Paul Kohler MP: speeches

307 published records · newest first.

Speeches

17 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
I rise to speak on clause 6 and new clause 6. As we have heard, clause 6 would create a levy on fuel producers. While I do not necessarily believe that to be the wrong approach, as with much of the Bill, the devil will be in the detail that is not available for us to scrutinise here, for obvious reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will make clear, there may be unintended consequences if the regulations are not designed correctly. In my opinion, leaving much of the mechanism to a later date is not necessarily a bad thing—I agree with the flexibility that is being put in place. With a new, emerging technology and industry, ensuring that the Government’s hands are not tied at this early stage is a strength, not a weakness. That notwithstanding, some assurances should be given about how the mechanism will be designed, and how the potential flaws raised in the written evidence received by the Committee will be sidestepped. I point in particular to the written evidence from Valero. Clause 6(3) implies that the levy will be based on criteria relating to the historical market share of fuel suppliers. That has been raised by those in the industry as potentially having unintended consequences. As I raised yesterday with the Minister, who I am not convinced gave me the clearest of answers, there have been worries that it may allow new market entrants not to pay any levy, as they will not have had a previous market share. Will he commit to ensuring that the levy regulations will account for such obvious loopholes? It is clear that the challenge of decarbonisation, both in aviation and beyond, is great and will not be solved without collaboration with our closest international partners. I therefore tabled new clause 6, which would require the Government to review the differences between our approach to sustainable aviation fuel and that of our European partners in the European common aviation area. With 71% of international air passengers at UK airports travelling to or from Europe, it seems sensible that we should strive to be in broad alignment with Europe with regard to SAF. I appreciate that there may be differences: in the case of the early part of our SAF mandate, we are going further and faster than the ECAA, but our European partners may accelerate beyond our thresholds later on. However, we believe it is important to remain mindful of what our partners across Europe are doing in an industry that has international competition at its very heart. The new clause would ensure that the Government are fully aware of differences in policy, and alive to any unintended consequences or differences that the Bill could result in for those in the aviation industry. We think that would be helpful. I would welcome the Minister’s observations on both the mechanism that we have suggested and the broader issue of alignment with our European partners. This is, of course, a probing clause. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Government will keep a watching brief on what the ECAA are doing with regard to SAF from here on?
17 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Act’s passing, reviewing how we can better secure the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production. The success of the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel ambitions will rely not only on bold targets and optimistic projections, but on the reliable availability of the resources needed for manufacturing. Bioethanol will be a resource that can be part of the manufacturing process for SAF, and help support a low-carbon industry in the UK, yet while the Government continue to laud their commitment to green aviation, they have stood by while domestic bioethanol production is at risk from Donald Trump’s bully boy tactics. Since the signing of the UK-US trade deal, the owners of two UK bioethanol plants based in Hull and Teesside have threatened to close the sites as the trade agreement fundamentally undermines their business position. This Government have given US ethanol producers a 1.4 billion litre tariff-free quota—equivalent to the UK’s entire annual demand for the product—and completely undercut the industry, making the UK vulnerable to the whims of, to put it at its mildest, the mercurial Trump Administration. The new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of plant closures on SAF production potential, set out options to mitigate supply risks and, crucially, recommend the policy steps needed to promote a stable domestic supply of bioethanol. We cannot afford to leave this to chance, or to the good will of a US President who, as we all know, simply cannot be trusted. If the Government are serious about scaling up SAF production, they must ensure that the raw materials are available. That means a proper strategy to support and stabilise the UK’s bioethanol sector.
17 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
I hear what the Minister says, but we think that not enough is being done to protect the bioethanol industry in this country. We will therefore push the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
16 Jul 2025 · Blue Badge Eligibility · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on securing this debate, and her constituent, Sandy, on bravely campaigning on this issue. It is people like her who make a real difference to this world—thank you. A cancer diagnosis does not simply change someone’s medical needs; it changes the course of their life. Even the most basic tasks can become physically painful and emotionally draining. It may be a short-term issue during recovery or represent a permanent shift. In these circumstances, a blue badge can offer crucial support, making it easier to access vital services and maintain a degree of independence. The blue badge scheme provides essential parking concessions to help people with significant mobility challenges to park close to their destination, whether they are the driver or passenger. Cancer treatment side effects, such as fatigue from chemotherapy, chronic pain or nerve damage, can all severely limit mobility. However, despite the profound and often sudden impact of such conditions, many people living with cancer or other life-altering illnesses, as we have already heard today, find they do not automatically qualify for a blue badge. The cost of travelling to medical appointments is already high, and for those undergoing frequent treatments and tests, it quickly adds up. Research shows that 93% of young cancer patients and their families travel to hospital by car and need a place to park. Furthermore, 71% say they struggle to afford travel costs, with parking charges contributing to an extra £250 a month. Many also report that parking arrangements at hospitals are inadequate. The charity Young Lives vs Cancer cited one parent who described hospital parking as a lottery: “I can probably win the lottery better than I can get a parking space.” In my constituency, a resident contacted me about her 83-year-old husband, who has blood cancer and neuropathy, uses a wheelchair, and cannot walk. Despite that, Labour’s Merton council lost his blue badge application, forcing his wife to resubmit it. That is unacceptable, and it highlights the pressing need for the more seamless blue badge process that we are advocating. In other cases, the criteria for blue badge eligibility fail to map neatly on to fluctuating conditions such as cancer. That is why the Lib Dems are calling for a comprehensive review of the legislative framework for the blue badge scheme, as is everyone in the Chamber, I think. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), we want it to be more responsive to real-world need, more compassionate in its interpretation of eligibility and more efficient in delivery. We also urge the Government to take advantage of their ambition for a single patient record. Much of the infrastructure exists already, particularly in cancer care. It is entirely feasible to implement an automatic offer of a blue badge where clinical records show clear mobility changes, as so eloquently argued for by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Chatham and Aylesford. Smaller but important changes we could make include amending blue badge signage, which we support, to clarify that not all disabilities are visible. That would help to reduce stigma and the misunderstanding faced by many users of the scheme. We are also pushing to ban discriminatory practices by taxis and private hire vehicles with a clear national standard for what an accessible city should be. We remain firmly committed to improving accessibility across society. Public transport in particular must work for everyone, and we are campaigning for train stations around the country to meet essential accessibility standards, such as step-free access, safer and more inclusive platform designs, and level boarding wherever possible. Things such as that and blue badge accessibility are crucial to a society that cares for everyone and has an inclusive approach to how we live our lives. Ultimately, we need a system that is fairer, simpler and more humane, one that recognises the challenges posed by cancer and chronic illness, even when those challenges do not fit neatly into a tick-box form or an online mechanism. A blue badge can mean being able to go to work, to reach a hospital, to attend a support group, or simply to visit a friend. It is about dignity, independence and inclusion. The very least we can do is to ensure that the system works as it should. Cancer and serious illness take so much from individuals and their families, access to parking should not be another burden that they are forced to carry.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Some of the evidence we have received from the contributors to the consultation expressed concern over the levy calculation. Under clause 6, it could be based on historic market share. Do you share those concerns about complications in the levy calculation? Should it be a simple levy placed on sales going forward, rather than on historic market share? Ruben van Grinsven: Again, that is hard to judge because we do not have the full details of how this is going to be done. I agree that it is a very thin-margin business, so we have to make sure that the levy is distributed properly, and that we do not give certain people a disadvantage or advantage just based on calculation methods. We need to design it very carefully so we do not disturb the market too much. We will be able to assess that much better when we have more details about the Bill.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Have you overcome the technical problems? Once you have the CO 2 , is the technical process now scalable, or are there still many issues involved in it? Doug McKiernan: Our technology at the moment has to be scalable. When I go to the Jet A-1 ASTM committee at the end of the year, it has to be scalable. That is part of getting of getting the certification. We have to have a scalable process as well as a quality of fuel—so yes, we are there.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q First, given the obvious international aspect of aviation, does it make sense for the UK mandate and the EU mandate to diverge, or would it make more sense if they were the same? Secondly, we heard from one witness that the levy would encourage tankering, with air operators filling up in other locations. Does that happen now, and is it an issue that you can see being made worse by the levy? Matt Gorman: On the first question, I touched earlier on the fact that the EU and the UK have taken different trajectories, certainly into the longer term. I will be a little bit careful in what I say, because we are just finalising our thinking on what we submit to the Government, but increasing ambition with SAF will be important in the UK as we build confidence in production and scale-up of the technology. We can see a case in future to be more ambitious with the UK mandate. I think the Government said that they want to keep that actively under review, which we support. On the question of tankering, it happens to a limited extent today. We do not fly the aircraft, but our understanding, from when we last looked at it several years ago, is that on short-haul aircraft in particular, where there is a very rapid turnaround and you do not necessarily want to take time to fill up the aircraft at the other end of the route, the CO 2 penalty was not huge in terms of the industry overall. I am not close enough to comment on whether the levy poses a particular challenge there, but when the Government get to the stage of consultation on the detailed design of the mechanism and are working with the industry, it will be important to design it in a way that avoids that wherever possible.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q I have been looking at some of the written evidence we have received in addition to the testimonies from the witnesses. I understand why clause 6 is widely drawn, but do you recognise that the levy being calculated in too complex a way would produce uncertainty, a lack of transparency, and externalities or transaction costs that we do not need? Mike Kane: I think clause 6 gives us flexibility. That is what is key in letting the contract. We have made some principle statements here. This is industry-funded; we do not think the taxpayer should pay for the decarbonisation of aviation. We know that at the moment it is a small amount of what transport emits nationally, but because it is one of the harder-to-decarbonise areas, we know that the graph will go up over time. That is why we are funding the fuel suppliers, at the top of the chain here, so that the costs are spread as this goes lower down the chain and eventually to the passenger.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q May I go back to my first question? I hear what you say about being more ambitious, as the EU is towards the end of the mandate or as it progresses, but do you see any problems with the mandates being out of kilter? Or is that not an issue? Matt Gorman: If we start with the mandates out to 2030, we at Heathrow do not see a particular challenge in the UK’s adoption of a more ambitious mandate. We very actively supported the 10% mandate for the UK. As I say, it is really important that we start to get SAF flowing and to produce it in the UK, with the support of the Bill. In the longer term, through the work we are doing and our submissions to Government, I expect us to say a bit more about the long-term ambition for the mandate in the UK, but we have not quite finalised that. I will be happy to update the Committee in writing later in the summer.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q I do not know whether you have seen it, but Valero makes the point in its written submission that if the way that you calculate the levy is too complex, and if you base it on historical market data rather than current data, then with just a standard levy, that will produce problems, whereby new entrants will not be subject to the levy. We have to be sensible about how we calculate the levy. That is all I am suggesting. Do you recognise that as an issue? Mike Kane: The first thing I would say in response to your question, Paul, is that this is a very technical, short Bill, but there are huge challenges ahead. I want to compliment my officials, who have worked extraordinarily hard to get to this point, and also industry who have worked with us to get to this point. As we go to the strike price and the levy, we will continue to work with industry to make sure we get that right. Somebody described it earlier—I think it was Mark again—as being like a seesaw. It will go up, it will go down; but by letting the contracts or drawing them in, we can keep that balance in equilibrium, as far as humanly possible. That is the quality of this. While that is not the answer you might want to hear about the end piece, there will be scrutiny of the Secretary of State and of this, and of the legislation, and that will be covered by the Competition and Markets Authority. There will be many levels of scrutiny of how well Government are delivering this.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Using carbon dioxide to produce SAF is a wonderfully seductive and brilliant solution. You are addressing the regulatory obstacles, but what are the technical obstacles? Doug McKiernan: To be perfectly transparent with everybody, with carbon dioxide at the moment I think the direct air capture, compared with where we are, is a bit of an Achilles heel. It is probably around two to four years behind in its scale-up, in terms of being able to keep pace with our scale-up, but actually there is plenty of biogenic carbon dioxide around for large-scale commercial plants here in the UK, which could be a stepping stone to the direct air capture. A lot of the work with direct air capture at the moment talks about the cost of it; you can sequestrate the carbon dioxide in the ground. That is not what we want to do as a petroleum company; we want to put that carbon dioxide into a liquid fuel, and then it is net zero. You have carbon dioxide and water coming out of the exhaust—whether that is a turbine or internal combustion engine. If you capture the carbon dioxide again with the direct air capture, you are then net zero. When you integrate that direct air capture with our process, the cost of direct air capture is probably reduced by 80%, because we have an exothermic reaction going on, and the majority of the cost in direct air capture is in the de-absorption of carbon dioxide. Once you have absorbed it from the air, you have to heat up the catalyst again—or the material that has absorbed it—to get the carbon dioxide out again, and we have an exothermic reaction. We would not have those costs associated with our process. Integration of our direct air capture with our power-to-liquid solution in three to four years’ time would be quite a mature technology, and definitely scalable within the UK.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q And issues such as tankering? Rob Griggs: We think it is probably too early to say. We need to keep an eye on that and whether there are unintended consequences of the way that this is set up. It is one to monitor.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Mr Counsell, I would like to quiz you on your first point. Given the premium on SAF, the mandate is going to cost far more than the RCM? Jonathon Counsell: Yes.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Mr Greenwood has made a compelling critique of the basics—“We have a mandate; why do we need the RCM? There might be unintended consequences.” I know you disagree with him, but I would like to hear why you disagree with him. Gaynor Hartnell: These projects are first of a kind, pretty much. This waste-based stuff is not being produced at scale anywhere in the world yet. It is very challenging to build one of these projects. There are numerous risks. You have Philip New coming later to give evidence; he has written a report on that, so you could ask him what those risks are. This addresses the showstopper risk if you like, which is the revenue certainty that a SAF producer can rely on when going to a bank and asking to borrow the millions or billions of pounds that it costs to build one of these projects. In the UK, we now have many precedents of other large-scale projects that are driven by environmental requirements, from renewable electricity generation to carbon capture and storage. Those various different projects are all supported by some sort of equivalent to the contracts that will be let under this revenue certainty mechanism, whether it is a contract for difference for electricity or whatever. It is par for the course. We are not asking for this just because everyone else gets it so we should get it too. There is a competition for capital, among other things. If there are supported projects in terms of revenue stability, it will be easier for the capital to flow to those projects. This is a new mechanism. We are seeking new types of SAF production pathways. It is incredibly complex, and it is necessary. Underlying all of this, the SAF mandate creates a market for greenhouse gas certificates, and the price of those certificates will be variable. It is very much built on a preceding policy—the renewable transport fuel obligation for road transport. That was just a demand mechanism without any accompanying equivalent to this revenue certainty mechanism. We import 85% of our road fuels, and we are not doing a very good job, I must say, given the opportunity, at preserving those early movers of projects that were built in the early days. Getting project funding is challenging, and it is not made easier by the fact that we have some early movers that are not managing to keep their renewable fuel projects going. I am talking about the bioethanol producers. Rob Griggs: I agree with what Gaynor says. Ultimately, UK SAF projects are competing for investment against other renewable projects across the UK economy that have similar types of support—CFDs for energy and hydrogen and other types of things. In some way it is levelling the playing field a little for SAF compared with other forms. I am here representing airlines; I am not representing producers. We want and we need SAF, and we want it as cost effectively as possible. We have seen all the evidence, given the nature of our mandate, its design, the global market and the work of Phil New that Gaynor referenced, which specifically asked that question: you have a mandate; why do you need an RCM? Everything suggests that given all those dynamics, without some form of revenue certainty you will not get that investment in the first-of-a-kind plants that we need to prove out the technology and get that initial set of volumes on a really aggressive timeline for 2030. As airlines, on balance, we want the system to be competitive. We expect there to be imports as well as domestic production, but we think that without that UK 2G supply kick-started by the RCM, we will struggle and then we risk the buy-out. That is why we support it. On top of that, if it goes right, you get a UK industry better for your security, and jobs domiciled in the UK. It is a win-win, notwithstanding that as airlines, that is not necessarily our primary goal, but it is a huge benefit, so why not support it?
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q To your point on the RCM, the money you put into the RCM will bring down your overall costs, because the premium on SAF will go down, will it not? Jonathon Counsell: Absolutely—we hope that eventually, as you scale up SAF supply, the cost will come down. Will it ever come down to jet fuel levels? I do not think it will, because of the factor cost element. I agree with Paul Greenwood, who said earlier that one of the disadvantages we have in this country is high energy costs. We are doing SAF contracts with SAF suppliers in the US, where their energy costs are one third of those in this country, so we are at a disadvantage. On 2G SAF, however, I think we have some real advantages: we have some sites, we have expertise and we have feedstock, both waste biomass and municipal solid waste. We put 20 million tonnes of municipal solid waste into landfill; we even ship 5 million tonnes of it to Europe. That is energy. We should be using it to make SAF. Those advantages can overcome the energy disadvantage in the short term. Hopefully we will sort out that energy disadvantage, but as we scale up those plants that SAF price should come down. It is an investment, but we do not want to double-pay for it. Luke Ervine: Just to add and clarify, I think Luke Taylor asked a question earlier about ways to pay for the SAF mandate. We have always been very clear about paying twice through things such as the ETS scheme. We would love to see those revenues used to reinvest in the decarbonisation of the aviation industry. Given the economic value it returns and the Government’s growth agenda, we believe that creating a SAF industry also creates jobs and a lot of economic prosperity. The Sustainable Aviation report in 2023 estimated that the UK SAF industry would create about 60,000 new jobs by 2050 and about £10 billion gross value added by the same time. There is a benefit here for the UK economy as a whole purely in terms of the SAF industry, and using some of the taxes we currently pay to fund the RCM would be very helpful. Lahiru Ranasinghe: I do not have much to add to what has already been said, but the cost of SAF means that the cost of fuel will go up in the long run, even with the RCM. In our minds, the RCM is something that unlocks production, as opposed to something that brings the cost down. The primary role we see for it is in getting production up so that supply can meet demand in the short run. Ultimately, though, we will have higher costs because of SAF, especially as eSAF and power-to-liquid comes in, and those costs will have to be passed through. We are doing a huge amount to try to be as efficient as we possibly can; that is where the investments in aircraft and how we operate come in. As they say, the best energy is the energy you do not use, and in that way we are trying to manage our costs in the same way we have for the past 30 years, but I completely agree that we have to be wary of adding on to the costs we are already paying in the name of sustainability, both right now and in terms of meeting the mandates.
15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q The RCM is all about increasing the ability to produce, which will surely bring down the market price. Is not the RCM, in fact, an investment to cut your costs in the long run? Jonathon Counsell: We support the RCM: it is a critical mechanism and you will not get 2G plants funded in this country without it. We spent the last five years talking to investors who said that the mandate is not enough. The mandate creates demand; it does not create investment. If you have a mandate on its own, all your SAF will be imported. The RCM unlocks the investment to get the plants built—so it is absolutely an investment, but the issue for airlines is that we are paying for the SAF and also paying for our carbon emissions. If we then pay for the derisking of the infrastructure, we are double-paying. The EU ETS first established that the key principle is that money is recycled to help decarbonisation of those sectors that fund it. It is not taxpayers’ money. Aviation puts £500 million into the UK emissions trading scheme. That money is supposed to come back to support the decarbonisation of aviation. None of it does. All we are saying is, is that not a perfect opportunity to use some of that aviation money to support the costs that are coming back to us through the levy? Then we would not be paying twice. Instead, we would be paying for the levy, but through the UK emissions trading scheme.
9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source
More
I sympathise with the Minister’s frustration at the Tories’ brass neck. There is clearly a crisis in the criminal justice system, and it is clearly of their making. However, rather than undermining the jury system, we need to invest in our courts. Does the Minister agree that this is all about priorities? Is she going to use her limited budget to build more prisons and simply produce more prisoners, or use that limited money to invest in the criminal justice system and restorative justice?
9 Jul 2025 · Draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source
More
rose—
9 Jul 2025 · Draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. We welcome steps to better co-ordinate the fractured and complex system of managing airspace. It is important to bring it into the 21st century by delivering flight paths that cut emissions and ensure that journeys can be quicker, quieter and cleaner. The creation of a single guiding mind to co-ordinate and sponsor future airspace changes is a positive step and something that my party warmly welcomes. We recognise that without modernisation, not only will there be unnecessary capacity constraints, but outdated flight paths will constrict innovation and stand in the way of future advances, including essential low and zero-carbon developments in the sector. It is vital, however, that the new organisation works closely with the communities affected by noise and air pollution—as has been said, there will be losers as well as winners—and that local communities feel that their voice is being heard when changes take place. We understand that London will be the first area that the UKADS considers. Can the Minister clarify the timeline for the creation of the new service and when we can expect the work on the modernisation of London’s airspace to commence? Can he give any indication of how long the Department envisages it will take for the UKADS to publish and consult on its draft proposals? Finally, will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that UKADS works closely with the public, so that the communities affected by the changes are and feel properly consulted?
1 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
We welcome the powers in clause 23, which enables local transport authorities to design and deliver grants directly to bus operators in their areas. It is a clear step in the right direction, placing real tools in the hands of local authorities, which know their communities best and are best placed to shape the services that their residents rely on. Amendment 56 builds on that principle. It would ensure that, when designing grant schemes, local authorities must consider the size of transport operators. Too often, smaller bus companies, many of them deeply embedded in the communities they serve, struggle to compete on an uneven playing field, especially when it comes to accessing capital for improvements or expansion. Our amendment recognises the vital role that those smaller operators play. By requiring authorities to take those smaller operators’ circumstances into account and, where appropriate, prioritise them in their grant making, we would help to protect local choice, preserve vital routes and foster healthy competition in the sector. In short, this is a modest but meaningful measure to ensure that smaller operators are not squeezed out, and that communities continue to benefit from diverse, responsive and locally rooted bus services. We therefore support amendment 56 and the clause standing part of the Bill.
1 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
New clause 37 is sensible and constructive. It would ensure that when enhanced partnership schemes are amended, improved integration across modes of public transport is explicitly recognised as a legitimate and desirable reason for doing so. We have seen time and again, both here in the UK and internationally, that when public transport is properly integrated, it works. It becomes more convenient, reliable and attractive to passengers. People choose to use it and when that happens, buses flourish. Whether it is better co-ordination between bus and rail timetables, joined-up ticketing or clear and consistent information across modes, the benefits of integration are obvious. Without a clear statutory basis for prioritising integration, too often such opportunities are missed.
1 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
In answer to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, our new clause 23 addresses the weaknesses in the existing clause 21. According to research by the National Centre for Accessible Transport, 90% of disabled bus users report facing barriers to using the bus network. Those include space constraints, poorly designed bus stops, the lack of step-free access when boarding or alighting, and the continuing absence of induction loops. Buses are not a luxury for many disabled people; they are a vital connection to work, services, friends and family. Putting accessibility front and centre is not optional; it is essential. The clause is therefore a step in the right direction. It rightly requires authorities to consider how to make bus services more accessible. However, if we are serious about delivering meaningful progress, we must go further. That is why we have tabled new clause 23, to build on the work started in clause 21 by introducing a requirement for annual reporting on accessibility progress. The existing clause requires the accessibility plan to be reviewed only every three years. We believe that is too long; three years is a long time in which to do nothing. I draw Members’ attention to subsection (4) of our new clause 23, which lists practical things that the report would have to report on to draw attention to the public, the Government and voters exactly where there are shortfalls in, problems with and obstacles to addressing the need. We need to go further than simply having the requirement. Under the Conservatives, the Access for All programme was left to wither and die on the vine. Unless we actually do something more practical, as we are suggesting, that is what will happen again. I agree that none, or not much, of the Bill will work without adequate funding—that is a given—but we have already made that point, and the new clause would give the oxygen of publicity to what is happening. We think that is important. We do not think that new clause 23 would impose a significant new burden. It would simply require local transport authorities to produce a short annual update, setting out how they are progressing against the goals in their accessibility plan, to allow for regular scrutiny, course correction where needed and, above all, accountability. If we want a bus system that works for everyone, we must ensure that local authorities do not just create plans, but deliver on them, transparently and consistently. For that reason, we support the clause standing part of the Bill, and we urge the Government to adopt new clause 23.
1 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I will press it to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
1 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
The clause, added during scrutiny in the Lords, is a welcome and valuable improvement to the Bill, but we would like to know what consultation was held with disabled groups before it was drafted. Although the changes it makes might seem modest on paper, they have the potential to make a significant difference in improving accessibility across our bus network. Subsection (2) allows enhanced partnership schemes to specify requirements to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely, and in reasonable comfort on local bus services. The inclusion to allow the specification of a taxi guarantee scheme is also welcome. Although we share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for South West Devon, such a scheme may prove to be vital in ensuring that disabled and other vulnerable users feel comfortable and confident in using the bus. Subsection (3) strengthens the consultation process and ensures that disabled users or organisations representing them are consulted before any EP scheme is made. That is not just good practice; it is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone. Subsection (4) mirrors that requirement when enhanced partnership schemes are varied, and guarantees that the accessibility is not forgotten as schemes evolve. Authorities must once again consider whether changes enable disabled people to travel independently, safely, and in comfort. These are considered but welcome changes. Accessibility cannot be an afterthought; it must be embedded from the outset and considered at every stage of decision making. These welcome measures help to support that.
1 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 23, page 18, line 42, at end insert— “154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation (1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it. (2) In particular, local transport authorities may— (a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services, (b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and (c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands. (3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider— (a) the size of the operator’s fleet, (b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and (c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.” This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →