Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(2 days, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on securing this debate about the potential merits of a new standard for headlight glare. I am sure that it will have not gone unnoticed that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. But the effect of every death or injury on our roads is devastating for the individuals and families involved.
I make it clear that this Government treat road safety seriously and are committed to reducing the number of those killed and injured on our roads. The Department is working to develop its road safety strategy, which will include a broad range of policies, and will set out more detail in due course. More widely, the Department recognises the importance of the road network to many people’s lives and to the economy. But we know that not everyone shares the same positive experience. Glare from headlamps is a perennial issue, as there is a compromise between providing illumination with sufficient intensity and distance to enable drivers to see and anticipate potential hazards, and the propensity to cause glare for other road users.
To strike the right balance, all vehicle headlamps are designed and tested to follow international standards developed under the United Nations to ensure that they are bright enough to illuminate the road but do not unduly affect the vision of other road users. Those standards define the beam pattern and include maximum and minimum light intensities. None the less, we know that lots of people raise concerns about headlamp glare, and we are told that some drivers, as has been mentioned, choose not to drive at night because of its effects. While police collision statistics do not indicate an increase in collisions caused by headlamp glare, the issue can lead to social isolation, which impacts on people’s wellbeing and their ability to undertake everyday tasks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley highlighted the impact on older residents in particular. Obviously, we have an ageing population with increasing numbers of older drivers. As people age, their eyes become more susceptible to glare due to changes in the photobiology of their eye. Better vehicle technology such as power-assisted steering, automatic transmission and improved braking and parking aids have made the driver’s task easier, and people tend to drive for longer before surrendering their licence. The number of adults more than 70 years old in England holding a full car licence has actually increased by more than 50% over the last 10 years.
Shockat Adam
I agree wholeheartedly that better cars mean that we are driving for longer, but does the Minister share my concern that the UK is the only country in Europe that allows people to hold a driving licence until the age of 70 without ever being required to take a sight test? Perhaps we need a sight test at initial licence application, at every 10-year renewal and at every three years from the age of 70 because we are driving for much longer.
Simon Lightwood
We will always keep all these considerations under review, but, as with anything, we will be evidence-led on the measures that we put in place, working with our international partners.
Road users will have experienced discomfort from headlamp glare when driving. From personal experience, I know that that is not pleasant. A few Members raised headlight aim, which is checked in an MOT once a year. During normal wear and tear, headlights can become out of alignment. The manual controls that many of us have to adjust our headlight focusing need to be changed if we have passengers in the back seats or luggage in the boot. Many Members I spoke to in advance of the debate did not know that, if they have luggage in their boot or people in the back seats, they should adjust their headlights. There is more education to be done there.
Over the years, the Department for Transport has raised the issue at the United Nations international expert group on vehicle lighting, and it was asked about the UK playing an international role. Following lengthy and significant negotiations, proposals to amend headlight aiming rules were agreed in April 2023, together with requirements for mandatory automatic headlamp levelling —a system that automatically recorrects the aim of the headlights based on the loading of the vehicle, to go back to the issue of when passengers are in the back seats or there is luggage in the boot. Those new requirements are expected to take effect in September 2027, to permit sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers to redesign their products and adapt the manufacturing process. Once implemented, those tougher requirements will help alleviate the number of cases where road users feel dazzled by vehicle headlamps.
There is, however, still much to do and much that we do not know about the underlying causes. To address the lack of clear evidence into which factors are impacting on drivers, the Department for Transport commissioned independent research in 2024 to understand better the root causes of the glare. Over several months, researchers gathered real-world glare data when driving at night, using an instrumented vehicle and machine learning analysis tools to determine the main factors that influence glare. That work was recently completed, and the final report is due to be published in the next week.
As might be expected, the results indicated that road geometry, in combination with brightness, is a key factor in glare events. The second most important factor, however, was identified to be vehicle type, suggesting that certain vehicle characteristics may be contributing to problems of glare. Given the findings of this innovative and groundbreaking research, the Department plans further research examining a range of vehicle makes and models, aimed at identifying what vehicle design factors may be responsible for increased glare. That can then be used to generate proposals for amendments to the international vehicle lighting regulations at the United Nations.
Lauren Edwards
Given that SUVs, which are generally larger, higher cars and have LED lights, now make up more than half of new cars sold in the UK and demand is growing, does the Minister agree that it is critical that the Government address this issue urgently?
Simon Lightwood
I heed the comments of my hon. Friend. Again, it is important that we are evidence-led, hence the commissioning of further research to drill down on the cause and effect.
In parallel, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, which leads for the Department on market surveillance of vehicles and automotive components, has stepped up its activities to intercept the sale of illegal retrofit headlamp bulbs for on-road use, which we believe is one of the contributing factors. Anyone caught could face a fine of £1,000. The Department is also an active member of the Euro NCAP consumer information programme, which assesses a range of vehicle characteristics to determine a vehicle’s safety rating. Work is under way to develop a new vision protocol for 2029, which is planned to include an assessment of vehicle lighting systems to ensure that they provide forward vision while minimising the risk of dazzle for some road users.
Much has already been achieved, but we have listened and we understand that more can and must be done. We will continue to develop the evidence and work domestically and with our international partners to help ensure that people feel able to drive at night without experiencing glare or dazzle.
Connected and Automated Vehicles
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) on raising this important issue. What a fascinating and thought-provoking debate this has been.
Establishing our new regulatory framework for automated vehicles provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to harness the transformative impact that artificial intelligence could have on our roads. Not only will the framework strengthen our position as a global AI superpower, but automated vehicles can also be a key enabler of our plan for change. They can make transport safer, more convenient and more accessible. They could increase choice for non-drivers, including disabled people and older people. Self-driving vehicles that are zero emission can support cleaner, more efficient transport, particularly when paired with the transition to electric, helping us on our way to our net zero goals. By better enabling freight to be transported outside peak hours, they may also reduce congestion, making journeys to work easier and quicker. In doing that, automated vehicles could improve the lives of millions of people.
Although the UK’s roads are safe by global standards, every road death and injury is a tragedy for the families involved. In 2023, collisions cost medical and ambulance services an estimated £2.2 billion. Every collision prevented will improve the safety of our communities and support our NHS to get on a more sustainable footing. As many hon. Members have referenced, 88% of collisions involve human driver error as a contributing factor, and automated vehicles can be a major player in tackling that challenge. They have a faster reaction time and the ability to learn from vast amounts of driving data, and so could help reduce those numbers. Unlike human drivers, automated vehicles do not get tired, get distracted or drive under the influence. That gives them strong potential to improve road safety.
Although vehicle technologies have already provided significant advances in road safety and will continue to do so, technology is not foolproof. The UK has a heritage of world-leading intelligent regulation. Our new framework must uphold that standard and capture the opportunities while safeguarding against new risks that may arise. We have already made big achievements in this space, with the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 establishing one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind in the world.
We also play a leading rule in harmonising international rules on safety and assurance at the UN, ensuring that consistent approaches are adopted globally. That has involved close working throughout, and I am grateful for the expertise shared by industry, road safety groups, accessibility advocates, trade unions and academia to develop our thinking.
Passenger safety remains vital, and the Government intend that any organisation wishing to deploy a self-driving passenger service must have robust policies to ensure that their passengers are kept safe throughout their journey. We will continue to learn from best practice internationally, including from world-leading autonomous ride-hailing companies, to help us to achieve our safety mission.
The future of self-driving vehicles will be shaped by the public’s level of trust in their safety. Trust depends on transparency, regulation and performance. That is why the Government recently consulted on protecting marketing terms associated with automated vehicles to ensure that only genuinely self-driving vehicles can be marketed as such. In 2026, we will also consult on safety principles to ensure that all automated vehicles meet or exceed human driving standards. The Government have backed the setting-up of Partners for Automated Vehicle Education United Kingdom. PAVE UK brings together industry, academia and non-profits to provide clear and accurate information to the public on automated vehicles.
Ensuring the security of UK data is a priority for the Government. The UK has strong safeguards to ensure that data is collected and handled responsibly and securely. Companies registered in the UK are subject to our legal framework and regulatory jurisdiction. Personal data transfers abroad are subject to a high level of legal protection. We actively monitor threats to UK data and will not hesitate to take the necessary action to protect our national security.
We want to harness this sector’s huge potential to kick-start economic growth by providing the right conditions to unlock an industry that will be worth £42 billion by 2035 and will create up to 38,000 new skilled jobs. These services can also open up new opportunities in fields such as software, safety assurance, vehicle engineering, logistics and customer service.
Self-driving vehicles are not about replacing current forms of transport, but about complementing and improving them. Traditional driving roles will remain vital, and some people will continue to have a preference and choose to use human-driven services. This is about growing and improving transport options, not revolutionising things overnight.
The automated passenger services permitting scheme—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) went into this—can help to facilitate pilots of commercial self-driving passenger services with no safety driver. Following our recent consultation, we are analysing responses and intend to implement the scheme from spring 2026. At present, no changes to the highway code are anticipated, although we will keep that under review.
We are delighted that Waymo has signalled its intention to bring automated passenger services to London next year under our proposed piloting scheme—subject to meeting vital safety and local authority consent requirements. Cutting-edge investment such as that is helping to deliver our mission to be a world leader in new technology and spearhead national renewal that delivers real change in our communities. Waymo’s announcement, and the previously announced ambition of other companies such as Uber with UK start-up Wayve, are evidence of the impact of the UK’s leading role in self-driving-vehicle regulation. Following the recent closure of the consultation on our permitting scheme, we will announce next steps soon.
I will touch on ghost vehicle registration plates; I know that tackling those is a passion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich. The safety of all road users is a top priority for the Government. As part of the development of our road safety strategy, we are considering a range of policies relating to motoring offences, and we will set out our next steps for the strategy in due course. Officials are also considering options to ensure we have a more robust, auditable register of number plate suppliers process, which would enable tighter checks on number plate suppliers. On-road enforcement for offences relating to the display of plates is of course a matter for the police.
I have time to touch on a few other points raised by Members. In terms of this being a complementary form of public transport, self-driving vehicles are not about replacing current forms of transport, but about complementing and improving. There was some concern about potential job losses and impact on the taxi industry. I think the initial deployments under the pilots are likely to be pretty small in scale. Where a taxi or private hire-like service is proposed, local licensing authorities will need to give consent to the permitting of those services. That may include consideration of the right mix of automated and other services in their area.
We have touched on cyber-security, which is at the heart of the Government’s priorities for the roll-out of self-driving vehicles. The Automated Vehicles Act allows for obligations to be placed on the authorised self-driving entity—the entity for ensuring that the vehicle continues to drive safely and legally—to maintain vehicle software and ensure that appropriate cyber-security measures are in place throughout the vehicle’s life.
Very importantly, coming back to accessibility, we recently closed the consultation on the proposed automated passenger services permitting scheme. That provided an opportunity for accessibility advocates to provide their views on the proposed approach. Just before I came to this debate, I chaired a roundtable with representatives from across the accessibility community to enhance our understanding and grow awareness of the risks and benefits that this new mode of transport can offer. We are continuing to review the need for further research, which includes consideration of how older and disabled people in particular can be involved. Examples of previous research include work undertaken to understand the extent of driver roles in supporting people to make journeys and the implications in emergency situations. We are considering developing guidance on accessibility for APS and are working to establish a group of accessibility experts to support its creation and ensure meaningful learnings from the pilot deployments. We obviously want to see the benefits realised across the country. The pilots are a decision of developers, as it stands, in collaboration with local transport authorities.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised some interesting points. Let me first cling on to the bit about “Star Trek”. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I spent at least 30 minutes thinking of that—no, not really. I am quite relieved that I am not responsible for transport at this time, although who knows in the future? We do not legislate for Northern Ireland in this area, rightly respecting Northern Ireland’s role in legislating for its road traffic laws. Northern Ireland has not sought to replicate the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 within its legislation, so an authorised EV under a GB scheme could be driven only as a conventional vehicle in Northern Ireland.
Very briefly, because I have to wrap up, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard touched on autonomous buses. The automated passenger services permitting scheme facilitates the piloting of bus-like services. For example, the Government have supported the trialling of self-driving bus-like services currently under way on the outskirts of Cambridge. If the operators believe that the vehicle is capable of meeting the threshold that we will set for self-driving capability, the permitting scheme will be available for it. The larger scale of buses may make these things more challenging, but through our funded trials we hope to provide a route to building the required capacity while remaining safe.
The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) mentioned autonomous aviation and maritime. I am afraid I can only reassure him that the applicable Minister, the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation, will have heard his point on that loud and clear. The same applies to the Minister for Rail and the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), on rail.
I once again thank hon. Members for the wide range of comments. I hope they will be reassured that the Government are committed to realising the very real benefits of self-driving vehicles, particularly where they can catalyse our road safety ambitions, open up travel for many and support our national renewal efforts.
A50/A500 Corridor
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing this debate and for speaking so passionately about transport in his constituency and the implications for the wider region. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss transport in the region today. I assure my hon. Friend that this Government understand the significance and importance of transport to the people, communities and businesses that power local economies across the country. I have been interested to engage with the ambitious proposals for development along the A50 and A500. These roads link Stoke-on-Trent, Uttoxeter, Burton upon Trent and Derby—all areas with rich histories of industry and manufacturing, but also home to exciting innovation.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I gently point out to the Minister that there is not just a rich history of manufacturing and industry, but potentially a rich future, too. We are still an area of the country that makes many things, whether that is high-tech agricultural machinery at JCB or fine porcelain ceramics in the city of Stoke-on-Trent. The roads and infrastructure that come with that could be the growth point for north Staffordshire, which would help deliver on the Government’s economic agenda and allow the infrastructure to develop to build the homes that we need. It is win, win, win, if the Minister can confirm that we can have the upgrades we need.
Simon Lightwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The area is also home to exciting innovation, new technologies and advanced manufacturing. This Government absolutely understand the importance of such routes to our daily lives, and they are core to key Government priorities such as kick-starting the economy, delivering housing growth and tackling regional inequality. In that context, while the A50 near Uttoxeter remains the specific focus of today’s debate, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to highlight how the quality of journeys and transport across Staffordshire have been and are being improved.
This Government are committed to restoring pride and trust in our transport system, which works day in, day out for those who rely on it. June’s spending review confirmed £2.3 billion of investment in local transport through the local transport grant. Staffordshire county council will receive a total local transport grant capital allocation of £92.98 million between 2026-27 and 2029-30. In addition, Staffordshire will also receive £3.39 million in local transport grant resource funding. That vital funding will help build local capability and capacity to develop and update local transport plans, to effectively deliver local transport infrastructure priorities, and to work with regional partners to progress regional priorities.
England’s roads are a vital part of our transport system. Cars remain by far the most popular form of transport. This Government are dedicated to maintaining and renewing our road network to ensure it continues to serve all road users. It is why we are committed to long-term programmes of investment to improve road links throughout the region and to facilitate the growth and development that this nation needs, and it is why local areas such as Staffordshire have benefited from the £1.6 billion record investment in road maintenance funding for the 2025-26 financial year. This marks a £500 million increase in funding, and Staffordshire will be eligible to receive £39.4 million. Building on that, we will provide £24 billion of capital funding between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to maintain and improve our motorways and local roads across the country. This funding increase will allow National Highways and local authorities, like Staffordshire, to invest in significantly improving the long-term condition of England’s road network, delivering faster, safer and more reliable journeys.
As for the specific issue of the proposal for development on the central section of the A50 near Uttoxeter, I acknowledge the difficult challenges that congestion and uncertain journey times on key routes may cause for businesses and commuters, as well as the potential impact that this may have on growth, investment and employment. We recognise that the strategic road network plays a vital role in daily lives. Through our growth mission we will rebuild Britain, delivering new homes and the critical infrastructure that underpins economic growth.
In August the Department for Transport published its draft road investment strategy, which set out the Government’s strategic objectives and included just under £25 billion of indicative funding for the operation, maintenance and renewal of our strategic road network and for the RIS3 period covering the period from 2026 to 2031. As part of the road investment strategy, the Department continues to consider improvements to the central section of the A50 near Uttoxeter, as well as junction 15 of the M6, as part of the pipeline of projects being developed for possible delivery in a future road investment strategy. I know that my hon. Friend has engaged extensively with officials from my Department, and with National Highways, on these matters for some time, passionately outlining the case for investment. National Highways is committed to continuing to develop these proposals, and, subject to a supportive business case, they will be considered for delivery within RIS4, beyond 2031—or late in RIS3, if funding becomes available.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Minister for being so generous in giving way. Thirteen years ago, when I was leader of the local authority in Newcastle, I joined the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire local enterprise partnership board. This project was on the books then. The sclerotic nature of the last Government meant that it had not progressed at all, and I hate to think what investment has been lost. While I welcome the commitment that the Minister is making to future potential, will he at least recognise that we could be talking about 20 years after this was first raised by Members who are in the House today? We need a relatively swift conclusion of effort so that we at least know which projects we can green-light around the area for the jobs, the growth and the homes that we need.
Simon Lightwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. National Highways will work closely with regional partners to consider the opportunities along the corridor as part of this process.
Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter for securing the debate. As I know he appreciates, transport plays a central role in lives and livelihoods across the country, including his constituency and the wider midlands. Today he has highlighted several important issues relating to Uttoxeter in particular. I want to reassure the House that the Government are providing record levels of investment in roads, rail, buses and active travel projects across the country to connect people with jobs, education and opportunities. I also want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have heard the case clearly, and will continue to take action to address the issues debated today.
Question put and agreed to.
Regional Transport Inequality
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I welcome today’s debate on regional transport inequality, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this time. I have 10 minutes to address the many excellent contributions made this afternoon, so Members must forgive my reluctance to entertain many interventions.
For decades, this country has faced a growing deficit of opportunity fuelled by the poor connectivity that has come to define too many communities. I have experienced at first hand the frustration felt by millions of people every day. Growing up in the north-east, I could wait hours for a bus that would never arrive, so I understand that missed shifts, missed lessons and missed appointments all lead to missed opportunities for hard-working families. Poor transport has deepened divides, isolated communities and eroded quality of life, all while stifling growth, hindering productivity and deterring investment. In my own region, Leeds is one of the largest European cities without a mass transit system. We are shamefully behind the curve, with people and businesses suffering as a result—but it does not have to be that way.
This Government are turning the page on decades of decline, ending short-sighted Whitehall-centric decision making and unlocking talent, ambition and potential right across the country. We are seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way that things are done and building a stronger transport network that works for everyone, whoever they are and wherever they come from.
Later this year, we will set out that vision in our integrated national transport strategy. We will champion transport that is designed, built and run with people in mind, recognising that different places face different challenges and need different ways to solve them. The strategy will aim to make transport safer, more reliable and more accessible, helping everyone to feel more confident and able to use the network. We will encourage housing, healthcare and other services to work with transport, trying to tackle regional inequality in all its forms.
We know, however, that politicians in Westminster cannot fully grasp the reality of life in Warrington, Wolverhampton or Woking. That is why our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill puts power in the hands of local leaders, with the freedom to choose the approach that best serves their community. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all formula just will not work, so we are funding franchising pilots to better understand all the options on the table. The Bill also calls time on the plague of violence against women and girls and antisocial behaviour with training and enforcement measures to help make journeys safer for everyone.
We are backing those steps with landmark levels of investment. This year alone, £1 billion will help improve bus services and keep fares affordable. We will extend the £3 bus fare, which will put more money in passengers’ pockets, making bus travel a viable option for more communities, while improving access to jobs, education and healthcare where it is needed most.
We are also giving city mayors £15.6 billion to support wider local transport projects, including mass transit in Leeds, a metro extension in the north-east and so much more. To ensure that our towns, villages and rural areas, particularly outside London, are no longer left behind, we are not only committing £2 billion to help them tackle their unique challenges, but just last week we confirmed an extra £104 million in resource funding for local authorities, showing that they can better design, decide and deliver ambitious local transport projects.
Martin Wrigley
I am delighted with all the investment in cities with mayors; that is fantastic. However, in Dawlish, in Devon, we are once again left behind. Is that purely because we do not have a city mayor?
Simon Lightwood
As I just mentioned, we have committed £2 billion to helping those outside city areas and last week committed £104 million for resource funding across the country outside city areas.
Although we are eager for local leaders to take the reins, there is still an important part for central Government to play in tackling transport inequality, particularly on our roads and railways. We are investing billions to fix historical gaps in the network, reconnecting long-forgotten areas and tackling regional disparities head on. From major projects such as the TransPennine route upgrade, East West Rail and HS2 to improving motorways in Cumbria, Greater Manchester and the midlands, or funding to maintain and improve the road network, our mission to address inequality sits at the heart of everything we do.
Simon Lightwood
I am going to make progress.
We are also delivering new train stations in the south-west and in Yorkshire, creating brand new rail links across the midlands, and backing road schemes to better connect and grow communities. Not only will those measures improve people’s everyday journeys, they will also create jobs, power growth and unlock new homes for families.
Last week, we announced that we are simplifying fares and expanding digital ticketing trials to make rail more accessible and affordable, with new digital trials now live in the east midlands and launching later this month in Yorkshire. Passengers can sign up to take part and benefit from automatic best-value fares, making rail travel simpler, smarter and more flexible.
Our commitment to investing is clear, but we are also working behind the scenes to ensure that every penny is well spent. We are reviewing the Green Book to give a fair hearing to all parts of the country. We have plans to recruit 300 new planners into the public sector by 2026, supporting local authorities and implementing new planning policies to enhance housing supply, leveraging private investment to bolster public funding and forging a faster and more efficient planning system.
I am pleased to see a strong contingent of Members from the east midlands in this debate, and I am glad that they recognise, like me, the importance of improving transport links to drive growth across the country and tackle regional inequalities. We recognise that transport spending has historically not been evenly distributed across the country. We are taking action to drive up prosperity and living standards across the UK, including addressing any imbalances where appropriate. That is not just the case for the east midlands. We are investing across the whole country, from enabling mass transit in West Yorkshire to reopening the Bristol and Portishead line in the south-west.
We are providing the East Midlands combined county authority with over £2 billion through the transport for city regions fund, with the east midlands receiving over £450 million from the local transport grant and the integrated transport block. I am very pleased to see that Mayor Claire Ward intends to use some of that £2 billion of funding to progress the case for a permanent bridge at Darley Abbey. That means that the east midlands will receive significantly more local transport spending per head than the England average in the coming years— £561 per person against an average of £398. We are investing in the region, including delivering improvements to the east coast main line and progressing the A38 Derby junctions scheme, which will improve safety, reduce delays and support house building. We are also committed to delivering the A46 Newark bypass, subject to planning consent.
I recognise the frustration that hon. Members and their constituents feel about the electrification of the midland main line, but we have had to prioritise our funding on schemes that will make the greatest difference for passengers and economic growth as soon as possible. Further electrification of the midland main line has been paused but will be kept under review as part of our pipeline for future funding. The new trains, however, will increase seat capacity and will mark a step change in passenger experience.
Members have advocated passionately for other schemes in their local areas. While I cannot address every scheme that was raised in this debate, we will always need to prioritise the funding that we have available. My officials will continue to work with their counterparts in local government and with other stakeholders to better understand local needs and potential pipelines.
I will now turn to specific contributions made in the debate.
Simon Lightwood
No—I have a lot to get through.
I welcome the many contributions from across the House on issues with bus services in Members’ constituencies. The Government know how important good, reliable and frequent bus services are to local communities, and that is why we are investing £1 billion this year to support and improve services and giving local leaders more powers to improve services through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.
While I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), he not only seems to have forgotten the 14 years in which his party had the opportunity to improve bus services in regional constituencies but he also forgot to mention that his Government gave £26 million to the Conservative-controlled county councils that cover that constituency.
However, in rural areas and places with poor public transport, driving is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency continues to work hard to combat the unscrupulous practice of reselling tests across the country. In July, we announced over 50 new road and rail schemes, many of which will benefit the constituencies of Members who have spoken in this debate. That includes the midlands rail hub, which we are backing with £123 million and which will create links to more than 50 locations. It also includes the Middlewich Road scheme, the A38 Derby junctions work, transformed rail services across Manchester and new stations in the south-west. We are addressing under-investment in Welsh rail infrastructure with a 10-year funding package of £445 million to meet its long-term connectivity needs and to help kickstart Welsh economic growth.
Turning to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I will admit that the previous Government did allocate £27 billion for the road investment strategy 2, but that was revised down to £23 billion. From my calculations, RIS3 represents a £3 billion increase compared with the funding for RIS2.
Simon Lightwood
I will bring my remarks to a close because Madam Deputy Speaker is growing impatient.
I am here today not just as the Minister for Local Transport, but as someone who knows what it is like to live in an underserved community, who has stood in the rain waiting for buses that never arrived, and who has seen at first hand the impact of poor connections, so I could not be more intent on delivering real change where it is needed most. Our plan for English devolution will shift even more power away from Whitehall. Our industrial strategy will drive investment and growth in all regions, and our infrastructure strategy will boost living standards across the UK.
This issue transcends departmental silos. Since last July, we have worked tirelessly to restore confidence and certainty. We are looking after the pennies and the pounds to improve lives and livelihoods across Britain, and I will continue to tackle the shameful deficit of opportunity that plagues this country. We will continue delivering our plan for change until we get the job done.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
This Government’s landmark Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will deliver a step change in local bus services around the country, putting power over buses back in the hands of local leaders and enabling the delivery of more reliable, safe and inclusive routes. We are also investing £1 billion to support and improve local bus services and keep them affordable; confirming multi-year funding to allow local authorities to plan and invest ahead; and extending the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027.
Tom Collins
Worcester has been let down on transport. Our evening and weekend buses have been decimated, leaving our roads congested, our air polluted and our city centre cut off. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Labour’s early work, which has already restored some of our local services, but Worcester needs more. Our city centre businesses, our night-time economy and our commuters need and deserve a modern system of shuttle buses running all day long and at weekends. We are the Government of partnership, so will the Minister assure me that the Department is ready to do what it takes, working dynamically and creatively with a range of public and private partners to see this vision delivered locally in Worcester?
Simon Lightwood
I commend my hon. Friend for his commitment to improving local bus services in Worcester. We want better buses throughout the country, and I can assure him that the Government will continue to work with local leaders to give them the powers needed to deliver bus services that meet the needs of local communities.
Emma Lewell
My constituents are sick of being ignored when it comes to vital bus routes being withdrawn. More than 600 of them recently signed a petition after the unexpected and rapid withdrawal of the well used No. 17. Giving more powers to local councils does not always equate to communities having more of a say. Can the Minister please explain what checks and balances are in place to ensure that, as we devolve powers, residents really are listened to?
Simon Lightwood
I know the bus services in South Shields very well indeed, having been born there, and I know intimately from conversations with my family the struggles that my hon. Friend’s constituents are having with bus services. Our landmark Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will allow local leaders to take back control of bus services, and I am sure that Kim McGuinness, the Mayor of the North East, will be able to do just that.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Eastbourne district general hospital, where I was born, and the Hastings Conquest hospital are quite far apart. On a good day, it takes 45 minutes to drive from one to the other, and two hours by bus. More and more services are moving to the Hastings hospital, but we need better transport links, such as a shuttle bus, to make things seamless for patients. Can the Minister meet me and local representatives to discuss how we could secure a shuttle bus service to Hastings hospital for our town?
Simon Lightwood
This is why it is so important that the Government are handing local areas the power to design bus services around local needs. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to continue discussions with his local transport authority on doing just that.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The SNP in government has introduced free bus travel for under-22s, and last week, it scrapped peak rail fares. Those measures support access to employment opportunities, put more money in people’s pockets, and support local economies, especially in suburban and rural areas. Will the Minister acknowledge those excellent measures for consumers in Scotland and consider their benefits for the rest of the UK?
Simon Lightwood
We have the £3 bus fare cap in England, and we have committed to continuing that up to March next year. We will continue to keep our support for bus fares under review for the future.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As I am sure the Minister knows and agrees, improving bus services must include making them safer for women and girls. Concerningly, sexual offences on the UK bus network have increased in recent years; for example, they increased by 13% on London buses in the first six months of this year. What is his Department doing to ensure that women and girls feel safe using the bus network, and can he share with the House any more information on the work being led by the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which he alluded to in yesterday’s debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill?
Simon Lightwood
As I intimated in last night’s debate, the Bill requires local transport authorities and bus providers to give training to their staff. They will also have the power to introduce byelaws in order to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, and violence against women and girls in particular. On police officers being able to use buses for free across the country, I share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition. I have already commissioned work with the Confederation of Passenger Transport to explore how we could deliver that.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
This Government recognise the vital role the bus sector plays in keeping communities connected and able to access key services. That is why we are providing significant multiyear funding to local authorities, including more than £1 billion this financial year to support and improve local bus services and keep fares affordable, alongside the £15.6 billion we are providing for transport investment in our city regions across England. This investment will support British manufacturing, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Euan Stainbank
The consultation on 400 jobs at Alexander Dennis closes tomorrow. It has been a time of deep anxiety for the local workers. The SNP’s ScotZEB2 scheme initially sent over three times as many buses to China as to Scotland’s sole manufacturer. Although £40 million has now been made available by Transport Scotland, it must be spent correcting this SNP industrial failure. What engagement have Ministers had with the Scottish Government regarding recently consulted-on procurement reforms and their potential benefit to the Scottish bus manufacturing and operation sectors in the long term?
Simon Lightwood
I convened an extraordinary meeting of the UK bus manufacturing expert panel on 28 July, attended by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, metro mayors and mayoral combined authorities, to accelerate the panel’s key priorities of establishing a bus order pipeline and strengthening local value within public sector procurement. I will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on the issue. I know my hon. Friend has worked absolutely tirelessly for his constituents in this area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill passed yesterday, with many of the good things that we all wish to see happening here in the mainland, especially improving the frequency of bus services and addressing social inclusion for those who cannot get buses. Will the Minister share the good things that the Government are doing here with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, so that we in Northern Ireland can get some of the advantages that people have here?
Simon Lightwood
I will continue to have active engagement through the interministerial group and will be delighted to share the excellent work this Government are doing to re-empower local areas and their bus services.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
We are working hard to ensure that young people can book driving tests so that they can access opportunity in their local areas. We are recruiting and training more driving examiners, doubling examiner training capacity and offering overtime payment incentives. This is producing good results, with over 10,000 more tests a month now available than there would have been without the Secretary of State’s plans. There is more work to do, and we are committed to getting it right.
Lewis Atkinson
Learner drivers in Sunderland are fed up of waits of around 22 weeks for a driving test. In that time, they are often facing higher costs and barriers in accessing job opportunities. Can the Minister tell the House what steps he is taking to reduce driving test waiting times in Sunderland, and when he expects those waits to fall?
Simon Lightwood
Obviously, there were some issues with the close of the South Shields driving test centre, but no capacity was lost as a result of that. We recognise the impact that high waiting times are having on learner drivers across the country, including in the constituency of Sunderland Central, and the importance of helping learner drivers pass quickly. On 8 September, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency launched its latest recruitment campaign, which aims to recruit additional driving examiner resource to provide much-needed test capacity in Sunderland, Gateshead, Gosforth and Blythe.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
One of my constituents wrote to me this week about the difficulties she is facing rebooking her driving test. The nearest slot that she could find was in Swansea, two hours away from Bath. When she tried the 6 am rush, she faced a queue of 22,000, and when she finally reached the front, the site failed. Alongside test availability, will the Government review the quality and reliability of the booking system?
Simon Lightwood
We are absolutely committed to driving down the delays in these bookings. I would be delighted to chat further with the hon. Member to discuss the specific problems within her area.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
When driving tests came up at Transport questions in May, it was revealed that the wait time for a driving test on average was up, from 17 weeks in July 2024 to 22 weeks now. It has since been revealed that many test centres around the country have reached the maximum legal limit of a 24-week wait. Will the Minister acknowledge that for thousands of people up and down the country waiting for a driving test—waiting for that step on the ladder to get their first job or to college through the freedom of driving—it is simply not good enough for the Secretary of State to have pushed back the Government’s new target to fix this to 2026? Real people need real answers now, so will he redouble the efforts to get the wait time at least back down to the point it was at when the last Government left office?
Simon Lightwood
We inherited a broken system in which many learner drivers found themselves stuck in a frustrating limbo, unable to ditch their L-plates. We instructed the DVSA to take further measures this year, and we are beginning to see early signs of improvement. We promised more tests and we have delivered more tests. The DVSA carried out over 20,000 more tests between June and August this year, and the pass rate remains at the highest it has been since May 2021. There is still more to be done and we will do just that.
Greg Smith
The Minister is right that there is still more to be done—there is a lot more to be done. He inherited a broken system from his own predecessor in the Department for Transport, under whom the problem got significantly worse over the last year.
I do not think the Minister is listening to the country. I cannot be alone in having an inbox full of emails from constituents complaining about the wait time to get themselves or, indeed, their children a driving test. My constituent Sarah wrote:
“Young people’s work opportunities are significantly reduced by not being able to drive,”
particularly in rural England, in this case Steeple Claydon in my constituency. Sarah sets her alarm for 5.45 every day to try to secure a test, and the best she has managed is next February. Will the Minister apologise to everybody up and down the land who sets their alarm early because the Government are making the situation a lot worse?
Simon Lightwood
I hope the hon. Gentleman explained to his constituent the broken system that his party left for this country. We are absolutely determined to drive down waiting times. Thanks to the proactive measures taken by the Secretary of State we have, as I said, increased tests by 10,000 a month.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The previous Government consulted on pavement parking rules back in 2020 but failed to take any action. We have had to pick up the issue from scratch since we came into office last year. A lot has changed in the UK political landscape in the past five years, and this Government’s genuine commitment to devolution has shaped our thinking on pavement parking. We will be able to say more about that, and finally publish a response to the consultation, soon.
John Milne
Will the Minister assure us that any enforcement powers will be extended to local authorities, not just the police, in order to make any regulations effective? Alongside that, will he reassure us that local authorities will have the power to make exceptions in areas where such restrictions would be impractical, as is the case in many streets in my Horsham constituency?
Simon Lightwood
We of course continue to engage actively with local authorities in the development of this policy. Local authorities already have the power to restrict pavement parking wherever there is a need by introducing traffic regulation orders, and we are exploring additional measures to help them to tackle the issue.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
On Sunnyside Avenue in Tunstall in my Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove constituency, a particular issue with pavement parking occurs outside Mill Hill primary academy, where cars dangerously mount kerbs. Will the Minister please outline what more can be done to keep our kids safe around our schools?
Simon Lightwood
I encourage my hon. Friend to engage with his local authority to explore whether a TRO, as I mentioned in response to the previous question, would be appropriate in that instance.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Shared e-scooter schemes can provide a great way to get around, but the scooters can pose a nuisance for other people, so we need to ensure that their roll-out is both safe and properly regulated. We have extended e-scooter trials until May 2028 to allow local authorities to test how the technology works. We have also committed to pursuing legislation, when parliamentary time allows, for the full regulation of micromobility in order to create a safe shared-use network where they work for all people.
Daniel Francis
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Does the Minister accept that a wheelchair, whether manual or with power, is a medical device that enables disabled people to maximise their independence and live the life they choose? Does he therefore agree that the terminology of “invalid carriages” in the legislation is discriminatory and outdated and that the regulations on the use of micromobility vehicles require updating urgently?
Simon Lightwood
I share my hon. Friend’s view that the term “invalid carriages” in the existing legislation is outdated and no longer reflects modern attitudes or needs. This Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same freedom to travel as everyone else and we recognise that mobility devices are vital for many. That is why we are reviewing the legal frameworks surrounding mobility devices, including the outdated terminology, and we will consult on that in due course.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue time and again with East Sussex county council. The delay to the Queensway Gateway project has wreaked havoc for her constituents. Given that the project was funded with Government money, serious questions must now be asked of East Sussex county council about these issues and the delays that have come about.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Simon Lightwood
This Government committed in our manifesto to tackle the high cost of motor insurance, and I am pleased to see recent data suggesting that average premiums are falling. The Government’s taskforce, chaired by the Department for Transport and His Majesty’s Treasury, continues to work to identify short and long- term policy actions that may contribute to stabilising or reducing premiums.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
I sympathise with those suffering in congestion at junction 40 of the M6, which I am told is due to various issues. I know my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) have been working hard to resolve those issues for their constituents. I am happy to arrange a meeting to discuss any future short-term interventions that could ease congestion with either me or my team or with National Highways.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Simon Lightwood
As I mentioned earlier, the Government are determined to bring, and have every intention of bringing, about legislation on e-scooters. All that will be taken into account in the development of the policy.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
Responsibility for local transport is devolved to local authorities, which are responsible for the operation of their networks, including the extension of busways. The Government are committed to the Ox-Cam growth corridor. Lord Vallance has been tasked with exploring options on how best to deliver economic growth in that area.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
A workshop taking place in Bath this morning brings together key stakeholders from the rail industry and local authorities. It focuses on the development of rail services in Wiltshire, and will include the case for building a Devizes gateway station and increasing services in Melksham. Following Network Rail’s Wiltshire rail strategic study, will the Secretary of State or Rail Minister meet me and key stakeholders to discuss taking those key projects forward?
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
My constituents who use the A259 coast road are being deprived the choice of safe and sustainable travel to Brighton, as Conservative-run West Sussex county council has dragged its feet for more than three decades on delivering a cycle path. What can the Government do to help me and Shoreham-By-Cycle to push for that much-needed infrastructure, which West Sussex county council has long promised but failed to deliver?
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State might have a word with her friend the Mayor of London about the appalling mismanagement of the Gallows Corner junction, where a flyover is being constructed. The gridlock, chaos and delays are affecting the whole Romford side of Essex, and east London. It really is chaos. Will she get it sorted out?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I, too, look forward to working with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), in his new role. Last week, the Transport Committee heard that car clubs, peer-to-peer ride-sharing and car-sharing schemes align with Government objectives on transport integration, reducing congestion, increasing electric vehicle use and supporting residents in rural areas where public transport is poor. Unlike France and other countries, the sector in the UK operates in a policy vacuum, particularly since the Government withdrew the car clubs toolkit guidance in May. Is the Minister planning to address that policy vacuum?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is completely right, and I thank the Transport Committee for raising that important point. I have commissioned officials to consider how we can support and promote the use of car club and car-sharing schemes, starting with a roundtable of industry stakeholders. I would be delighted if she could attend. I will ensure that that guidance is reinstated.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Hammersmith bridge closed six years, four months and 22 days ago, cutting off the bus routes and causing congestion in Putney. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), holding the first Hammersmith bridge taskforce meeting. When will the next one be held?
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Half the bus sector’s funding now comes from public sources, but during the summer, National Express announced changes to bus services in my constituency with just two weeks’ public notice, which will have a really negative effect on residents in New Frankley, Allens Cross and Bournville Gardens Village retirement home. Does the Minister agree that when regulation is brought in—which is welcome—consultation must be included?
Simon Lightwood
I agree wholeheartedly. It is really important that local people are engaged when designing a network and making changes to it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Liverpool city region Mayor, Steve Rotheram, has submitted a new town bid with Liverpool and Sefton councils, to regenerate the most deprived areas of the country. Does the Minister agree that for new towns to succeed, there needs to be proper funding for integrated transport, and will he commit to working and meeting with the mayor and the politicians to make that happen?
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The A12 is a major transport route into Colchester and a vital part of economic growth in the region. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the urgent need for upgrades to its western end?
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Luton station is the gateway to Luton town centre, and thanks to this Labour Government, it will soon be getting lifts to all its platforms. However, the roof still leaks. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of Luton council to see what can be done with regard to the state of the 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]
Simon Lightwood ExcerptsWednesday 10th September 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2025 View all Bus Services Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Report Stage Amendments as at 10 September 2025 - (10 Sep 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—£2 bus fare scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2.
(2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into a scheme established under this section.
(3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 23 of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must review the terms of any scheme established under this section every three years.
(5) The Secretary of State may amend a scheme established under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to cap bus fares at £2.
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.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.
New clause 3—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—
“(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services within their areas.
(2) Any review must assess—
(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;
(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures;
(c) changes which may improve accessibility and increase patronage; and
(d) the potential benefits to bus patronage of the simplification of ticketing systems.
(3) A local transport authority must complete its first review under this section no later than six months after the passing of this Act, with subsequent reviews conducted at least once every three years.
(4) The results of any review conducted under this section must be made publicly available.
(5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, community representatives, and any other stakeholders the authority deems relevant.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services in their areas.
New clause 4—Duty to promote bus services—
“(1) It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.
(2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider—
(a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options;
(b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives;
(c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage;
(d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility;
(e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;
(f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion;
(g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services.
(3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including—
(a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable;
(b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage;
(c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and
(d) plans for future improvements in bus services.
(4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.”
This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas.
New clause 5—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—
“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.
(2) In this section, "relevant authority" includes—
(a) a county council in England;
(b) a district council in England;
(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;
(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.
(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
(4) The report must also include—
(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;
(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;
(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;
(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;
(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.
(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
New clause 6—Public sector equality duty—
“In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading “Transport” insert—
“A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation.””
This new clause would place bus companies under the public sector equality duty.
New clause 7—Young person’s discount scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a discount on bus fares for people aged between 19 and 25.
(2) Any scheme under this section must provide for a discount amounting to a third of the price of relevant fares.”
This new clause would introduce a discount scheme for young people, providing 19-to 25-year-olds a third off bus fares.
New clause 8—Review of impact of VAT changes on demand-responsive bus services—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of the VAT system on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) whether the current system of granting a zero-rated VAT exemption to public service vehicles with 10 seats or more while subjecting smaller vehicles to VAT on fares—
(i) influences the choice of vehicles used for demand-responsive bus services;
(ii) has any other impact on the provision or operation of demand-responsive bus services,
(b) the potential for VAT exemptions to facilitate the rollout of demand-responsive bus services.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives from the intelligent mobility sector, local authorities, bus operators, and public transport users.
(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to support the growth of demand-responsive bus services across the UK.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of current VAT rules on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.
New clause 9—Free bus travel for unpaid carers—
“The Secretary of State must work with local transport authorities and operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which—
(a) provides free bus travel to those in receipt of carers allowance, and
(b) supports local transport authorities to expand provision for other unpaid carers.”
This new clause would require the Government to introduce a scheme to provide free bus travel for those in receipt of carers allowance and improve bus provision for carers.
New clause 10—Review of capacity of Bus Centre of Excellence—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—
(a) the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities in establishing and operating franchising schemes under the Act, and
(b) additional resourcing required for this purpose.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of the current operational capacity, staffing levels, and expertise of the Bus Centre of Excellence;
(b) an evaluation of the effectiveness and reach of current training programmes and support services provided to local transport authorities on franchising, and their suitability for authorities able to franchise services under the Act;
(c) an identification of specific additional financial, human, and technological resources required by the Bus Centre of Excellence to adequately deliver comprehensive training and ongoing support for all local transport authorities considering or implementing franchising schemes under the Act;
(d) an analysis of the impact of current capacity limitations on the pace and quality of franchising scheme development and implementation by local transport authorities.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, representatives from the Bus Centre of Excellence, and bus operators.
(4) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any steps to ensure the Bus Centre of Excellence is adequately resourced for its role in supporting bus franchising.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities for bus franchising.
New clause 11—Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;
(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;
(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;
(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;
(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—
(a) local councils and local transport authorities;
(b) bus service operators;
(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;
(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and
(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.
(4) Any report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
New clause 12—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme.
(2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in—
(a) rural areas;
(b) coastal communities; and
(c) suburban areas.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes.
New clause 13—Power to convene for bus service coordination—
“(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England may convene other agencies and public bodies that have transport functions and obligations for the purposes of coordinating bus services within, to, or from its area.
(2) The power under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, the power to convene NHS trusts and other health bodies for the purposes of coordinating bus services with non-emergency patient transport services.
(3) The purpose of convening under this section is to promote the efficient, integrated and accessible provision of bus services across different sectors and to ensure that bus services meet the needs of the communities they serve.
(4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the coordination of transport services with other public services.
(5) Local transport authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the exercise of functions under this section.
(6) The Secretary of State must publish—
(a) any guidance issued under subsection (5), and
(b) any variation or revocation of that guidance.”
This new clause would empower local authorities to convene other agencies for the purposes of coordinating bus services.
New clause 14—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the impact and feasibility of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes.
(2) A review under this section must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of current usage patterns of concessionary travel passes and the impact of existing time restrictions on passengers, particularly persons with disabilities and older people;
(b) an evaluation of the potential social, economic, and environmental benefits of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, including impacts on access to essential health services, goods and services, and social activities;
(c) an analysis of the financial implications for local transport authorities and bus operators of removing time restrictions, and potential funding mechanisms to mitigate any adverse impacts;
(d) investigation of passenger volume at different times and regional variation;
(e) recommendations for any legislative or policy changes required to implement the removal of time restrictions.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local transport authorities;
(b) bus operators;
(c) bus users and organisations representing people with disabilities and elderly people; and
(d) any other persons or organisations whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the completion of the review.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes (such as “Freedom Passes”).
New clause 15—Rail bus links scheme: proposals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing local rail connections.
(2) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance accompanying the scheme on—
(a) the departmental funding which will be available for the purposes of the scheme;
(b) the qualifying criteria which will be used to assess eligibility for the scheme, which may include, but may not be limited to, insufficiencies in funding, vehicles and equipment, workforce or expertise.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing connections.
New clause 16—Bus pass scheme for persons in post-16 education—
“The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a half-price discount on bus fares for persons in post-16 education.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a discount on bus fares for people in post-16 education.
New clause 17—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—
(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;
(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.
(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.
New clause 21—Fare cap for school-only services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, extend the £3 bus fare cap to school-only services.
(2) Where the £3 bus fare cap is subsequently increased or decreased, an equivalent change applies to the cap for school-only services.”
New clause 22—Minimum bus service standards: review—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.
(2) The review conducted under this section must—
(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,
(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”
New clause 23—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—
“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.
(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.
New clause 24—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops—
“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.
New clause 25—Franchising authorities: joint forum—
“(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions.
(2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.”
This new clause would require all local transport authorities that introduce franchising schemes to establish a joint forum with trade unions and operators.
New clause 26—Consultation of trade unions—
“In section 138F of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (6)(f) insert—
(fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,”.
This new clause of the Transport Act 2000 would require local transport authorities to consult trade unions when proposing to make an enhanced partnership plan.
New clause 27—National Bus Forum—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Bus Forum.
(2) The purpose of the National Bus Forum is to address issues affecting the provision of local bus services at industry-wide and strategic level.
(3) The membership of the National Bus Forum must include—
(a) HM Government,
(b) trades unions,
(c) bus service operators,
(d) local authorities in England, and
(e) any other body or persons as the Secretary of State deems necessary.”
This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Bus Forum whose membership includes unions, operators and local government, in line with a recommendation by the Transport Select Committee.
New clause 28—Review into floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a vote on the proposals.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the safety of existing floating bus stops and publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a vote debate on the proposals.
New clause 29—Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess—
(a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,
(b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services,
(c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and
(d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.”
New clause 30—Consultation: bus funding formula—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula,
(b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and
(c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted.
New clause 31—Poor performance of franchising—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to take over the management of a service where, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there has been a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.
(2) A statement under subsection (1) must set out—
(a) the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service, and how these circumstances are to be identified;
(b) the actions which the Secretary of State may take to redress the failure to deliver the service;
(c) the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement of when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.
New clause 32—Requirement to consult and notify before service review discussions—
“(1) A local transport authority or bus operator must not enter into formal discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service unless—
(a) notice has been given to parish and district councils affected by the change or withdrawal, and
(b) a period of public consultation has been concluded.
(2) The authority or operator must publish, before giving notice and holding the public consultation—
(a) the date on which formal discussions regarding changes to the service are proposed to commence,
(b) a summary of the reasons why alteration or withdrawal is being considered, and
(c) information on participating in the public consultation or submitting representations on or alternatives to the proposed changes.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities and bus operators to notify relevant councils and initiate a public consultation before entering into discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service.
New clause 33—Duty to promote and increase bus usage—
“(1) A local transport authority must include in its local transport plan a strategy to promote and increase bus usage in its area.
(2) The strategy must—
(a) set out specific, measurable objectives for increasing bus ridership,
(b) establish 2015 as the year against which progress will be assessed,
(c) include measures to encourage modal shift from private vehicles to buses, and
(d) explain how the authority will monitor and report progress.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities to include in their transport strategies a specific plan for increasing bus usage, including measurable objectives and assessment against 2015 as a baseline year.
New clause 34—Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services—
“(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility, and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality, and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain.
New clause 35—Enhanced partnerships: stakeholder forum—
“(1) Every local transport authority in England that has formed an enhanced partnership must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a stakeholder forum to monitor the delivery of the enhanced partnership.
(2) The forum established by subsection (1) must meet at least once every three months, and its membership must include trade unions representing bus workers, passenger groups, and local businesses.
(3) Where two or more local transport authorities are working together in an enhanced partnership scheme, a single forum should be established to meet the duty set out in subsection (1).”
New clause 36—Concessionary travel for 16 and 17 year olds in education or training—
“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 150 insert—
‘150A Free bus travel for 16–17 year olds in education or training
(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons aged 16 or 17 and who are—
(a) in full-time education, or
(b) undertaking training on a course or programme that has been approved by Skills England.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”
New clause 37—Secretary of State duty to ensure services for certain towns—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every town in England is served by bus services which—
(a) operate seven days a week, and
(b) serve specified locations.
(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant local authorities for the areas to which the duty applies,
(b) the integrated care boards for the areas to which the duty applies, and
(c) residents, or organisations representing residents, of the areas to which the duty applies for the purposes of determining the specified locations which must be served.”
New clause 39—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Wales)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—
(a) bus service operators, and
(b) bus passengers,
on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Wales.
(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Wales to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.
(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Welsh Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”
New clause 40—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Scotland)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—
(a) bus service operators, and
(b) bus passengers,
on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Scotland.
(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Scotland to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.
(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”
New clause 41—Driver access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—
In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System for drivers of PSVs
(1) Local transport authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).
(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.’”
This new clause would ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).
New clause 42—Bus safety performance data—
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Bus safety performance data
(1) Local transport authorities must—
(a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and
(b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy.
(2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’”
This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor.
New clause 43—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—
“In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).
(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’”
This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers.
New clause 44—Concessionary travel for people under the age of 22—
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 150 insert—
‘150A Free bus travel for people under the age of 22
(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons under the age of 22.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”
This new clause would require transport authorities to provide free bus travel for children and young people who are under the age of 22.
New clause 45—Minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services—
“(1) It is a requirement for local transport authorities to provide a minimum level of bus services for individuals reliant on off-peak and nighttime transport to local and regional employment centres.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, commission each local authority in England to undertake an audit of the minimum off-peak and nighttime bus services required by those working in key employment centres in their respective areas.
(3) For the purposes of the audit specified in subsection (2), local authorities must consult with bus companies, trade unions, employers and members of the public.
(4) Where more than one local authority is responsible for the delivery, or funding, of local transport services in their respective localities, the audit specified in subsection (2) must be undertaken as a partnership between the relevant local authorities.
(5) Within three months of being commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake the audit under subsection (2), each local authority, or partnership of local authorities, must publish—
(a) the findings of its audit, and
(b) proposals for delivering the off-peak and nighttime services identified by the audit as necessary to fulfil the requirements laid out by subsection (1).
(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) a key employment centre means a city, a town with either a population above 50,000 people or whose economic output represents more than 10 per cent of that local authority’s economic activity.”
This new clause establishes a legal duty for local authorities to ensure a minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services to local employment centres, require the Government to commission local authorities to undertake an audit of local service requirements and produce proposals on providing a minimum level of services.
New clause 46—Duty to consider funding for service enhancements—
“(1) A local transport authority in England must consider whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.
(2) In exercising the duty under this section, the authority must have regard to—
(a) the potential for increased ridership; and
(b) the overall sustainability of the network.
(3) Service improvements under subsection (1) may include—
(a) increasing the frequency of existing services;
(b) extending operating hours;
(c) improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; or
(d) extending the routes of local services.”
This new clause would place a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate public funds to improve existing bus services where this would grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network, and sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions.
New clause 47—English National Concessionary Travel Scheme: Companion Passes—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.
New clause 48—Free travel for uniformed police officers—
“(1) The holder of a PSV operator’s licence must permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local service which has one or more stopping places in England.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, make a statement on options for compensating operators of local services for any costs that arise or revenues lost fulfilling the duty under subsection (1).
(3) In this section—
‘local service’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985;
‘police officer’ means a member of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales or a special constable appointed for such an area; and
‘PSV operator’s licence’ has the same meaning as in section 82 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.”
This new clause would permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local bus service in England.
Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
Government amendment 31.
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert—
“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).
(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’;
(A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert ‘, and
(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.
(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—
(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and
(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’
(A4) After subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’”
This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 6, line 33, at end insert—
“(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000.
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead.
Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 6, line 38, after “2010)” insert “, or with special educational needs (within the meaning given by section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014),”.
This amendment would require local transport authorities wishing to proceed with a franchising scheme to consult bus users with special educational needs, or groups that represent them.
Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, after “fit;” insert—
“(db) relevant train operating companies and other public transport operators, for the purposes of ensuring coordination during peak travel times and tourist seasons;”.
This amendment would add other transport operators to the list of parties who are to be consulted when making or varying a franchising scheme.
Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, leave out line 10.
This amendment would retain the requirement for consultation when varying a franchising scheme.
Government amendments 32 and 33.
Amendment 66, in clause 14, page 10, line 5, after “services” insert “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.
Amendment 5, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert—
“(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must—
(a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities;
(b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities;
(c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models.
(4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting—
(a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area;
(b) users of local services;
(c) NHS providers;
(d) education providers;
(e) local employers and businesses;
(f) people with disabilities; and
(g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.”
This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services.
Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 10, line 20, leave out “and” and insert—
“(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, and
(v) schools and colleges.”
This amendment would ensure that primary health care services, schools and colleges are considered as “socially necessary local services”.
Amendment 60, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, after “activities.” insert—
“(16) A service which was abolished in the 15 years before the day on which the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 was passed may also be considered a socially necessary local service for the purposes of this section and section 138C.”
This amendment would mean that previous bus services could be considered as socially necessary local services.
Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where—
(a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and
(b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service.
(6) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme.
(7) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so.
Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable.
(6) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to—
(a) the scope and nature of the service;
(b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps;
(c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs;
(d) a timeline for the operation of the service;
(e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall.
(7) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (6)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered.
(8) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (7).
(9) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).”
This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established.
Amendment 8, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—
(a) the number of socially necessary local services in England;
(b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled;
(c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services;
(d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation;
(e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and
(f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.
(7) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues.
Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”
Amendment 27, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, after “comfort” insert “;—
(d) identify what, if any, provision is made to facilitate access to child and adolescent mental health services and other community-based mental health services not attached to hospitals.”
This amendment would require bus network accessibility plans to consider access to CAMHS and other community-based mental health services.
Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 17, line 3, at end insert—
“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.
(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.
(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”
This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.
Amendment 28, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“(6A) Guidance issued under subsection (6) must require local transport authorities, when making grants to operators, to take into account factors relevant to the provision of services in their area, including but not limited to—
(a) the rurality of the area or areas to be served;
(b) the age profile of persons in the area or areas to be served;
(c) measures of deprivation in the area or areas to be served; and
(d) the percentage of persons with disabilities in the area or areas to be served.”
This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the making of grants to bus operators to require authorities to consider factors relating to the demographics of the area or areas to be served when making grants.
Amendment 29, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“(6A) The guidance must include information on when and how local transport authorities and mayors may give grants for the purposes of replacing or otherwise providing for bus services in rural or isolated areas when a socially necessary local bus service has been withdrawn, including details of what Government support or funding will be available for such purposes.”
Amendment 61, in clause 23, page 19, line 3, after “environment,” insert—
“(ba) about the operation of concessionary fare schemes by the local transport authority,”.
This amendment would include information about concessionary fare schemes in the guidance about the making of grants by local transport authorities issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 9, in clause 23, page 19, line 13, at end insert—
“154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation
(1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it.
(2) In particular, local transport authorities may—
(a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services,
(b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and
(c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.
(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider—
(a) the size of the operator’s fleet,
(b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and
(c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.”
This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.
Government amendments 35 to 38.
Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”.
This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.
Amendment 59, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) A local transport authority whose area is in England, or two or more authorities acting jointly, shall have the power to make byelaws prohibiting any person on the bus network from, to the annoyance of any person—
(a) singing; or
(b) using any instrument, article or equipment for the production or reproduction of sound.
(2B) Local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, make byelaws in accordance with the powers provided in subsection (2A).
(2C) Bus service operators, including those delivering services as part of a franchising, concessionary, or other scheme, must work with local police forces to ensure the effective enforcement of byelaws made under subsections (2A) and (2B).”
Government amendments 39 to 42.
Amendment 18, in clause 30, page 32, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places.
Amendment 64, in clause 30, page 32, line 22, at end insert—
“(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,”.
This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section to cover the provision of toilet facilities.
Amendment 11, in clause 30, page 32, line 29, at end insert—
“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.
This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.
Amendment 12, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take reasonable steps to implement”.
This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.
Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—
“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).
(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 19, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—
“(6A) The bodies listed in subsection (6) may depart from such guidance only if—
(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and
(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.
(6B) The bodies listed in subsection (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”
This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.
Amendment 20, in clause 31, page 34, line 32, at end insert—
“(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.”
This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 34, line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.
(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”
This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Amendment 14, in clause 34, page 37, line 18, after “2003” insert—
“(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).”
This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.
Government amendment 43.
Amendment 15, in clause 34, page 38, line 16, at end insert—
“144H Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility
(1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility.
(2) The relevant parties are—
(a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence;
(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England
where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services.
(3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding—
(a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services;
(b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and
(c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation.
(5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed—
(a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five-year period thereafter;
(b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations.
(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.”
This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regularly undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.
Government amendments 44 and 45.
Amendment 62, in clause 37, page 41, line 26, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 27 and insert “1 January 2027,”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 63, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered after 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).
Amendment 1, in clause 37, page 41, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) A vehicle does not fall within subsection (3) if it previously had the tailpipe emissions listed in subsection (3)(c) but has since been converted to a zero-emission drive train.”
This amendment would qualify buses that have repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies to be considered as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of this Bill.
Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 42, leave out lines 1 and 2.
Amendment 30, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, leave out “2030” and insert—
“2028 in relation to vehicles to be used in areas containing all or part of a National Landscape, or 1 January 2030 in relation to all other vehicles, and the Secretary of State may by regulations provide any—
(a) financial remuneration, or
(b) specific guidance (or both)
that they deem necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the deadlines specified in this section.”
Amendment 16, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—
“(6) The provisions of this section apply to any mayoral combined authority in England, where “mayoral combined authority” means an authority established under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.”
This amendment would clarify that the provisions of section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities.
Amendment 17, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—
“(6) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing how adequately and easily local transport authorities have been, or will be able to, access funding to replace polluting buses with zero-emission buses for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section.
(7) A report under subsection (6) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of current funding mechanisms available for the transition to zero-emission buses, including grants, loans, and other financial incentives;
(b) an evaluation of the sufficiency of available funding to meet the projected costs and timelines for local transport authorities to achieve a zero-emission fleet by 2035;
(c) a review of the barriers and challenges faced by local transport authorities in accessing existing funding, including administrative burdens, eligibility criteria, and capacity constraints;
(d) recommendations for improving the adequacy and accessibility of funding to accelerate the replacement of polluting buses with zero-emission buses.
(8) In conducting the review under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, bus operators and manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles.
(9) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to ensure sufficient and accessible funding for the transition to zero-emission buses.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the adequacy and accessibility of funding available to local transport authorities to transition their bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The report must include an evaluation of current funding mechanisms, barriers to access, and recommendations for improvements.
Government amendments 46 to 50, 34 and 51 to 57.
Simon Lightwood
I have the pleasure of opening today’s debate on Report. I look forward to a lively discussion on the Bill and thank Members of the House who are here to offer their views and speak to amendments that have been tabled. Before I move to the Government’s amendments, I will briefly recap why the Bill is before the House, speak to the Government’s wider reform of buses and provide an update on progress since Committee.
The Government are seeking to deliver better bus services. That means growing patronage and ensuring that more people can use the bus. It also means leaders having powers to shape the services in their communities and bus services that help to drive opportunities across the country; and safer, reliable, affordable, inclusive and integrated bus services. The measures in the Bill work towards this vision, as do the wider reforms announced by the Government to bus funding, the recent spending review commitments and the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027. Together, these form an ambitious set of interventions designed to reverse long-term trends and improve bus services.
Consistent with this objective, and following engagement with my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the forthcoming update to the statutory franchising guidance will confirm expectations that franchising authorities consult representatives of prospective users and that the statutory guidance on stopping places will set out the Department’s expectations for how safer and more accessible stopping places can encourage an increase in bus ridership by providing facilities that people can and want to use.
In Committee, there was a wide-ranging and detailed debate across the Bill’s measures and bus policy more generally. I committed to provide an update on Report on how my Department is working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators to raise awareness of certain cyclists’ behaviours around floating bus stops. Active Travel England will share materials with councils to promote awareness of the requirement for people cycling to give way to bus passengers at crossing points. This is alongside existing guidance on how to engage communities and design safe and accessible walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure.
Transport for London is carrying out a campaign to raise awareness of the highway code, with a particular focus on the rules designed to protect people walking, cycling and motorcycling. The campaign highlights five key rules that protect at-risk road users and apply where there is poor compliance and understanding of the rules, including some of the rules that were updated in 2022. This includes materials designed to remind road users, particularly cyclists, to give way at crossings at bus stops. Active Travel England and the Department have been involved in this work with the intention of sharing materials with local authorities outside London in due course.
Furthermore, in Committee, I set out that my Department will ask local authorities to undertake an audit of existing sites, alongside setting out to them our expectation on a pause. Active Travel England’s additional research includes a national audit of floating bus stops. I advise authorities to work collaboratively with ATE, so we can gain an accurate picture of where and what type of floating bus stops are in use, and therefore ensure that future guidance is comprehensive.
The Department will publish statutory guidance on the design of floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent. That will be supported by additional research into the design of existing floating bus stops and how they can be improved to ensure they are accessible. Active Travel England has provided funding to councils and encouraged them to review existing designs against the upcoming guidance and, where required, implement remediation works. Both audits of bus stop bypasses and remediation works can be funded using the active travel funding as an essential maintenance activity.
I now move to the Government amendments. New clause 38 has been brought forward at the request of the Scottish Government. It reflects close collaboration between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It will help provide greater certainty of the future demand in Scotland. I am committed to ensuring that the Governments continue to work together as they move towards the full transition to zero emission buses. The measure effectively replicates the provision in clause 37. It will have the effect of restricting the use of new non-zero emission buses on relevant services in Scotland. Powers provided to Scottish Ministers under clause 38 are analogous to those given to the Secretary of State under clause 37. Amendments 45 to 50 are consequential amendments that are minor and technical in nature or related to making transitional or saving provisions. The measure requires legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and, if necessary, the Government will return with an update during ping-pong.
Amendment 53 is a technical amendment that provides a clarification on the franchising variation procedure in the Bill’s schedule. Specifically, it clarifies the variation procedure that applies when a franchising authority wishes to vary two minor aspects of a franchising scheme—namely the additional facilities, such as depots and ticketing facilities, to be provided in the franchising area, and the description of the authority’s plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness. That will help give franchising authorities clarity on the process and ensure that relevant parties are consulted on such changes.
Amendment 57 provides further detail on who should be consulted when a franchising authority varies plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness included in its scheme, including Welsh Ministers, other affected local authorities, relevant organisations and the Passengers’ Council. Amendments 31 to 34, 51, 52 and 54 to 56 are minor and technical amendments to remove unnecessary wording.
The final set of Government amendments are numbered 35 to 45. These are minor and technical amendments that remove data protection overrides previously inserted into the Bill. The overrides are no longer necessary as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, and these matters are now covered automatically by virtue of that legislation.
Simon Lightwood
With the leave of the House, I thank those who have contributed to today’s debate. I have carefully listened to the points raised. The breadth of interest shows that although we may not agree on the approach, we share an ambition to improve buses for all passengers.
As I have mentioned throughout the passage of the Bill, this Government strongly believe that local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their local communities; they know and understand their areas’ specific needs and have a direct relationship with their communities. We do not want to increase the number of burdens on them. We must trust the local areas that we are empowering to take the right decisions for local people.
Even though I recognise the importance of ensuring that there is full accountability, there are a large number of amendments that do not align with that core principle and that would actually increase the burdens on local transport authorities. Amendments have also been proposed today that would take away key funding decisions from local areas, requiring them to fund specific parts of the bus services in their area without considering the possible negative consequences that will undoubtedly arise for others. As I have mentioned, this Government seek to provide greater flexibility in how a local area uses its bus grant. Local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their communities and we must trust them to do that.
I will respond to several points raised by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). On the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, despite what the Conservative party claims, franchising was delivered on time and on budget there, and that is despite the overly complex process that they had to go through because of the previous Government’s Bus Services Act 2017. We are correcting the mistakes of that legislation, cutting red tape and making the process more efficient.
Jerome Mayhew
I hope that the Minister is not misleading the House inadvertently. Although he is right that it was delivered on time and on budget—it was about £156 million—it is argued that the subsequent year of operation had a deficit of about £236 million. Even though it may have been delivered on time and on budget, it has been in a terrible deficit ever since and is on strike now.
Simon Lightwood
I am afraid that we have been around this roundabout quite a few times. I neither recognise nor agree with those figures. We would have thought that the Conservatives, as the party that gave Greater Manchester the power to franchise buses, would be more supportive of one of the few positive things that they did in government. If the Conservative party thought it was so important, why did it not do something about it while in office?
I also remind the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), that he was literally the buses Minister. Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government of the 1980s who deregulated buses outside London, which led to services being cut, fares going up and patronage going down. This Labour Government are reversing decades of decline in bus services.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Minister should see how committed we were in office, because I gave more than a billion pounds to Manchester for that scheme and for setting it up. Indeed, the National Audit Office recently praised our £2 bus fare scheme, saying it
“achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage.”
Simon Lightwood
I would not stand there so proud of overseeing 300,000 miles fewer travelled by buses under the Conservative party.
Moving to the matter of concessionary travel, let me begin by recognising the strength of support for new clause 2 in the party of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). Although the intention of that amendment and others on concessionary travel is understandable, the ENCTS costs around £700 million annually, so any extension of statutory entitlements must be carefully considered to ensure financial sustainability.
Having received a good outcome from the bus funding in this spending round, we will shortly make a multi-year allocation to local authorities to support bus services locally. The multi-year nature of these allocations will enable local authorities to plan their bus services with greater certainty and negotiate the best value provision from bus operators. Local authorities already have the power to offer additional concessions beyond the statutory scheme funded locally. For example, in the year ending March 2025, 66% of travel concession authorities offered concessionary travel to companions of disabled people. I would also note that a review of the ENCTS was conducted under the previous Government in 2024, including consideration of travel times, and we are currently reviewing this for next steps.
On the matter of travel for police officers, many operators already offer free travel to police officers. We are discussing with the industry how we can build on that offer and increase awareness, given the importance of safety on buses. This work is being led by the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) to discuss that further.
Sir Julian Lewis
It is good news that 66% of local authorities recognise the importance of companion bus passes for those disabled people who cannot otherwise use a bus, but given the lack of logic of giving somebody a pass that they cannot use, is this not one of those cases that ought to be taken away from discretion and simply added to statute as a matter of common sense?
Simon Lightwood
We believe in passing the power and the funding down to local areas to make these decisions. A multi-year funding settlement has been reached and details of that will be provided to local authorities in due course. They already have the power and they will have the funding and the ability to do just that.
I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling amendment 58. The Bill seeks to remove the existing requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. This is a purely administrative step and has no effect. It occurs before a franchising assessment has been produced, so the Secretary of State has no evidence at all on whether to support or block a move towards franchising. The Bill’s purpose is to help streamline and simplify bus franchising and, in turn, open up the option of bus franchising to all local transport authorities. Clause 1 is consistent with that aim. It puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field and will speed up the process for those authorities pursuing bus franchising. For this reason, I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
I will now address amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and amendment 59 from the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham together. I am aware of the recent campaign by the hon. Member for Wimbledon regarding noise nuisance on the bus network, and I can confirm that the Government are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour on buses, including headphone dodging. In Committee, I outlined the existing regulations in place, which set out the behaviour expected of drivers and passengers travelling on buses, so I will not repeat them here.
Further to those existing powers, clause 28 of the Bill provides scope to tackle a broad range of antisocial behaviours, and that could include making byelaws to tackle disruptive forms of behaviour. Of course, Conservatives Members would know this if they had bothered to read the Bill, but they obviously had not noticed this when they were talking to the press about headphone dodging. As such, these amendments are not necessary and I would ask right hon. and hon. Members not to press them.
I move next to the issue of fare caps. The previous Government left no funding to maintain any form of cap beyond 2024. We stepped in with a £3 cap to avoid a cliff edge and to ensure that fares remained affordable. The fare cap captures around one fifth of bus fares. This reflects passengers’ use of other forms of ticketing, such as a weekly season ticket. As a result of the recent spending review, funding has been secured so that authorities can provide targeted interventions if they so choose. School-only services were fully considered when designing the £3 fare cap scheme, and it was determined that they should not be included.
On amendment 23, the Bill introduces socially necessary local services as a measure. The £2 fare cap ended in December 2024 prior to this measure coming into force. The expectation is that it will take some time for local transport authorities to identify socially necessary local services in their areas. An evaluation of the £2 fare cap has already been published by the Department for Transport. It looked at the first 10 months of the previous fare cap. Evidence suggested that the scheme delivered low value for money.
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The result of the Division is as follows: the Ayes were 69, the Noes were 400.
Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have made a note of that particular station and will be speaking to the Rail Minister about it as a priority, as I am sure Members will understand.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate. She is right to raise the important topic of accessibility at stations in her constituency. I assure her and all Members of this House that the Government understand the enormous emotional, social and economic benefits that accessible transport delivers not just for the 16 million disabled people in the UK, but for families, communities and our economy as a whole.
A railway that works for everyone is not a luxury, but a necessity. Whether someone is using a wheelchair or has a visual impairment, or is pushing a pram, carrying heavy luggage or recovering from injury, their needs matter. That is why the Access for All programme is such a vital part of our strategy for improving accessibility. Since its launch in 2006, that programme has made tangible improvements to accessibility at stations across the country, and I am pleased to report that progress continues.
To date, we have delivered step-free access at over 260 stations across Great Britain. That means properly installed lifts, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage and wayfinding changes that make a real difference to the everyday lives of passengers. In addition to those major upgrades, we have completed over 1,500 smaller-scale improvements, which include everything from accessible ticket machines and better lighting to handrails and help points. Those might seem like small things, but for someone with limited mobility or visual impairments, they can make all the difference between a journey that is possible and one that previously has not been.
Although I am pleased with that progress, it is not just about numbers; it is also about impact. Behind every accessible station there is a person who can now get to work, visit friends and family, attend school or simply enjoy a day out without relying on others or facing barriers that others do not even have to think about. However, we know that this work is not finished; we know that we must go further and that the pace of change is not always fast enough.
Earlier this year Network Rail completed feasibility work on 50 stations identified as strong candidates for future Access for All investment. Those stations were chosen carefully, based on criteria that reflect demand, need and opportunity for improvement. My hon. Friend raised the issue of criteria. As she mentioned, stations are nominated by the industry in consultation with local authorities and others, including TFL, to ensure that the funding benefits as many passengers as possible. Stations are then assessed by annual footfall, and weighted by the incidence of disability in the area, using census data. Local factors, including, as she said, whether a station is near a hospital, the availability of third-party funding and the deliverability of the station, are also considered. Additionally, we aim to ensure a fair geographical spread of projects across the country.
I would be happy to facilitate a sit-down meeting with the Rail Minister, so that my hon. Friend can discuss the issues in her constituency, and the opportunities for future rounds of Access for All funding.
Gareth Snell
While the Minister has his diary out, I wonder whether he could facilitate a similar meeting for me with the Rail Minister regarding Longton train station.
Simon Lightwood
I particularly enjoy offering meetings to my colleagues, and I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard that request. We will soon be announcing which of those 50 stations will move into the next design phase. That is a sign of our ongoing commitment to make the railway more accessible, more inclusive and more modern.
Accessibility is, rightly, a “golden thread” embedded in everything the Department does, and that extends to how we design, build and maintain our railways. Every time we install, renew or upgrade station infrastructure, whether that is a new platform, a concourse, a footbridge or a ticketing system, those works must meet modern accessibility standards. Infrastructure managers, station operators and service providers are legally required to ensure that those facilities comply with accessibility requirements, as laid out in the relevant legislation and guidance. Where those obligations are not met, enforcement action can be taken by the Office of Rail and Road, the independent regulator.
That approach is absolutely right, because although progress is encouraging, it must be sustained and consistent. Accessibility standards across the rail network cannot depend on geography or luck. Whether someone lives in a city centre or a rural town, and whether their station is a major interchange or a small local stop, the right to access the railway should be universal. That does not stop at stations, of course; it includes improvements to rolling stock, including audio and visual announcements, priority seating, wheelchair spaces and on-board assistance. It also includes training staff to help change cultures and to provide appropriate support to disabled passengers, and not just in terms of procedures but also with empathy, understanding and respect.
I would like to touch on the Government’s wider commitment to deliver an accessibility charter, recognising the importance of consistency across all modes of transport. The charter will bring together in one place the guiding principles that underpin the rights and responsibilities of disabled passengers, regulators, enforcement bodies and operators. Research suggests that disabled people are less confident travelling across modes than non-disabled people. We are determined, working together with stakeholders, to change that. We want to empower disabled people to travel easily, confidently and with dignity for their entire journey. A truly accessible transport system cannot rely on a single mode being accessible; it must be focused on the entire journey. That is why later this year we will be setting out our plans to improve accessible travel across all modes, as part of our integrated national transport strategy.
Although we have made progress, we know that for too many people travel on our public transport system and our railways is still not as easy or reliable as it should be. A broken lift, an unexpected platform change or a lack of staff support can turn what should be a straightforward journey into an ordeal. For some, the barriers remain so great that they do not even try. I want to make it clear that that is not acceptable. That is why the Department for Transport will continue to seek every opportunity—through targeted investment, improved infrastructure, policy reform, and partnership with industry and communities—to improve access across the network. Whether it is through the Access for All programme, major station redevelopments or ongoing commitments to accessibility compliance, we will not stop pushing for railways that are fully inclusive.
Valerie Vaz
I would be grateful if the Minister could say how disabled people are counted in the footfall count.
Simon Lightwood
Perhaps I could come back to my right hon. Friend on that—I will consult the Rail Minister and ensure that I get her an accurate answer.
Our vision is clear: a railway that works for everyone; a railway where no one is left waiting on the platform; a railway where opportunity, independence and mobility are not privileges, but rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Thames Gateway Bridge: Safeguarding Direction
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Today I am informing the House of my decision to lift the safeguarding direction for the Thames gateway bridge. This reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring that our transport and infra- structure supports housing delivery and drives growth as part of the plan for change.
Safeguarding is an important planning tool used to protect land for future transport schemes from conflicting development. In this case, the safeguarding direction for the Thames gateway bridge dates back to 1940, when the area’s transport needs were very different. It was intended to protect land for a road crossing that has not been delivered. Since then, London’s transport priorities have evolved, and over the decades, we have seen major investments in London’s river crossings—most notably the Dartford crossing and, recently, the Silvertown tunnel. The safeguarding directions therefore no longer align with the direction of transport policy or the evolving needs of this part of London.
The continued safeguarding of this land has been an obstacle to much-needed development, and I am therefore lifting these directions. The Government are keen to deliver new homes and unlock economic opportunity, and we are taking steps to remove unnecessary barriers to progress.
[HCWS836]
Condition of Roads: Cheshire
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this debate on the condition of roads in Cheshire, and on her admirable efforts to highlight her constituents’ concerns. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.
Like everyone else in the Chamber, I appreciate that this country is suffering from a plague of potholes and poor road conditions. Not only are those a costly nuisance to drivers, but they are a great risk to all road users, including cyclists and motorcyclists, who are more vulnerable. The public are the ones facing the repercussions of our poor roads and the maintenance backlog that has built up everywhere over the past decade, and I believe we are all in complete agreement that this must stop. This Government are up to that challenge, and are determined to improve conditions for all road users.
We are already putting our money where our mouth is by providing £500 million of extra funding for highway maintenance this year, taking overall spending through the highways maintenance block to nearly £1.6 billion this year. That is the largest ever amount of funding for local highway maintenance in England in one year, and means a huge increase in funding for nearly every local highways authority in England, including in Cheshire. In the hon. Member’s area, Cheshire East council will receive up to an additional £5.54 million of highways maintenance funding this year on top of around £15.5 million in baseline funding, while Cheshire West and Chester council will receive an additional £4 million of highways maintenance funding this year on top of around £11.4 million in baseline funding. The Government are determined to transform the condition of the country’s highways.
The hon. Member will also note that 25% of this year’s funding uplift is contingent on each local highway authority meeting the requirements announced by the Secretary of State in March this year. We are making sure that road users, such as the people of Cheshire, have full transparency from local authorities over how this investment will be spent in transforming their roads. All 154 highway authorities were required by 30 June to publish clear information about the condition of their networks and their plans for how they will use the additional funding.
I am pleased to confirm that both Cheshire highway authorities have returned their reports. The hon. Member’s constituents will be able to see that last year in Cheshire East, for example, the council estimated that the number of potholes they filled increased by nearly 50% compared with the year before. In Cheshire West and Chester, the council is committed—the hon. Member talked about the issues with continuous patching-up—to delivering 12 major resurfacing schemes during this financial year, including on the A559 Chester Way in Northwich and the B5153 in Kingsley.
Everyone in England should now have access to these reports by logging on to their council’s website. I was reliably informed that Cheshire East council has an interactive map, and I am sure that the hon. Member, as soon as she leaves the Chamber, will be heading straight to a computer to take a look at that. Everyone will be able to log on to their local council’s website to understand more about what their local highway authority is doing to improve their roads and to see at first hand the difference that this Government’s funding is making. Crucially, it will also help people to challenge their local authority if it is not delivering.
However, our funding for local roads does not stop there. The hon. Member should already be aware of the results of the spending review, where it was announced that the Government will provide £24 billion in capital funding between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to maintain and improve motorways and local roads across the country. That funding will allow National Highways and local authorities to invest in significantly improving the long-term condition of England’s road network, delivering faster, safer and more reliable journeys. We will announce allocations for individual authorities in due course.
The capital funding for highways also included a £1 billion investment to enhance the road network and create a new structures fund, which will inject cash into repairing roads and rundown bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels across the country. Further funding of more than £6 million has been granted for active travel schemes for Cheshire West and Chester and for Cheshire East, for a total of 13 schemes. I am also delighted that on 8 July the Department confirmed that it will provide £48 million of funding towards Cheshire East council’s important Middlewich eastern bypass scheme, which is intended to help tackle congestion and safety concerns in the town centre.
To conclude, this Government are dedicated to supporting local highway authorities to improve and maintain roads for all users, and we will continue to prove our dedication through funding, transparency and support for local highway authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Disabled Bus Passes
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss disabled bus passes, and I thank other Members for their contributions.
I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has raised. The Government know the value of the English national concessionary travel scheme, or ENCTS. We want everyone to have straightforward access to high-quality public transport and are committed to improving services so that they are more inclusive and enable disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. I know, however, that disabled people continue to face unacceptable barriers in their everyday use of public transport, and we are determined to address them. I am committed to working with the sector to drive forward these much-needed improvements.
Regarding the specific concerns raised about concessionary bus travel, let me first remind Members of the statutory obligations of the ENCTS. The scheme provides free bus travel to those with eligible disabilities and those of state pension age—currently 66—between 9.30 am and 11 pm on weekdays and all day on weekends and bank holidays. However, local authorities in England have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations—for example, by extending the times of use.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough pre-empted me saying the following: Department statistics report that 77% of travel concession authorities offer extensions to the beginning of the statutory time period, allowing passholders to travel before 9.30 am on weekdays. Local authorities can also offer companion passes to disabled passengers as a discretionary enhancement—a power we have seen taken up by two thirds, or 66%, of authorities, from Durham to Devon. Indeed, York and North Yorkshire combined authority goes above and beyond the ENCTS on times and companion passes.
Sir Julian Lewis
The Minister, I think, has conceded a key point: he has admitted that some duties are discretionary to councils, and some are statutory. The point about companion bus passes for those disabled people who cannot use a bus without a companion is, as early-day motion 1638 makes abundantly clear, that inclusion of the free companion bus pass should be statutory specifically for those disabled people who cannot use their bus pass without a companion. There is nothing discretionary about that; they simply cannot use the bus pass without the companion. Therefore, it should be part of the same statutory element by which they get the free bus pass in the first place.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the right hon. Member for his extensive intervention. Every single local transport authority in the country has the ability to go above and beyond the ENCTS. In fact, every single local transport authority under this Government has received funding to support buses. Unlike the previous Government, who offered a “Hunger Games”-style competition, we have done it by a fair formula.
The Department conducted a review of the ENCTS, in which many of the important issues discussed today concerning scheme eligibility and travel times were considered. I will not prejudge the outcome of the review, but I want to reassure Members that accessibility and affordability remain central in our commitment to improve bus services for those who rely on them most.
As we are all aware, we face a particularly difficult fiscal climate and fiscal inheritance. The ENCTS is vital in supporting local bus travel, assisting with access to essential local services and helping those who use it to stay active and avoid isolation, and we must ensure that it remains financially sustainable. The ENCTS costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations would therefore need to be carefully considered in terms of the impact on financial sustainability.
More widely, this Government are committed to improving bus services across the country. The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which we introduced in December, puts the power over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders right across England and is intended to ensure bus services reflect the needs of the communities that rely on them.
Ellie Chowns
It makes sense for bus services to reflect local needs, but whether someone has a disability and needs to use a bus is not a locally determined thing. There should be fair access to these services wherever someone lives in the country. Currently we have a postcode lottery regarding the ability to use bus passes 24 hours a day. The point of the debate is to ask that it is organised nationally, so that there is fair access and every disabled person’s bus pass can be used at any time of day, and there are not some parts of the country where it works and others where it does not.
Simon Lightwood
I recognise what the hon. Member is saying, and I will go on to outline some of the other areas where the Government are helping. Improving accessibility is central to our mission. The Bill will help us to deliver safer, more reliable and more accessible networks. It includes specific measures to make bus travel more accessible and inclusive, including through more consistent approaches to the inclusive design of bus stations and stops. The Bill will also require local authorities to produce a bus network accessibility plan, assessing the existing accessibility of bus networks in their areas, and identifying actions that they will take to improve them further.
The voice of disabled people will be at the heart of these reforms. We will develop bus stop guidance collaboratively with organisations that represent disabled people, and local authorities will be required to consult disabled people and organisations representing them when making significant changes to their bus networks. In addition, the Government have committed to publishing an integrated national transport strategy this year, which will set the long-term vision for transport in England. A key part of the strategy will be to create the conditions for a transport system that works together to deliver for its users and that makes it easy for people to get around. Everyone should be able to access real-time information, and simplified, integrated ticketing, and we have been exploring those themes as part of our policy development.
Simon Lightwood
I did not hear who called out first, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett).
Alison Bennett
I thank the Minister for giving way, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for letting me take the Floor. I am pleased that the Minister has outlined the forthcoming integrated transport strategy.
Over 18 months ago, Wivelsfield railway station in my constituency was allocated funding to make both platforms step-free. That still has not happened. We are still waiting for an update, and I wonder whether the Minister could ask the Department to provide one.
Simon Lightwood
Under the previous Government, up to 50 stations were funded, with feasibility studies under the Access for All programme. I do not know whether the hon. Member’s station is part of that, but I am happy to take up that subject outside the Chamber.
We also know that these plans will be backed up with funding. That is why the Budget allocated more than £1 billion to local bus services for 2025-26, including £12.5 million for York and North Yorkshire combined authority. Funding allocated to local authorities to improve bus services can be used to fund discretionary enhancements to the ENCTS, and we have reaffirmed our commitment through the funding allocated as part of the spending review.
Vikki Slade
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am incredibly bothered by the issue of consistency. A disabled driver can use their blue badge at any time of the day, but somebody who is not able to drive is restricted to being able to use their bus pass only after 9.30 am. That seems to be a simple unfairness in the system for people who do not have the option to drive. We have an opportunity to make a tiny change that would make a massive difference.
Simon Lightwood
I reiterate that every single local transport authority in the country has the ability to go above and beyond—
Simon Lightwood
I will not give way again to the hon. Lady. Every single local transport authority in the country has the ability to go above and beyond the ENCTS statutory obligations. Every single local transport authority has been given money to improve bus services, and that can be used to top-up the statutory provisions. I reiterate that the Department has conducted a review of the ENCTS, and many of the issues raised today are included in that review. I will not prejudge the outcome, but I say to hon. Members once again that accessibility is central to it.
Tom Gordon
I thank the Minister for giving way. I hope he notes that I was quite measured in my speech, and I genuinely believe that he wants to put disabled people at the heart of the review. When the Department looks at the impact on the financials and on spending, will it look at how if disabled people can get to hospital appointments, opportunities in education and out spending their money in our economy that might feed into funding the system?
Simon Lightwood
As I mentioned earlier, under the bus services Bill, local authorities will be tasked with producing a bus network accessibility plan—assessing bus networks in their area and identifying actions that they will need to take to improve access. Through the bus grant, local transport authorities can put in place mitigations to improve the accessibility, frequency and reliability of buses in their area.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, particularly the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for taking the time to raise this matter. I am sure we will have many more conversations about this and I applaud his persistence on the issue. I hope this response assures hon. Members that this Government are committed to working with local leaders and bus operators to help deliver better, more reliable and affordable bus services for passengers.
Question put and agreed to.