Steff Aquarone
MP for North Norfolk · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“To go back to the Minister’s point about partnership working, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about health visitors, rurality, schools, transport and the impact on work—those are five Departments.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member is making a most informed speech. In North Norfolk I have heard from several families whose children cannot get, or have struggled to get, access to specialist settings. Children must travel further from home in rural areas, which is tougher for them and increases the transport bill. Does the hon.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Farmers are custodians of the natural environment; they care for it, they look after it and they will pass it on to generations after them. They want our natural environment to be protected and our climate to remain stable, not just for the greater good but because it is vital to keep their farms viable.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When working-age people cannot afford to live and thrive in rural and coastal areas, everybody loses. As things stand, our communities are as vulnerable to erosion as our coastline, and we need powerful representation at the heart of Government to stand up for them.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That farce speaks to a much deeper issue. I strongly believe that there is a lack of understanding of the workings of rural life and rural communities because they do not fit neatly into Whitehall’s prescribed models or spreadsheets.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats are leading from the front for our rural communities by having this debate. Norfolk is a rural county and a farming county. It is also a county right at the forefront of the climate and nature emergency.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
609 held · 593 searchable for Steff Aquarone. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“While this route may not work for all buses or local authorities, it is a simple and flexible option to deploy the most cost-effective and timely solution for their fleets. This practical amendment supports British innovation, stretches public funds and accelerates the path to cleaner air and net zero transport, and I urge Members to support it. Amendment 58 is a small technical change that would clarify that the provisions of proposed new section 151A of the Transport Act 2000 on zero emission vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities. I would appreciate the Minister providing clarity on that point.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a proven UK innovation that can provide a more affordable and faster route to decarbonisation of our public transport fleet. For local transport authorities, especially those facing constrained budgets, repowering could present some advantages. First, it can be quicker: companies can convert diesel buses to zero emission in as little as three weeks in their UK facilities. Buses could therefore be back in service quickly, supporting a seamless transition. Secondly, repowering is more cost-effective. A repowered bus can cost less than half the price of a brand-new zero emission vehicle, which could translate to considerable savings for operators and local authorities and allow them to stretch limited resources further.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would appreciate it if the Minister undertook today to publish, alongside the regulations set out in the clause, guidance and support for rural bus operators on the definitions of local routes. I hope he shares the work and engagement that his Department have done and will be doing with rural operators to make sure that we get this right for them and for the communities they serve. Amendment 78 is about technology and is similar to something the hon. Member mentioned. It would qualify buses that have been repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of the Bill. “Repowered” means enabled to become zero emission after the date of registration. It involves replacing diesel engines with new, zero emission electric drivetrains mid-life.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I support the motivations behind clause 37. Making our public transport greener and cleaner is a positive thing and will make it an even more climate-friendly travel option. I note with excitement that Sanders Coaches, which runs many services across my constituency and that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, recently trialled a fully electric bus on the CH1 Coasthopper route between Cromer and Wells—the first ever fully electric bus used by the operator. We can see that rural transport providers are working hard to embrace the green future. However, we have to recognise the challenges that rural routes face; I associate myself with the remarks made on that topic by the hon. Member. Long distances, limited charging infrastructure and the slim profit margins are all impediments.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Without proper scrutiny and transparency, bus networks in rural areas will continue to wither. This review clause is a modest but vital safeguard that ensures we do not look the other way while whole communities are cut off. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long championed the rights of rural communities to fair access to transport. From Cumbria to Cornwall and Norfolk to Newton Abbot, we are fighting for cut-off communities to finally have their challenges heard and their needs addressed. Clause 38 speaks directly to that principle and I urge colleagues across the Committee to support its inclusion in the Bill.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It requires an assessment of how many villages are being served by regular bus routes, and it asks important questions about who is being affected—which demographics, which regions and which types of communities are being left behind. As I said when speaking to my amendments and new clauses on rural bus hubs, having a service to every village might not be the right approach for every area. In many places, moving towards a hub-and-spoke model might be the best course of action. This review would help to identify that and allow us to better understand the current state of play and what steps can be taken to improve the situation. The clause also rightly mandates consultation with key stakeholders—local councils and transport authorities —who are best placed to speak to the lived reality of rural transport as currently delivered.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know this at first hand and my constituents experience it day in and day out. I am sorry to say that the last Government did not do enough in the years that they had to tackle the issues that rural communities face. It is time we stepped up to the challenge of rural mobility. Villages across England have been cut off by decades of under-investment, deregulation and short-term decision making. The clause acknowledges that rural isolation is not a minor inconvenience, but a daily barrier to work and education, healthcare and opportunity more broadly. The clause rightly demands that the Government take stock of the current state of rural bus provision.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I support clause 38, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the provision of bus services to villages in England within two years of the Act being passed. Members will have heard many of my points about the clause in previous speeches, including on amendment 71, which I have pressed to a vote already, but the clause as a whole is not only sensible but essential. I am very pleased that those in the other place added it to the Bill and I hope it will be retained today. In North Norfolk I have more than 100 villages and hamlets. From Alby and Antingham to Wiveton, Wickmere and Worstead, they are all treasured communities but face challenges with rural transport. Too often, rural communities are treated as an afterthought when it comes to public transport planning.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Prime Minister recently it made clear that abuse of those working in the rail industry is “utterly unacceptable”; he responded to a question on the abuse of rail staff by saying: “The abuse and assaults on staff are utterly unacceptable. We are taking measures to make sure they are safer.” —[ Official Report , 2 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 281.] I am sure the Prime Minister believes the Government should take measures to ensure that bus staff are kept safe, not just rail staff. For that reason, the Minister should push to maintain clause 40 in the Bill. It is not only the right thing to do; it seems that the PM backs it too. I want to protect those who serve our communities, and ensure that public transport is not only affordable and reliable, but safe.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is the very least the public expect. Furthermore, the inclusion of a duty on a local transport authority to consult with relevant trade unions regarding issues of staff safety arising from the data collected is a good step. It will ensure that the data is used in practice and could lead to increased safety for staff and passengers. It is clear that the clause is about more than data collection; it is about creating a feedback loop between those who operate bus services, those who oversee them and those who work on them. That would ensure that when violence occurs, it is recorded, known, and acted on. That is how we start to build a safer system for staff and passengers—for everyone.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I, too, am frustrated that the Government did not see fit to address those concerns by amending the clause. Let us start by being clear: assaults that take place on bus services are not abstract statistics—they are real events affecting real people. Often, drivers and frontline staff are simply doing their jobs and passengers are just trying to get from A to B. We cannot tackle this problem unless we properly understand it. To do that, we need robust, consistent data. Here lies the point: at present, too many of those incidents go unrecorded, or are not handled consistently across different operators and regions. Clause 40 would put a stop to that, creating a clear and consistent duty that, if an operator is contracted to run services, it must record this data and share it with the local authority.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture of their wider consequences on social inclusion, economic activity, environmental goals and so on. That is short-sighted policymaking that this new clause seeks to correct.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and I do not necessarily share the same degree of pessimism about the Bill overall, but we share a belief in measuring the impacts of changes to policy. In his case, it is franchising, but in mine it is the impact of the fare cap. This is a simple but important proposal. At its heart, there a basic principle: if we want more people to use buses, we have to understand what is stopping them, and fare levels are a crucial part of that picture. The new clause would ensure that local authorities assess how fare structures influence ridership trends, what changes might improve accessibility, and what role simplified ticketing could play in encouraging more people on to buses.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will briefly touch on new clause 9, tabled by the Green party, and I will also speak to new clause 21. Buses are often the first form of transport that children use by themselves, without the supervision of parents. They are vital for many children to get to school every day, as well as socialising, and they are an important way to build independence and allow access to people and places outside their immediate vicinity. As a result, this review is welcome and a positive amendment that the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support. New clause 21, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, would place a duty on local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage within their areas. My constituency neighbour, the hon.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we are serious about boosting ridership, cutting emissions and making public transport fair and accessible, we need to understand the role of fares properly. This new clause would help us to do just that.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With successful fare reform in places such as Germany and the Netherlands, affordable and innovative ticketing has increased public transport use. This new clause would bring that learning to a local level. It would empower transport authorities to act and analyse their policy in an informed away, based not on guesswork but on real data, public consultation and a clear understanding of what works. This is not onerous. Most of our local authorities are already gathering some, if not all, of this data. What this new clause would do is provide consistency, as well as clarity, and a stronger evidence base for future fare and ticketing policy. It puts passengers and communities at the heart of decision making, and gives us the tools to reverse the long-term decline in bus use that has plagued far too many parts of the country for too long.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I could not possibly talk about the inquiries that the Transport Committee is considering undertaking, but I would say that we all have an active interest in how to account for policy impacts on integrated travel as a whole. It may be that the Minister can attend a hearing in the forthcoming inquiry to speak to the exact point that the hon. Lady has just made. Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture on their wider consequences, as I have said. The evidence is compelling; we know from both national and international experience that lower, simpler fares drive higher patronage. We have seen that with the £2 fare cap still inexplicably being phased out by the Government.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It may surprise the Committee to learn that I am going to praise a transport policy of Norfolk county council, which has used its discretion to remove time limitations and allow disabled people to use their bus passes at all hours. I have heard very positive feedback. Therefore, I think the new clause would be a sensible and useful measure. I urge the Government and the Committee to support it.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 32 in my name and new clause 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion both call for a review into the impact of the current timing restrictions, whereby those eligible for the ENCTS, whether through age or disability, receive free travel only after 9.30 am. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for tabling new clause 48, and I am happy to speak to it. I wish to press new clauses 48 and 35 to a Division, but I will not press any other remaining Liberal Democrat new clause. New clause 48 would immediately remove the time limit for those with disabilities.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many people who rely on buses are running a household budget without much wiggle room, and an increase of £10 a week, which adds up to hundreds of pounds a year, is not money that some of my poorest or most vulnerable constituents have to spare.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I will actually press both this new clause and new clause 35 to a vote. When discussing the Bill, there is an elephant in the room: the Government’s decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3, which is no less than a bus tax on communities across the country. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs to passengers, supported struggling households and, crucially, helped to bring people back to the bus network after years of decline. It was precisely the kind of bold, inclusive transport policy that we need more of, not less. Fares that have been raised by £1 per trip might not sound prohibitive to some, but for those on a low income or families making multiple journeys each week, that represents a significant burden.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I imagine that there are many different calculations in different parts of the country; mine is based on casework inquiries. A limited number of fare options are available to people in my constituency, as is the case in many rural areas, and I think that £10 is a reasonable approximation. New clause 19 would ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of the Bill, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to reintroduce the £2 fare cap. It would restore a measure that was working, that passengers appreciated, and that delivered wide social and economic benefits. I urge Committee members to join me in supporting the new clause, axing the bus tax and putting money back into the pockets of our constituents.”
House of Commons3 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q7. I refer Members to my role as a serving county councillor. July is Good Care Month and Jane Austen told us that the best place for convalescence by the sea is Cromer in my constituency. However, thanks to Norfolk’s Conservative county council, Cromer risks losing its convalescence facility forever. Reablement centres such as Benjamin Court are exactly what the NHS needs, yet the Tories are shutting it down. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the relevant health Minister meets me and concerned local campaigners to discuss what can be done to save Benjamin Court?”
House of Commons2 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Broadland and Fakenham and his team for raising the concerns of the industry about the timeframes. However, I wonder whether a compromise could be found on Report that better balances operators’ concerns with democratic accountability. My new clause 36 would make a very simple addition to the assessments for franchising schemes, ensuring that we look into how a new scheme can lead to better integration for different modes of transport. People feel that there is a lack of joined-up thinking between our bus and train networks in many rural areas. Arguably, that is down to the current set-up, with two private companies responsible for services but under no requirement to consult or collaborate on delivering more linked-up services.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would be bad news for democratic accountability if a previous administration’s botch job—or even intentional mismanagement, perish the thought—of a franchising assessment could prevent its newly elected successor for taking action over the entire course of its term. I also have concerns about the impact of local government reorganisation under the current drafting of the new clause. It says that “the same area, or a substantially similar area” could be covered by a whole new authority or administration within the timeframe, where a franchising assessment is prevented. That means that a body that has been wholly abolished could leave its successors hamstrung. I appreciate the intention behind the clause, and I am grateful to my constituency neighbour the hon.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak to my new clause 36, but I will first touch briefly on my concerns about new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. I can see the case that the hon. Member and his colleagues are trying to make about the importance of periods of stability for bus operators. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon says, the timeframe proposed does not strike the right balance. Five years would be longer than the term of a metro mayor or local authority, meaning that the bad work of a previous mayor or administration could tie the hands of their successor and, most importantly, could leave residents stuck with the same problems for half a decade. Given the timeframes at play, I think a better compromise could be found.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to clause 14 and amendments 66 and 64, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. I warmly welcome the clause’s protection of socially necessary services. I have spoken before about how important local bus services are for our rural areas, and I want to bring that to life because the term “socially necessary” does not do justice to the significance of those services. For many, a more accurate term would be “lifeline” services. They are absolutely vital for many small villages, and they are often far from profitable. Although they may not bring a grand economic boost to the operator or local authority, they bring a huge social benefit to the communities that they serve.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am a little disappointed that the Minister did not address the shadow Minister’s accusation of passing the financial buck directly to Government in his response. The measure is fundamentally about funding to protect services. If the Minister is relying on sections in previous Acts of Parliament, the interpretation of those sections is not a given without specific reference, which the Bill does not make. I do not share the Minister’s confidence that those obligations will be upheld.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Indeed, the Department’s Bus Centre of Excellence is staffed by a grand total of three people, and with day-to-day spending cut by the spending review, we are not likely to see a hiring spree any time soon. Supporting rural public transport helps across Departments. It supports people’s access to medical appointments in a timely manner, reducing missed appointments or worsened conditions. It reduces the benefits bill by widening access to employment and training opportunities. It is better for the planet, reducing car journeys and the resulting emissions. Revolutionising rural public transport would be a cross-Government win. I hope the Treasury can see it that way too and finally give it the funding that it needs.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I fear it is only a matter of time until we get a ministerial statement doubling the number of quiet carriages on trains. The serious point is that we cannot deliver the radical change and improvement that our rural public transport network needs without new money to support it. The Minister responsible for buses, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has made laudable efforts—I believe that he really believes in buses—and there is a lot of really good stuff in the Bill, but just creating and distributing powers without any funding to support their use, and barely any funding to support and develop best practice on how to use them, will not deliver the improvements we need.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There were also questions over funding for active travel at a time when we should be investing more to encourage modal shift and making walking and cycling an easier and more attractive option, and a complete fiscal straitjacket was placed on the future of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, on which I will focus my remarks. I am serving on the Bill Committee, and we have learned that the Government have applied a money resolution that means the Bill can incur expenditure only under existing Acts and not create anything of its own that would require any actual money. It often feels like we are living through a certain political sitcom in this place. In this instance, the Treasury has effectively shut the Department for Transport in the back of a taxi and tasked it with coming up with something incredibly popular and completely free.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Chair of the Transport Committee and the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to debate the transport estimates. I felt a bit underwhelmed by the Chancellor’s offering for transport following the spending review. I am not really sure what she had to offer my constituents in North Norfolk. We saw funding for the continuation of the bus fare cap, which is welcome, but still an increase to the £2 cap that was previously in place. Other than that, what will help them? Upgrades to the Ely and Haughley junctions, which would support improved connections for business and passengers out of Norfolk, were once again overlooked, which will lead only to a higher cost when the Government eventually realise they are necessary.”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for coming to North Norfolk; he is welcome at any time. Having experienced at first hand the reality of rurality in my constituency, does he agree that we need to look at alternative models for rural public transport?”
House of Commons25 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our coastal communities remain without a top-table representative in Government, and I struggle to see how residents of rural communities can trust that such guidance will be forthcoming unless it is in the Bill, or that it will represent the challenges and needs of their areas. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to what we are trying to achieve with new clause 30. I do not expect him to accept it, although he is welcome to do so, but I hope that he outlines the steps that his Department will take to provide comprehensive and structured support to those authorities embarking into uncharted territory with their franchise schemes, beyond what we have heard already.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members believe it would be good for those areas to be given a greater degree of support from the Government than there currently is in the Bill. I also think that specifically outlining such areas in the Bill will help to ensure greater consideration of the unique characteristics of those parts of the country. Even if the Department pledges to produce guidance, it could fail to address the challenges faced in rural communities in particular. Coming from a rural area, I know how much Government policy feels like it was written by someone who has rarely stepped foot outside the SW1 postcode.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I gently say to the Minister that this is not about whether guidance is in the pipeline; it is about how far it goes and how robust it is. Our new clause 30 is the first of our many new clauses and amendments that seek to provide guardrails, guidance and models for those adopting franchising for the first time, in a situation where there may be little evidence to go on. Given the concerns of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about how franchising might work in rural areas, there could be some good news for him in our new clause, but we need to adjust our thinking about what good bus services look like in such areas. While we do not want a top-down imposition of things on rural, coastal and suburban areas, I and other hon.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When we visit London, we do not quibble about whether our red bus is run by Transport UK, Arriva, Stagecoach or another franchise holder; we care that it comes at the time we want and takes us where we want to go. What is lacking in the Bill, however, is leadership relating to how the powers can be used to make a much needed difference to people in rural areas. We have models of urban bus franchising to follow—London has taken the lead and now Manchester is following—but it has never been attempted in a truly rural area. It would be quite reckless of the Government to leave authorities completely rudderless, because some would be guaranteed to go off the rails, and we all know that residents would pay the price in their passenger experience and council tax bills.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗