tory Government.

[Robbie Moore]

I am pleased that the hon. Member brought that up. Just in 2021, Bradford council, through its statutory responsibility to provide feedback to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government —it was the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities at the time—reported that it was in sound financial health. That was the year in which it applied to be city of culture. This year, residents across the Keighley and Ilkley constituency face a 10% increase in council tax, despite our roads being in such a poor state.

That leads me on to a freedom of information request that I put to Bradford council. I was astounded by what I found out. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today that there will be more transparency in our local councils, because through that FOI request I learned that between 2017 and 2022, just 4% of Bradford council’s identified spending for highways was allocated to my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. For reference, Labour-run Bradford council was able to find and allocate £13.1 million for the Bradford South constituency, £19.2 million for the Bradford East constituency and £17.4 million for the Bradford West constituency, but only £4.1 million was spent across the Keighley and Ilkley constituency on highways over that six-year period.

This is despite many concerns quite rightly being raised from residents across Keighley, Ilkley, the Worth valley, Silsden and Steeton. Wherever they may be in my constituency, they are rightly complaining about repairs to roads not being undertaken, pavement problems not being addressed and potholes not being looked at, so it is no wonder that my constituents are losing trust in our local Labour-run authority. The list goes on, and it includes concerns that are being raised by local Conservative councillors trying to hold Labour-run Bradford council to account, but unfortunately we seem not to be getting anywhere and we are not being listened to.

When Bradford council does spend money on roads in my patch, the question is: does it actually spend that money on what people want it to be spent on? Of course it does not. When Bradford council spent more than £100,000—with an £87,500 contribution from Ilkley town council—on roads in Ilkley, we got speed humps and a blanket 20 mph zone, rather than getting our potholes addressed. In a parish council referendum on this very issue, 98.3% of people in Ilkley opposed the roll-out of way over 100 speed bumps in the centre of Ilkley. If you asked anyone in Ilkley what they would like from a good proportion of the 200 grand being spent on our roads, they would say, quite rightly: “Fix the potholes and sort out that junction at the top of Cowpasture Road.” But Bradford council would not listen. It went against a public referendum on this issue and instead spent the money on more speed humps, contrary to what the people in Ilkley rightly advocated through a vote on the issue at the ballot box.

So, what are the Government going to do to ensure that my constituents get a fair deal on their roads from Bradford council? The Secretary of State promising greater investment into roads is absolutely vital and to be welcomed, but it is no good making these promises when the funds do not get past the dictatorial local council, which does not allocate the money to my constituency. In Keighley and Ilkley we deserve our fair share, but Bradford council is unfortunately more than happy to allocate our council tax and any central Government funds that come into the Bradford district not to the roads in Keighley and Ilkley, Silsden or the Worth valley, but instead to Bradford city itself. It is about time we had our fair share of highway spending across our constituency of Keighley and Ilkley.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

As many Members of this House will recognise, road maintenance is something that deeply resonates with all our constituents; it is a basic need. People across my constituency leave their homes every day in cars that they pay tax on, to drive on roads whose upkeep they pay tax for but that are just not up to standard. In Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield, we have had 14 years of underfunding and a Tory county council that my residents tell me could not care less about roads in our area because it is not an area that typically votes for them. This is just not good enough.

When I was out and about on the doorsteps during the election, this issue came up over and over again. Potholes and crumbling roads became totemic; they became a metaphor for crumbling council services. Cash for our area was stripped back year after year, not just for roads but for development and growth, while the council announced game show-style cheques and told us we were being levelled up. It felt like a PR exercise, and it was a PR exercise. From Burnley to Padiham and down the streets of Brierfield, the people I represent shared their frustration with me, and I share that frustration too.

For too long, our local roads have been left to deteriorate while the previous Government failed to take action. It was a failure not just of investment, but of attention—attention to the everyday concerns of people simply trying to get to work, to take their kids to school or to visit loved ones. When roads crumble, it is not just a nuisance; it becomes a safety hazard. It damages vehicles and it erodes public confidence in the Government to do the bare minimum. Constituents ask me how something so basic, so essential to daily life, can be left to crumble in this way. As the Secretary of State said, we cannot claim to be serious about economic growth and opportunities if we cannot even assure people that they will not have to drive on surfaces that are similar to the dirt roads of the Aussie outback.

But I stand here today encouraged because I am proud to support a Government that are now doing things differently, making meaningful and measurable investment, getting things done and delivering. The Minister has made a clear commitment to reversing the decline in local road conditions and we are about to see the results, with £1.6 billion for roads this year, which is enough to fill 21 million potholes. Lancashire is receiving a total funding package of £46.825 million for the 2025-26 financial year. That is a 40% uplift on what was allocated in the previous financial year, and it takes the full road repair fund to £65 million. This investment is not just a number on a spreadsheet, although they are certainly welcome; it is real, meaningful progress. It sends a message that we are prioritising roads so that many of our constituents can use them every day.

This is a historic funding package for our roads, but I am disappointed that Tory-run Lancashire county council has seen fit to resurface only three roads in the whole of Burnley and Padiham this year, as declared so far: Queen Victoria Road, Brunshaw Avenue and Bank Parade. That is all very welcome, but for the amount of money we are putting in, we need to see more. The resurfacing of roads in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield is about more than asphalt. It is about improving road safety, reducing vehicle repair costs and boosting accessibility for everyone. It is about making our towns easier, safer and more pleasant to live and move around in.

While we are making progress, it would be remiss of me, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, not to mention the Committee’s recent report: “Condition and maintenance of Local Roads in England”. We in the Committee found that the Department for Transport’s data in this area was not sufficient, and that accountability in road maintenance was still far too fragmented. We cannot afford to play pass the parcel between local and national authorities when our roads are falling apart beneath our feet. The Committee said that the DFT should take greater ownership by improving data collection, by clearly defining responsibilities and by ensuring that local councils have the resources and the oversight to deliver quality, timely maintenance and move away from short-term fixes to longer financial planning of our roads. A long time ago I was an executive member for finance at a metropolitan borough authority. Too often, over the years I was in that role, we were picking the bones of our reserves and capital plans to find one-off pots and short fixes to fund that year’s road programme. That cannot be reasonable in 21st-century Britain.

I am quite pleased, therefore, to see the Prime Minister’s recent announcement that councils will have to publish data on how many road repairs they have completed and the money that they have been granted. I remain optimistic for our roads and council services because, despite global economic uncertainty and the tightening of public finances across many countries, this Government have made a conscious decision to invest in services that matter, to increase day-to-day spending for my council across the term of the Parliament and to get more done for my residents.

In Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield, we are beginning to see the results of the decisions made around the Budget. Cash—real cash—is going into our roads. The deal is this: you pay your tax, and you get decent services. But for many hard working people, that just has not been the case. The basics were cut while we had to be grateful for the crumbs of levelling up. We were left with an empty tank and a busted engine, but given a new radio to improve the experience. We were on the road to nowhere. That is not the end of my car-related language. While I welcome this money—new money—I will continue to work closely with Lancashire county council and the Department for Transport to make sure that this wheelie good funding for my area does not stall, and is not parked for a later date, and that we get into gear, buckle in, hit the gas and deliver on this at speed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I have driven the point home.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.