Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Jerome Mayhew

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steff Aquarone]

The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 34 and the introduction of specific training for bus drivers to help them to identify and respond to criminal offences and antisocial behaviour. Everyone should feel safe when travelling by bus. Ensuring that drivers have the confidence and skills to recognise criminal and antisocial behaviour and, where safe, to intervene appropriately, is an important step forward. This is a practical and necessary measure, and we are pleased to see it in the Bill.

Amendment 61 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon seeks to address a worrying gap in the legislation, by ensuring that the training includes identifying the signs of domestic abuse. Local bus drivers often play a central role in their communities. They see the same passengers day in, day out, which puts them in a unique position. They can notice patterns and recognise signs of distress, and they know how to report concerns safely and appropriately.

Domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence. Coercive control, financial abuse and emotional manipulation can be just as damaging. They often go unnoticed, because they do not always meet the threshold of immediate fear for one’s personal safety, but let us make no mistake: those forms of abuse rob victims of their freedom, security and dignity. We must ensure that where there is an opportunity for someone to notice the indications of such abuse, that can be reported swiftly and effectively.

We know, from too many horror stories, that missed opportunities can cost lives. One in five people will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, which is a chilling statistic. We believe it is essential that frontline public service workers, which includes our hard-working bus drivers, receive training to help to spot those signs and act accordingly. This is not about placing undue burdens on drivers; it is about empowering them and all those in public-facing roles, through the proposed training, to be part of a society that recognises abuse and does not turn a blind eye.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 34 concerns crime and antisocial behaviour. It is about improving personal safety and the perception of safety for people, especially women and girls, which was a key component of the Government’s manifesto. The measures aim to train staff in the bus industry to identify and respond to acts of crime, including violence against people, particularly women and girls, and antisocial behaviour. The Minister will deal with the details of the clause in his remarks, so I will reduce my comments as much as I can. Although the principles of clause 34 are, of course, difficult to argue against, I have a number of concerns about the current drafting, similar to the concerns I had with clause 33, that I urge the Minister to address.

Proposed new section 144F(2) of the Transport Act 2000 requires training

“to identify, respond appropriately to and, where safe to do so, prevent”

crime and antisocial behaviour, but it does not set out minimum content standards or accreditation requirements. This is a sensitive issue. We are anticipating drivers putting themselves into certainly confrontational—perhaps even violent—situations, so we have to be very careful what we are asking them to do in the legislation. Will the Minister confirm that it is not the intention of the legislation to require bus drivers to physically intervene in potentially violent situations? That is quite an important point that we need to make clear.

How will we ensure the consistency of training quality across different bus regions? Has any assessment been undertaken of the availability of training professionals across the country? It is not a niche area, but it is certainly a small area of training. If not, how can the Minister impose a requirement without having undertaken an assessment of the ability of the sector to comply with that requirement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments on our proposed amendment. Perhaps I can give him some reassurance about my interpretation of the driver’s mandate to intervene in all those situations. Having been on training that sought to raise awareness of a range of issues, including domestic abuse, I know that trainers often say, “No matter what you are taught today, you are not expected to always intervene. If you do not feel safe to do so, do not do so.”

I would apply the same logic, perhaps in a different way, to the amendment: it is not expecting drivers to take on the burden of identifying, let alone resolving, issues of coercive control. However, I think public-spirited drivers—I can think of many such drivers in my constituency, and I am sure the shadow Minister can as well, given that they are often the same people—would want to learn more about how they can spot the signs, and perhaps just report a change in a pattern of behaviour to a local beat manager who may well be entirely familiar with the name of the person concerned.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s greater knowledge of training in this area. I am substantially persuaded by the information that he put forward in his intervention.

Amendment 52, which is in my name, seeks to ensure that any training or requirements established under this clause do not include guidance that would advise, encourage, direct or imply that individuals, in this instance bus drivers, should put themselves in danger at any stage. I am grateful for the Minister’s non-verbal indication during my earlier comments that I was right in assuming that that was not the Government’s intention, but my amendment would make express what the Minister has implied.

Although it is entirely right that drivers and frontline staff receive training to identify, respond to and, where safe, prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour, we must be clear that their personal safety is also essential. The amendment ensures that no training delivered under these provisions would ever advise to the contrary. It preserves the purpose of clause 34 by ensuring staff that are trained to recognise and respond appropriately to crime and antisocial behaviour while guaranteeing that such training will never instruct them to act beyond what is reasonable and safe.

I will leave it the Minister to address amendment 73. Amendment 75, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant senior managers to undertake regular training on disability awareness and accessibility. I appreciate its intention, but I have two concerns. First, it would inevitably place an additional regulatory burden on operators and local transport authorities, where there is currently no clear evidence of an existing gap that needs to be filled.

We have to remind ourselves that we are not running the buses in this Committee; we are creating legislation that requires other people to run the buses in a certain way. As legislators, it is always tempting to think, “Oh, that’s a good idea. Let’s put that in the Bill.” However, we sometimes forget that we are dealing with primary legislation, which requires an Act of Parliament to change. We need to be very careful that we do not create an administrative overload, and this provision would be an additional regulatory burden without clear evidence. We also need to be cognisant of the fact that, although some of the potentially affected organisations will be local transport authorities or large municipal bus companies—at least in the future—many of the affected businesses will be small and medium-sized enterprises, some of which will be very small local bus operators that need to be protected from over-regulation.

Secondly, there is a danger of duplication and confusion when there are other statutory duties and guidance being created in the Bill, particularly those in clause 30 that deal with the safety and accessibility of stopping places. We need to ensure clarity, not an overlapping jurisdiction of training mandates, which may cause regulator confusion. Those are my concerns about amendment 75.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I will speak briefly in support of our amendments 75 and 69, which would require relevant senior managers in our bus networks regularly to undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility. Accessibility must be embedded at every level of our public transport system. It should be an intuitive consideration for all staff, from frontline drivers and conductors to the most senior decision makers. Although it is absolutely right that drivers and attendants understand the needs of disabled passengers, that alone is not enough. We must also ensure that those in positions of strategic responsibility—those making decisions about timetables, fleet upgrades, route changes and service delivery—fully understand how their decisions impact on disabled people.

Too often, accessibility is treated as an afterthought rather than a starting point, and that must change. By ensuring that senior managers receive training, amendment 75 would help to create a strong, informed culture of accessibility across the network. It would ensure that inclusion is not just a box to tick but a guiding principle in how our bus services are designed and delivered. After all, improved accessibility and user experience benefits everybody, not just the people for whom it is necessary. This is the right thing to do. It is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone.

I also want to note the recommendations of the recent Transport Committee report into accessibility in the transport system, “Access Denied”. I was proud to be part of the Committee that published the report. The report made recommendations about ensuring that relevant training is suitably co-produced with disabled people, and that the Government ensure an expert unit assesses the quality of available training. In response, the Government told us they were working to create an accessibility charter and that they intend to

“undertake further work to assess how clear and straightforward standards that a charter can help provide could support consistent, high-quality training.”

Will the Minister provide further clarity on what that further work is, and the progress he has made on it? Such an update would be incredibly relevant to the amendments, as it would ensure that the training carried out is of a suitable standard and comes with the needs of disabled passengers and service users at its heart. To conclude, I urge the Government to support amendment 75. It is a simple but powerful step towards better, more inclusive bus services for disabled passengers and for everyone.

[Jerome Mayhew]

If hon. Members cast their minds back to earlier, they will know my exact views on amendment 75, so I will not repeat them. I will not speak on amendment 69, because my remarks would be similar to those on amendment 75. I will, however, speak briefly on clause 35.

Clause 35 will introduce measures on disability training. There is currently a requirement in article 16 of EU regulation 181/2011 for mandatory training on disability awareness and disability assistance to be undertaken by particular categories of staff of carriers and terminal managing bodies, with different categories of staff required to do different elements of the training. The Government are totally right to realise that that is an unnecessary complication, and that there needs to be a tidying up exercise so that all staff dealing with passengers in the transport sector receive similar training.

Clause 35 streamlines the requirement so that all categories of local bus service staff referenced in article 16 of the EU regulation should undertake both disability assistance and disability awareness training, and stay current every five years. It enables bus drivers and staff who deal directly with the travelling public or issues related to them, including those who provide direct assistance to passengers, to be informed of the needs and experiences of disabled people—quite right too. That is a good clarification.

Clause 36 deals with training about disability and contains further provisions. Its intentions are as decent as those of clause 35, and they are undeniably important. Namely, it seeks to ensure the effective implementation of disability awareness training requirements. However, we need to be aware of the potential issues with regulatory overreach and the administration burden.

Measures under subsection (1) of the clause empower the Secretary of State to require operators to keep, publish and provide compliance records. I am repeating myself slightly, but this is an important point: we are dealing with primary legislation that covers the entire sector. It affects not just big organisations but SMEs; we have to remember that not all operators are large organisations. For SMEs with a small workforce or a small fleet, increases to the administrative burden can be disproportionate to the benefit that such requirements to maintain data can bring to others.

I wonder whether that burden is justified in terms of its outcome, and not just theoretical tidiness. Theoretically, I understand the provision and it makes sense. We are saying, “We want operators to do these things, therefore we want records that are updated and published regularly.” In reality, that comes with a time and labour cost. How will services be improved in practical terms as a result of the additional requirement? Has the Minister already conducted an impact assessment of the additional financial and administrative burdens that the measure will place on smaller local authorities and bus operators?

Government amendment 20 ensures that references in the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 to the “enforcement authority” cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A. Again, I will leave it to the Minister to address the amendment. I hope Committee members are applauding my changed approach to the pace at which I am going through some of these provisions—it is against my better judgment. As a former lawyer, I love going into the subsections, but I am trying to canter on.

There is a concern with amendment 20 that we are loading a whole load of additional obligations on to traffic commissioners, these previously unknown—certainly in my case—servants of the state. A question arises about capacity and the funding necessary to increase it. Traffic commissioners already oversee a vast amount of regulatory functions for operating licensing, vehicle standards and general compliance across the bus and coach sectors. The Bill, particularly clause 36, adds significant additional enforcement duties, and that obviously comes at a cost in both manpower and legal fees. If a commissioner takes enforcement action, they have to be prepared to defend their decisions in court, and that is expensive, particularly if they lose.

We can all agree that there are significant costs associated with the clause, should it be enacted, but the Bill is silent on funding for traffic commissioners—there is no mention of it all. What is the assessed cost to traffic commissioners of the proposed changes, in aggregate? What changes will be made to traffic commissioner budgets to allow for this burden? Will the Minister conduct an assessment of the current work of traffic commissioners and whether they have the resources and time to fulfil this additional duty? Those are minor but important points; we have to think about the practicalities of what we are asking. This is not guidance but primary legislation, so we need to be cognisant of its consequences and prepare for them.

Government amendment 21 follows amendment 20, and I have no comment on it. The same goes for Government amendment 22, which is another procedural tidying-up exercise that I have no objection to.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Jerome Mayhew

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

I rise to strongly support clause 39, which was the inspiration of Lord Hampton, the Cross Bencher who tabled it in the other place. It would require the Secretary of State to collaborate with industry stakeholders to implement a vision zero programme for buses, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries during bus operations and improving overall safety in the sector. It is very hard to argue against that as an objective for the Bill.

The Minister expressed support for the concept and direction of travel. His primary argument against the clause was that it would somehow get in the way of a multimodal approach to the reduction of injuries on transport, but there is no reason why it need do so. It could co-ordinate with a multimodal transport response. Nothing in the clause prevents it from being part of a wider piece of work. I accept that the legislative requirement would be limited to the bus sector, but a non-legislative multimodal approach would be perfectly permissible, and it is a ministerial sleight of hand to suggest otherwise. The Minister is using some other review as an excuse not to keep this very good clause.

The reason why it is a good clause is that personal injury to passengers on buses caused by sharp braking is a significant issue. A 2019 study for Transport for London showed that three quarters of bus passenger injuries in London were due to non-collision incidents, such as sharp braking or harsh manoeuvres. This disproportionately affects older females and standing passengers, whether they are standing for the journey or standing on their approach to a stopping place.

The challenge with the current statistics is that they are binary—they report either collision injuries or non-collision injuries—and are not broken down further into, for example, sharp braking or avoiding manoeuvres. The clause would help to get to the bottom of where risk lies, expose the data and lead to an effective focus on remediation efforts. I strongly support it.

[Steff Aquarone]

I have very little to add to the speech of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. Any road death involving a bus is one too many; any injury to a bus passenger is one too many. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon shared the London statistics with me: just last year, there were 20 deaths resulting from collisions involving buses: 10 pedestrians, two cyclists and eight passengers. That tragic toll represents a 17% increase in bus-related fatalities on the previous year. Each death is a tragedy—20 families, 20 sets of loved ones and 20 communities who were shaken by those deaths—and we should be taking action to reduce bus-related death and injury. That is why clause 39 must remain part of the Bill.

It is rare that a non-collision leads to a passenger accident in a car; almost all such non-collision passenger accidents happen on buses. We need a different approach, and that is why we need a specific vision zero ambition in the Bill. That would set the standard for safety and send a message that we will not accept fatalities and injury as inevitable by-products of public transport. I hope the clause remains part of the Bill.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Jerome Mayhew

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

What a clever, clever intervention. Floating bus stops were introduced in 2013 under the coalition Government; I fully accept that. I was first elected in 2019, so I could not have spoken either in favour of or against the adoption of floating bus stops. This is the first occasion on which legislation has come before us in which floating bus stops have been an issue. The hon. Member is quite right that I have not mentioned it before.

While I have entered the private Member’s Bill ballot, I have not been successful. If I had been, would I have introduced a private Member’s Bill solely about floating bus stops? Perhaps not—I stand guilty as charged. However, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, while it is always tempting to throw political brickbats around, there are, even in this room today, people who are living with the consequences of floating bus stops. We should be working collaboratively to find a workable solution that helps real people.

Amendment 42, which is also in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, makes mandatory something that is simply advisory, as the clause is drafted. The amendment would require such guidance to include:

“the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places.”

Can the Minister describe a situation in which the Secretary of State would not wish to provide such guidance? I am sure he would accept that there are some very serious problems here that need to be addressed. Given that the Secretary of State will want to do this in any circumstance that either he or I could envisage, why would he object to making the requirement mandatory?

Amendment 65, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would expand the screen information associated with bus stopping places. The amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places could include—or, if amendment 42 is adopted, must include—guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place. Accessibility guidance addresses not just physical infrastructure but information provision, which is equally crucial for enabling disabled people—particularly those with cognitive impairments, who rely on the reassurance of timings, and blind or partially sighted passengers, who require audio information —to travel independently and confidently. Amendment 65 would extend such benefits beyond disabled people to older passengers, tourists and passengers who do not have technology such as smartphones. I support that intention.

As ever, I have concerns about the funding associated with the amendment, because we have to accept that there is a very significant cost to these undoubted improvements. I question whether all local authorities and bus operators have the technical capacity and, most importantly, the funding to install and maintain real-time information displays at every stopping place. I am aware that there is such infrastructure in large metropolitan areas such as London. However, what about rural areas, such as the ones that the hon. Member for North Norfolk and I represent? It is a very different picture there.

Let us not forget that this legislation will apply to every local authority in the country, so some pretty small local transport authorities will be applying whatever comes out of the Bill. Will they have the funds and resources to satisfy the amendment, if it is adopted? I hope that it is adopted, and that the Government say, “This is a very good idea, and we will fund it”, but I am not holding my breath.

Amendment 60, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would beef up clause 30 by replacing the words “have regard to” with

“take reasonable steps to implement.”

The amendment would ensure that the authorities listed in subsection (6) took reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State was implemented. Members will be aware that “reasonable steps to ensure” is a legal term of art, so it is not just about making a list; it has a degree of compulsion to it. An LTA could be challenged, through the judicial review process, on whether such reasonable steps had been taken.

Again, it all comes down to money. I agree with the ambition behind amendment 60, but change costs money, and the Government are not providing the support. This provision would leave LTAs open to costly challenges by rights groups. I say that it is costly because to mount a successful defence against an argument that reasonable steps had not been taken, the LTA would have to demonstrate in its response that it had done so, taking into account its financial position, resources and ability to raise funds. We already know that, under the Bill, a debt-raising ability is being applied to both bus companies and local authorities.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The shadow Minister is right to say that legal action is likely to be brought by rights groups, but does he not agree that good, accessible design should not be price-tagged based just on the cost for those who need it? In fact, good, accessible design benefits everyone, and it could be part of the reason why more people use public transport.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I agree with everything that the hon. Member for North Norfolk said. As I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, this would undoubtedly improve the service provided not just for people with disabilities but for all of us. I will not speak to amendment 43, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; others may wish to do so.

Amendment 55, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, 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. The training would have to be made available to bus operating companies. I support the intention behind the amendment, as guidance alone will not deliver accessible infrastructure unless staff understand and implement it. Training will help to embed best practice among bus staff and improve disabled passengers’ safety and confidence. There is again a “but”, though.

One reason to hesitate is money, but there is also a lack of detail about training providers and the additional financial burdens on local transport authorities. Where will the money come from to conduct the training in franchise bus systems? We have already seen how costly franchising alone can become, with the Bee Network. I would love to have another crack at those numbers and get the Minister finally to admit that he is wrong and I am right, but I will not, as I have tried it three or four times already. The amendment would add even more financial burden on local transport authorities, with a lack of detail about funding.

Clause after clause, we are seeing, first, how expensive the proposed changes are, and secondly, how financially risky they are. Those are two different things. Something can be expensive but the risk is adopted by another organisation, or it can be expensive and the risk lies with the taxpayer. The Bill as a whole, and these clauses in particular, create more financial risk for the taxpayer, particularly in local transport authorities, and a more expensive process, because all these good things are expensive. We want to achieve all of them, but we are not seeing Government money following their ambition.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Jerome Mayhew

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.

To refer to the general comments made by the shadow Minister, I am totally up for supporting things that put passengers first and are aligned to that purpose. I was regretful that the Committee disagreed to clause 1, on the inclusion of the overall purpose of the Bill, in our previous sitting.

The shadow Minister gave a long and wide-ranging speech; I was disappointed that it did not extend to his own personal tactics for rope sabotage, given the provenance of his business background—but perhaps that is for a future hearing. I will leave the Minister to respond to the issues of the words “outweigh” and “persons”, because I feel that it is his Bill to defend, but I do not fear the potential to refuse to the same extent as the shadow Minister.

Let us get back to what we are substantially talking about here, which is the cross-border issue. From my perspective—my constituency and that of the shadow Minister share many geographic characteristics—the whole point is that, however it is looked at, bus transport, even in urban areas, does not make a profit. Franchising is a welcome model because it allows the state, which is funding the operations, to contract to the providers who are going to deliver the service most efficiently and effectively. I do not see room for the entrepreneurial business model and profiteering that the shadow Minister refers to.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The risk of the franchising model, as we are already seeing in Greater Manchester, is that the size of the contract determines the amount of profit. Although the profit percentage is reduced, it is applied to the full size of the contract. Ironically, there is no incentive for the operator to reduce costs—for example, by pushing down wages—because wages are paid as agreed under the contract, and then the operator receives the 3% or 4% on top of that. My concern is that, as currently evidenced in Greater Manchester, we are seeing costs rise despite services being operated by private sector companies.

[Steff Aquarone]

The shadow Minister makes a valid point, as is always the case, but it takes us into the philosophical domain again. I gently point out that there are other perfectly profitable industries where the cost-plus model is the industry norm, and where it is possible for investors to make a return.

Nevertheless, to bring us back down to earth, I want to mention a couple of scenarios. One is from my own experience—in fact, from the shadow Minister’s constituency, which I travelled through growing up, where we had two providers leapfrogging each other from Aylsham to Norwich on commuter journeys. It was literally the same service, but if someone happened to get on the wrong bus, they could not get the same route back on the other operator. That is a fine example of why it would be appropriate to refuse a cross-border permit.

Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) sent me an example:

“We also have an issue of cross-county boundary bus routes. For example it takes maximum 10 minutes to drive from Malmesbury (Wiltshire) to Tetbury (Gloucestershire) but up to 2 hours on the bus as there is a huge diversion to another big town and then on to Tetbury through the small villages”.

These measures are about the practicalities of cross-border permits. With more rural areas likely to enter into combined mayoral authority arrangements, that will reduce the need for cross-border permits. Although I am grateful to the shadow Minister, I do not see the equivalence with open access in rail. This is, to me, what validates the franchising model overall, as well as providing for necessary moderation in common-sense, cross-border issues.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Jerome Mayhew

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his astute point. I would be glad to include ferries. After all, the new clause proposes better-integrated transport across all modes and modalities. We do not have any ferries other than river-crossing ferries in my constituency.

My constituents have found the issue of lack of co-ordination so frustrating that they have carried out research into it themselves; I thank David and James for furnishing me with the statistics. The first bus to arrive misses the first train of the day from Sheringham by a mere six minutes. For those who are not familiar with the Bittern line, it does not quite have central London regularity, which means that it is roughly an hour until the next possible train arrives. At other points during the day, there is either a 45-minute wait or hoping for a delay so that the bus arrives before the train departs.

A more joined-up approach would benefit both bus operators and train companies, allowing seamless integration of travel and reducing the miles in the journey to be carried out by car. My new clause would add to the franchising assessment the ability to see how franchising could make that transport integration a reality.

I do not think that franchising is a silver bullet to create integrated transport, which is why we will later consider an amendment that I have tabled that would add the enhanced partnership model. However, while we are expanding how franchising works, it would be remiss of us not to add common-sense thinking about integrated transport for those who are embarking on franchising for the first time.

I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said about amendment 57. We have got to fund it, too.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will start with clause 10, to which explicit reference has not yet been made, and under which section 123D of the Transport Act 2000, which refers to auditing, is to be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8). Subsection (2) sets out that a franchising authority may not proceed with a proposed franchising scheme unless it has obtained a report from an “approved person” on the assessment of the proposed scheme.

The approved person—this is important—will replace the requirement to obtain a report from an auditor. We read, under the new drafting, that the approved person must be independent, but based on that drafting we have no idea what other qualities the approved person may or may not have.

Subsection (3)(c) requires the report to state whether the information relied on in the authority’s or authorities’ assessment is of sufficient quality for the purposes of the subsections, which I will not go into. Subsection (4) will replace section 123D(3); it states that the Secretary of State must issue guidance as to when it is appropriate to appoint an approved person and what the franchising authority needs to take into account when selecting an approved person, including in relation to whether a person is independent. Subsection (7) sets out that an approved person means a person specified in regulations by the Secretary of State.

That raises the question whether the local transport authorities have the technical know-how and/or financial competence to create and then run these franchises. That is the big question that we have been debating backwards and forwards over the past few days. We know that they are expensive; we know that they are complex. I will not rehash arguments that I have made already, which we can take as read. We know that it is crucial that any plans be fully developed, properly costed, stress-tested for viability and generally fit for purpose before we press go on an entirely new system.

The requirements of clause 10 are important in facilitating that stress testing. On the face of it, the clause appears to water down the independent oversight, particularly on financial management. One of the core risks of franchising, as we have discussed, is the transfer of commercial risk from the operator to the local authority. That is a very significant change—one of the most significant changes.

Here we are, having a report on the plans: we no longer need an auditor who is financially qualified. Instead, we have an approved person. It could be an auditor, but we just do not know. The only qualification that we are told the approved person will have is their independence. That is a good thing, but subsection (7) writes a blank cheque to Ministers:

“‘approved person’ means a person specified…in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

We have not seen those regulations; I assume that they have not yet even been drafted. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the point. What specifications will he seek to put into the regulations?

If the Government want the Committee to vote in favour of substituting an approved person for an auditor, it behoves the Minister to tell us the kind of people who would qualify as an approved person, beyond their mere independence. I look forward to his detailed response, so that members of the Committee can feel satisfied that we are discharging their duty properly by understanding at least the direction of travel of the regulations.

I want to know what qualities, qualifications or expertise will be required. I question why the term is not defined in the Bill, but instead left to future regulations. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to sit down now and decide what kind of person we wish an approved person to be. It is not dependent on future information becoming available. It seems to be slightly sloppy drafting to define a term in reference to a future regulation—that is no definition at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 54 would place a duty on local transport authorities to identify and then satisfy the need for all—and I stress “all”—socially necessary services, irrespective of supply, under an enhanced partnership. The amendment does not explain how the services would be supplied by the local authority—presumably, there would be a tender process—but it would require the authority to produce a report within six months. That report would identify the need, estimate the costs of provision and associated funding gaps, estimate the impact of a new service

“on local accessibility and transport needs”,

provide

“a timeline for the operation of the service”,

and specify local funding shortfalls. That measure, if adopted, would be a truly revolutionary departure for the identification of local need and subsequent funding, because it would hand demand assessment to the local authority, but the cost of provision to the Secretary of State. What could possibly go wrong? I genuinely look forward to the Minister supporting the amendment and explaining how he will fund that.

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74 would require the Secretary of State to advance proposals within 12 months to

“guarantee a service for socially necessary services”,

where that service has been absent for six months and

“the local transport authority is unable to run the service.”

That is a second extraordinary proposal, because it would again place identification of need—according to the highly subjective definition of social necessity—in the hands of the local authority, but would give the Secretary of State a legal duty to supply that assessed need. It envisages the Department for Transport directly running individual routes that have escaped the design of the franchise network or the enhanced partnerships. Presumably, since the Department for Transport has to supply for that need, it will be liable for procuring, right across the country, individual routes that are not part of a wider contractual arrangement. There we have it: the Department of Transport directly running individual routes, spread across the country, independent of wider bus provision. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.

[Steff Aquarone]

Amendment 54 is a really important protection for the safe and necessary services that I described. The shadow Minister’s points perhaps highlight the issue of funding more generally in bus franchising and enhanced partnerships.

The amendment would ensure that steps are taken within six months of identifying a route as socially necessary to ensure that the route actually runs. It would also enable the Government to provide them with support and funding to ensure that the route is available, if the financial burden on the local authority is deemed too great. This is another useful protection for the socially necessary services to ensure that they are not another victim of the funding crisis in local government. I have already made clear how important these services are and why we have to ensure that they are protected.

Looking at the perilous financial position of our county council in Norfolk, I fear that there could come a point where that spectacular fiscal mismanagement means that they cannot afford to keep these services going. In that instance, I do not think that my constituents should be the ones who are punished. The Government should step in to protect their access to all the services and opportunities that a socially necessary service provides.

To conclude, I am pleased that the importance of bus services has been truly recognised in law. I am supportive of the sentiment and much of the drafting of the clause. However, if we accept the importance of these routes, we should not make a half-baked attempt to protect them. We should ensure that all important services are considered when deciding on socially necessary routes, and that there are strong protections for both these services and our communities that they serve.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Jerome Mayhew

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steff Aquarone]

I wish to speak to new clause 35 and amendments 70 and 71 tabled in my name. The Minister has done a very good job of outlining what those proposals seek to achieve, for which I am grateful. I am seeking to remedy the lack of vision for fixing the public transport problems that we face in rural areas.

As I have said, we cannot just throw new powers at rural areas and hope for the best. We have to create workable models for adoption to support areas to use the new powers in the best way possible. There has been great excitement about how to use them to transform the bus networks in our major cities, but in all the conversations here on this issue, rural communities seem to have been forgotten about.

In rural areas, the local bus service is not just a convenience or a “nice to have”, but a real and genuine lifeline. For many, it is the main way they can get to see friends and family, go to medical appointments, and get to the shops and to leisure activities. Bus services keeps many rural villages going. It is no surprise that when the withdrawal of routes in areas like this are proposed, there is fury locally and major campaigns against it.

I asked some of my rural colleagues about their experiences and, unsurprisingly, I was inundated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) has been campaigning to save the X5 between Aylesbury and Hemel Hempstead, which was replaced with an unreliable service that is making it hard for residents to get to key medical appointments. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) are trying to bring back the 84/85 route from Yate to Wotton, a vital route to shopping centres, schools and colleges and for those visiting HMP Leyhill. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) has been working with campaigners to save school bus services in Ancells Farm, with children facing the prospect of long walks down unsafe roads to get to and from school in Fleet.

There are all these communities and campaigns, but we still have not come up with better ways to serve rural areas and protect their access to services. It is telling that when my Transport Committee colleagues and I, several of whom are represented on both sides of this Committee, wanted to go and see some best practice of rural bus networks for our “Buses connecting communities” inquiry—report forthcoming shortly; I am sure everyone will be reading it as soon as it is published—we had to travel to the Republic in Ireland to find them. We simply do not have good examples of successful rural networks here in the UK.

All of that serves to say that it is time for a bold new approach. A good few years ago, when we were researching the Liberal Democrat manifesto for Norfolk’s 2021 county council elections, we undertook research with a number of key local stakeholders to hear what they thought of the local bus network and what we could do to improve it. I personally interviewed bus companies, council officers and other stakeholders. Most importantly, we surveyed local people, including those who do not currently use buses—an often overlooked audience segment. We concluded that we need to combine two of the most successful features of current public transport models to create a new model for rural public transport. Those two things are park and ride services and demand-responsive transport. Pairing them could create a real network that works for our rural towns and villages without the near-impossible task of running an hourly timetable to every village. That conclusion resulted in the rural bus hub scheme outlined in new clause 35.

Rural bus hubs would allow people to get between key towns and villages that they need to visit directly. People in many rural areas suffer from having to take buses in the opposite direction from where they want to go, going to the nearby town or city just to go straight back out again. That adds hours to people’s journeys, the journey is totally derailed if one link in the complicated chain goes wrong, and it is ultimately an inconvenient way to get about. As a result, it does not improve passenger numbers.

Similar to our park and ride networks, rural bus hubs would have facilities to enable those living nearby to travel to the hub independently, either by car or active travel routes. The hubs would have the amenities to charge electric vehicles, and to lock and store bikes safely, so that people could easily return to them to complete the final few miles of their return journeys. The hubs would also be well served by demand-responsive transport for those who are not independently mobile. That would ensure that the network could reach into all areas, including rural villages and harder-to-access communities that may never have had a regular service, if any service, from an existing bus route.

Such passengers, once at the hub, could catch direct, frequent buses to any part of a proper network, getting them to the hub nearest to where they want to go, and linking up with train connections or even hospitals and employment areas. It is a model that could easily be adopted by transport authorities. It would reach the most people possible without seeking to run a regular bus through every village, and it would connect those in rural areas to a proper public transport network that broadens the range of their destinations, rather than just taking them to the nearest city or large town.

My amendment 70 would permit rural bus hubs to fit into the current model of franchising, allowing for specified services to include those running to and from, or between, the hubs. My amendment 71 would add to the review of service provision to villages an assessment of how service in the villages could be impacted by the establishment of rural bus hubs, or how the establishment of the hubs has affected services for villages at the time of the review. That would ensure that, as we assess how villages are faring following the passing of the Bill, we do not simply grow a list of complaints but assess what could be done differently to make improvements and the impacts that those improvements would have.

I grew up in a rural village with a sketchy bus connection. I now live in another, and my children are growing up with the same sketchy connection that I had. That cycle cannot continue. We have to do better for areas like mine, and conventional thinking is not going to cut it. It is time for a radical rethink of how we deliver public transport in rural areas. We have to challenge the old ideas and be willing to seize on something new.

I am sure that the Government will oppose these ideas, but I would gently say that they have not put forward anything equivalent. It is all very well to say, “You could do anything,” but there is nothing of substance to say, “Of all the things you could do, these are the things you might specifically like to consider.” We could feasibly help households to reduce the number of vehicles they rely on, saving them thousands every year. We could encourage active travel by expanding the number of journeys, and the hubs could be a component of that. By expanding demand-responsive transport, we could even remove car reliance altogether, while connecting the carless to a far better range of travel times and destinations than they currently have.

The same old approach is not working. The situation will not magically fix itself with the new franchising powers alone. We have to try something different, and do something to create networked, accessible public transport that works for people, and gets them where they want to go, when they want to go there. I do not think that is asking the world, and I hope that the Government will pledge to look into this idea further to deliver real change for people in North Norfolk, and rural communities across the country.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 3 is not controversial, so I will not make a long speech. Proposed new subsection (2A) of the Transport Act 2000 simply makes it clear that, where more than one area is specified in a franchising scheme, the specified areas “need not be contiguous.” I say no more about that.

Amendment 70, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, adds a reference to bus hubs. As he is my constituency neighbour, our constituents share many of the same experiences, and I absolutely support the sentiments that he eloquently expressed: rural areas are often overlooked, bus policy is designed with the major cities and large towns in mind, and policymakers—perhaps because they have limited experience of life in the kind of rural communities that he and I serve—do not consider the very different challenges that we face. I therefore support the sentiment of the amendment, but the challenge is the cost. We keep coming back to the money—or lack of it—in this legislation, because it is disproportionately expensive.

The hon. Member is absolutely right that park and ride is an interesting hub-and-spoke model for rural areas, but there is also the on-demand model, which I have previously described as the Uberfication of rural transport. The tech is obviously already there. Someone books in and says that they want to go from here to there; the algorithm sorts out the route and how many people can be picked up; and then they are delivered from door to door. Because it is door to door, it has the opportunity to provide an improved customer experience.

The challenge is getting the take-up, because it requires a large number of people to buy into such a scheme, and the set-up costs are expensive. There has been a trial in Wymondham, in Norfolk, where the county council put forward a type of on-demand rural service, but the take-up was disappointingly low. Why was that? My working hypothesis is that, if it is a pilot, hardly anyone knows about it, but if there is wide-scale adoption—“This is the future of rural transport”—and it is backed up with public information so that everybody in the community cannot help but know about it, the take-up will be much greater and that then transforms the economics of it.

As a fellow Norfolk MP, I fully support the concept behind the hon. Member’s amendment, but I am afraid that I question whether it is needed, given the specifics of the drafting. As “places” are not defined under the clause as drafted, I am not sure about the requirement to define a specific place—this is my lawyer’s background coming through; it is a nasty rash I am developing—and I wonder whether there is a legal need for that clarification.

I will move on to clause 4. According to the explanatory notes, it inserts proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(a) into the 2000 Act to clarify that services can be specified by routes or the places intended to be served. I think that is sensible. For example, a franchising authority could specify the services by listing the principal points to be served, so, “The local services to be provided under local service contracts are ones that serve the following principal points,” followed by a list of what they are, such as the hospital, the railway station and the doctor’s surgery.

Another example under this proposed new subsection would be for services to be specified route by route. I will come back to that in a moment, because that is quite an important clarification when we look at the kind of operators that will be in a position to provide these services. Specifically, there is a question about the access of small and medium-sized enterprises to contracts under franchising, which sounds a bit niche but is nevertheless important.

Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(b) of the 2000 Act clarifies that services can be specified by describing intended services in general terms. It is broad and gives franchising authorities a wide range of options for specifying services under this proposed new subsection. That, again, is eminently sensible; I will not go into the detail.

Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(c) of the 2000 Act clarifies that franchising authorities can combine the approaches under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, a franchise authority that covers both urban and rural areas could specify services by reference to the specific routes for the urban areas, in line with proposed new paragraph (a), and then could take a broader approach for the rural areas. Finally, paragraph (d) clarifies the catch-all that franchising authorities can specify services “in such other way”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I appreciate the warm support from the hon. Gentleman, who is, as he stated, my constituency neighbour. I defer to his lawyering experience on his salient points about the propriety of my amendments given the Bill’s drafting, but I will ask for his reflections on two points.

First, cost is a big unanswered question in the Bill. If the Minister had access to the Treasury, I know that he would be raiding it to fund improved rural bus services. Does the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agree, however, that at least looking at a hub model makes more sense financially, and for service provision, than trying to establish hourly services in every village?

Secondly, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for amendment 71. Although I intend to withdraw amendment 70, I will push amendment 71 to a vote with his support.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I do not disagree with anything the hon. Member said. I do not have in my head the financial details associated with rural hubs, but it makes more commercial sense as a matter of principle, although it would probably not be profitable, to have a hub-and-spoke approach rather than an hourly service for every village. I do not know whether the hon. Member has counted the villages in North Norfolk, but there are well over 100 in Broadland and Fakenham, so that would be a challenge for any provider.

The Opposition support the concept of new clause 35 if the finances—the missing link—add up, but we question the need for it, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing what it sets out.

Water Safety Education

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Jerome Mayhew

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am pleased to wind up this debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing it. As others have said, this debate is incredibly timely, as this week is National Drowning Prevention Week.

There have been a number of excellent contributions today. I was very pleased to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), and want to associate myself with the points she and other hon. Members made on the importance of being prepared to spot the dangers and react to them and to be ready when things go wrong, which is just as important as being able to swim in the first place. Other hon. Members have raised important points and details—even in short interventions—and I am particularly pleased to see so many colleagues from across the House who have attended recent debates on rural and coastal communities in their places. There is clearly a theme building here.

The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen spoke about calls for ministerial responsibility. I think that could fit very well within the portfolio of a Minister for coastal communities, and I look forward to exploring that possibility with him further.

Members who have paid close attention to my past speeches in this House might have noticed that North Norfolk is a proud coastal community. By our nature, we have a lot of water, and our beaches and seas are beloved by residents and tourists alike, although for those who are not confident in the water, they can also be incredibly dangerous. Norfolk’s inland waterways are also very special, with the Norfolk broads and fantastic rivers and chalk streams like the Glaven, Bure and Stiffkey.

This is a serious concern not just to me, but to Imogen, who attends a primary school in my constituency, and who wrote to me with her concerns. Imogen said:

“All around North Norfolk there are lots of rivers which are wonderful. Apart from that if people don’t know how to swim they may fall in and drown. This is a tragic problem which affects people all around England. If people were on a walk around a river or lake and accidentally slip in and inhale the water their families would be distraught. I am not asking for a law that people know how to swim, but am requesting your attention so that you can review the problem if it persists. It may be a good idea to think about how this affects England as a whole.”

She closes by saying:

“I know there are lifesaving rings dotted around but feel there is not enough and that a few more lives could be saved if there are more that can be used. Swimming lessons are charged quite high making it harder for people to be able to teach their children to swim which may be part of the problem.”

I am sure hon. Members will agree that Imogen, despite being in primary school, has summarised this problem and highlighted the issues just as well as any of us could have.

Water safety is an issue that could affect any one of our constituents, potentially when they least expect it, as Imogen points out. I agree with her that we need to take a serious look at this across the House, and I hope that the Government will be able to provide not just reassurance and answers, but a promise of action to Imogen and everyone else who is concerned about this issue.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to mandatory swimming lessons in schools and are calling on the Government to ensure that identified swimming skills gaps are urgently addressed. The fact that 30% of 11 to 12-year-olds are unable to swim more than 25 metres is a real worry for those of us in rural and coastal communities who worry for the safety of our young people in our rivers and seas.

To address those issues, we have to invest more in our local swimming pools. I am delighted that in North Norfolk, in the past few years, we have built the Reef leisure centre swimming pool in Sheringham—a real state-of-the-art facility, which is a great asset to the community. I am equally delighted that the Lib Dem council has secured funding for a multimillion-pound expansion and refurbishment of Fakenham leisure centre, which will include a new 25-metre swimming pool, in the constituency of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew).

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

rose—

[Steff Aquarone]

On that note, having seen the hon. Gentleman in his place, I will give way to him.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Firs, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first outing on the Front Bench—he is doing a very good job. Secondly, I will not quibble over who it was who obtained the funding from the Conservative Government—the Conservative Member of Parliament or the Liberal Democrat district council—so let us leave that to one side. Thirdly, I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the development of having a swimming pool in Fakenham. Does he agree that that will go a long way in helping people in Fakenham and the surrounding area to learn to swim?

[Steff Aquarone]

Let me absolutely clear: everybody involved in securing that bid deserves congratulations— I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Was that the hon. Gentleman’s next point? I intervened too soon! [Laughter.]

[Steff Aquarone]

I think the point the hon. Gentleman is making is that many in Fakenham, as well as the nearby villages in my constituency, are delighted by the news and thrilled with the hard work that has gone into securing it.

Liberal Democrats also want to end the closure of swimming pools by designating them as critical health infrastructure, which would enshrine protections in law, meaning that central and local government would have a legal duty not to cut these services and to maintain adequate funding to keep them open.

Of course, people are not just swimming in pools, as many people enjoy gaining confidence through wild and open water swimming. However, in order for them to be able to do that, we have to clean up our rivers and seas after years of scandalous sewage dumping. For those looking to swim, only 14% of rivers and lakes in England are in good ecological health. Last year, water companies dumped sewage more than 100,000 times into areas with bathing water status. That is unacceptable. We must crack down on the years of unchecked profiteering and environmental damage that the water companies have caused. We must bring in tougher new laws to protect our environment and the health of those who enjoy it. In North Norfolk, we will not stand for it a moment longer.

To conclude, to secure the water safety that we need, we must have strong education, enabled by strong facilities and a clean environment. If we do that, then Imogen and people of all ages can enjoy the rivers and seas in North Norfolk and around our beautiful country with confidence and safety for years to come.

Dental Healthcare: East Anglia

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Jerome Mayhew

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew]

My answer is yes and no. Over the past 18 months to two years in Norfolk and Waveney, a lot of money has been spent on increasing access to emergency dentistry. Although I welcomed that and it has helped to deal with some acute issues, there is a much more fundamental problem. We must fix the system rather than decide on the least worst form of emergency care once the problem has become acute.

The big question is why the east of England is in this position. The wrong analysis of how we got here will lead to our imposing the wrong solution. Some people say, “Well, it’s because Norfolk is a remote, rural area with lots of coastline, and that brings problems. If you’re a newly qualified dentist, it’s probably a rather unfashionable place to go to make your new career if you’re not from that neck of the woods. It has a more elderly demographic, which may put off young dentists. It’s not where they want to go to set up their new home.”

Yet compare Norfolk with similar counties, such as Devon. I often use Devon as an example because it shares many characteristics with Norfolk: a slightly older population, a large rural coastline and a pretty similar population size. Look at the number of dentists in Devon: they have 49.6 per 100,000 people, which is far more than we have in the east of England. What is the difference? The answer is obvious. Since 2005, Devon has had a dental training school at Plymouth, which was the last one to be set up. The east of England made a bid for that contract and lost out to the Peninsula bid, and we can see the consequences of that in the teeth of Norfolk residents.

If someone wants to train as a dentist in Norfolk, Suffolk or elsewhere in East Anglia, the nearest place they can go to train is either Birmingham or London. That means that our home-grown talent has to go off somewhere else, several hours away, to train and qualify. The usual things happen: they develop their professional relationships in that region; they meet someone, fall in love and settle down; they put down roots in the community and they stay there and do not come back. The exact opposite is the case for people not from our region who qualify elsewhere. What is the incentive for them to come and set up home in a part of the world that they do not know and that is perhaps not attractive to newly qualified people in their mid-20s?

We also know that about 40% of graduates tend to stay where they train. We have that data from the University of East Anglia and its medical school, because each year it surveys graduates to see where they get their first job and each year about 40% of them take a job locally. This is the really important question for the Minister: do he and his Department accept that analysis? If they do not accept it, what is his explanation for the dearth of NHS dentists and even private dentists in East Anglia?

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, on securing this debate. I cannot speak for the Minister, although I certainly welcome the comments about the importance of a dental school. However, is the issue in East Anglia not a result of the region’s disproportionate failure under the previous Government’s dental recovery plan? It was said that East Anglia would miss its targets and that, even if it did hit them, it would still be 2.6 million dental appointments short of pre-pandemic levels. The hon. Gentleman was on the Government Benches in the last Parliament. Does he not understand why many people across East Anglia hold the Conservatives to account for the situation having become this bad?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I do not think that it is particularly helpful. We are trying to work out what the solution is now and going forward. A huge amount of money was spent by central Government on NHS dentistry. The problem we had, as we can demonstrate by the £58 million underspend of the budget that was available, is that there are physically not enough dentists now. That is not a short-term brickbat that can be chucked around for party political points in a Westminster Hall debate at 11.11 on a Wednesday morning. I submit that it is a rather more serious issue that deserves a slightly more serious approach.

Flood Preparedness: Norfolk

Debate between Steff Aquarone and Jerome Mayhew

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone]

I agree with both of my hon. Friend’s points, and I will speak about them in a moment. My hope is that by solving the issue of joined-up working in Norfolk, we can transport that model to his constituency and elsewhere.

A key motivation of mine in securing a debate on this issue at this time was the important public meeting I chaired recently in Hickling. Nine different agencies sent their representatives to share the work they are undertaking to prevent flooding in the area. They also told us of their personal fears and frustrations. They spoke of the challenges with the funding system and our changing climate, and of the regulations and responsibilities that are stymying their ability to make change.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. He is right that there are a multitude of agencies that have partial responsibility, creating a network of overlapping duties and responsibilities. We are lucky in Norfolk that we have the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance, under the capable directorship of Henry Cator, a constituent of mine. Will the hon. Member take this opportunity to congratulate the alliance and Mr Cator, and will he focus on the absolute importance of strategic dredging, particularly in the Norfolk broads?

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his work on flood prevention, and I absolutely echo his sentiments. I will be quoting Henry Cator in just a moment. He was on the panel I mentioned, and I pledged to him and others that I would support them in tackling all of this. That meeting allowed the agencies to hear directly from local residents about their experience and knowledge of the area, developed over decades, and to factor it into their plans and ensure that the community and relevant agencies work in lockstep as they bring forward a more flood-resilient future for the affected broads villages.

Residents of North Norfolk have endless stories of how flooding has impacted them and their community. I heard from a business owner in the boating industry who has spent £40,000 fixing the impact of flooding on the marina that she manages. Another local business estimates that it lost out on £140,000 of revenue during a period when it could not operate because of flood damage. Even the most basic things are made harder: one resident apologised to me that their response to my invitation to the meeting I mentioned was delayed because their driveway was flooded and impassable for the postman.

In the short term, we must look at the fundamental issues across all levels of government that have allowed the situation to get as bad as it has. The agencies I met with are working incredibly hard, but they can only work with what they have. A major issue that many of them face is that their funding settlements are rarely delivered more than one year ahead.