Steff Aquarone MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister. If he needs to intervene on me, he may, but can he confirm whether the guidance to be issued on training will specifically mention issues around domestic abuse or whether that will be lumped in with general crimes? I know he mentioned that a number of things to do with violence against women and girls will be in the guidance. Can he confirm that specific issues of domestic abuse will be included, rather than lumped in with general crimes?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to put on record our thanks to the Government for heeding the calls of many who have spoken in this Committee and the other place about the knotty issue of floating bus stops. Clearly, lots of things need to be reviewed and lots of situations need to be untangled. Is the Minister personally confident that his approach will lead to a safe, workable future, both with the assets that are currently in place and those that are, or would have been, planned?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made : 77, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert— “ 144G Application of training requirement: services in Wales (1) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 144F apply in relation to a local service which has one or more stopping places in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide. (2) But the regulations may not provide for those subsections to apply in relation to— (a) a local service that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or (b) a local service to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru.”— (Simon Lightwood.) This amendment provides for the training requirement in new section 144F of the Transport Act 2000 not to apply to services that have stops in Wales until switched on by regulations, and excludes that requirement entirely for services for which the Welsh Ministers are responsible or which are provided in Wales under a service permit granted by the Welsh Ministers.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand. That was the only thing I wanted to say. Thank you, Dame Siobhain.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert— “144G Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility (1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility. (2) The relevant parties are— (a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence; (b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services. (3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding— (a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services; (b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and (c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities. (4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation. (5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed— (a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five year period thereafter; (b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period. (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations. (7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.” This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regular undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  In the limited time available, I want to press the Government on a very live and urgent issue, which is the establishment of a dental school at the University of East Anglia. Currently, there is no dental school in the entire east of England. The Government accept that Norfolk is the Sahara of dental deserts. My constituents were excited by the prospect, as early as next September, of Norfolk training its own dentists. Just last week, the General Dental Council gave its approval for the new dental school and work is already under way at the UEA to create the facilities for this training. Things ground to a halt, however, when the Government were unwilling to allocate the funding to ensure that places would be available in time for the UCAS deadline for 2026 entry, saying that we all needed to wait for the spending review. A frustrating delay, lost time to prepare and perhaps a lost year, but we reluctantly accepted the need to wait to receive this good news. And then the spending review came. And went. And we heard nothing: total radio silence from the Government on the future of this much-needed dental school. I tabled a written question to the Government directly after the review and they have refused to answer it. The silence is causing worries to increase. There is a clear link between the lack of training opportunities in the east and the massive oral health inequalities we are facing. If we do not train in Norfolk, we cannot retain in Norfolk. People love our area. When they study here, many stay. It would be just the same with dentists. And we need it to be, because in Norfolk and Waveney we have so few dentists that each new one would be required to serve 3,000 people, based on current ratios. It is not tough maths to realise that, with the number of hours in a day and days in a year, people will go a long time without seeing a dentist, if they can get on an NHS list at all. These are not just numbers and stats, these are real people: the people in my community. I would welcome anyone who is moving the money around spreadsheets in the Treasury or the Department of Health and Social Care to come to explain the dither and delay to their faces—some of which can no longer manage to muster a smile. The situation has become untenable, but we have the opportunity for real improvement. We have cross-party support across Norfolk’s MPs from all parties, and I know that the Minister responsible, the Minister for Care, gets it—he has heard the stories, and I truly believe he cares. I hope that he can now deliver on the concern and warm words that we have welcomed and deliver us the dental school we need now.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  What you have just described is in the event that the amendment is agreed to. Is that right?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am a serving councillor on Norfolk county council.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will speak to the clause and to new clause 30 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. We have this Bill Committee, Department for Transport estimates day and the forthcoming Transport Committee report on connecting rural communities—we wait for years for the opportunity to talk about buses, and three come along at once. I strongly welcome the widening of bus franchising opportunities. Rural transport, in particular, needs a proper rethink, and the greater powers that transport authorities can get hold of as a result of the Bill will, I believe, allow local leaders to do just that. People are already welcome the idea of bus franchising. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

  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).

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

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