Bus powers could help TikTok-famous villages deal with problem parking
Jon Pearce praised the Government for proposing a suite of new powers which councils can use to run their own bus routes and prevent companies from pulling 'socially necessary' services.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which secured a second reading on Monday, would 'streamline' the franchising process when authorities bid to set up London-style networks, and would better secure 'lifeline routes' elsewhere.
'In part thanks to a TikTok craze to photograph sunset and sunrise over Mam Tor, communities where I live in High Peak have been plagued by illegal parking,' Labour's Mr Pearce told the Commons.
The 517 metre-high hill in Derbyshire has become popular on social media, with several videos filmed at the landmark racking up more than 100,000 likes on TikTok.
Mr Pearce continued: 'I'm co-ordinating a response to these issues with local stakeholders like the Peak park, police and councils, and a key tranche of what we need to do is deliver better bus services that are integrated with local train services.
'This Bill will transfer powers away from Westminster and empower local communities to take decisions necessary for our commuters to get to work, our students to get to college, our vulnerable to access the healthcare they need, and our honeypot villages to manage tourism sustainably.'
Gritting crews were unable to reach a Peak District road near the hill earlier this year after more than 200 cars were double parked on it, according to Derbyshire County Council, and Mr Pearce previously wrote to authorities, when he warned that emergency services had been obstructed.
The Bill would give councils the power to set up franchised bus networks to regulate routes, timetables, fares and vehicle standards, without the need for ministers' permission.
Ms Alexander said the Government is 'fixing the broken' franchising process and told MPs: 'Proposed schemes need to jump through a myriad of hoops and they still require my consent to proceed, which is odd to say the least.
'The idea that I understand more what passengers in Leicestershire or Cornwall need than their local leaders is for the birds. In December, we opened up franchising to every local authority and now through this Bill we will further streamline the process making it simpler for franchise schemes to be granted and assessed.'
Ms Alexander said the franchising model 'won't work everywhere', and added: 'That's why this Bill also strengthens enhanced partnerships and removes the ideological ban on establishing new local authority bus companies.
'Furthermore, by giving local authorities the power to design and pay bus operator grants in their areas, this Bill gives greater protections for socially necessary local services – securing those lifeline routes that keep communities connected.'
Pressed about funding to local authorities for the £3 bus fare cap, Ms Alexander said: 'There is a spending review under way but I can confirm that I fully appreciate the importance of an affordable and accessible bus route.'
Ms Alexander also said the Government will 'press pause' on so-called floating bus stops 'perceived to be poorly designed', amid concerns over accessibility issues and potential hazards for visually impaired people and others.
Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Paul Kohler said the Bill 'rightly lifts the outdated, ideologically driven ban on municipally owned bus companies, empowering local authorities who wish to use it, rather than infantilising them' and added that 'it is not and must not become a one-size-fits-all approach'.
He added: 'Empowering local authorities in law is one thing. Enabling them in practice is quite another.
'Whilst this Bill hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it doesn't ensure there's fuel in the tank.'
Conservative shadow transport secretary Gareth Bacon earlier said improvements for passengers 'simply won't happen' without more Treasury money.
He said: 'The Bill does not prioritise passengers and there is nothing in it that guarantees an improvement in service standards.
'The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.'
The Bill will undergo further scrutiny in the Commons at a later date.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Would a £15bn investment in public transport ‘level up' the red-wall areas?
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has announced a £15bn investment in public transport projects in the English regions. Albeit her commitment to restore the pensioners' winter fuel payment (in whole or part is not known) has grabbed much of the attention, these plans for enhanced light rail, bus and tram links will no doubt make an impact. She said: 'We know the potential that exists in all of our towns and cities … I can tell you today that we will be making the biggest ever investment by a British government in transport links within our city regions, and their surrounding towns; £15.6bn in transport funding settlements, to be delivered by our regional mayors – more than doubling real-terms spending on city-region connectivity.' But it is not quite what it seems to be. Is this new money? Not exactly. Much of it is effectively a reannouncement of the schemes unveiled by Rishi Sunak at the Conservative Party conference in October 2023. That was when he announced, to no one's surprise but still widespread disappointment, that the HS2 high speed rail link between Birmingham, Manchester and beyond was being cancelled, but the funds would be redistributed to a wide variety of smaller transport schemes (some of which, embarrassingly, were to repair roads in the South). At that time, the figure of £13.8bn was allocated to the 'City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements 2' – ie public transport improvements controlled by the various elected mayors in Greater Manchester, Teeside, West Yorkshire and so on. Reeves says that these were never properly funded by the previous government, and she put them on hold when she came to power last year. Now they have been defrosted, topped up and presented as Labour achievements. They may turn out to be, but it will take years for them to come to fruition – as with earlier announcements focused on the South, such as the Heathrow expansion. And, just for the record, there's no prospect of the HS2 Northern extension, nor the potentially revolutionary (for growth) Northern Powerhouse east-west fast rail link between Liverpool and Hull via Manchester and Leeds ('HS3'). So, is it good for growth? In principle, yes, but building new tramways, say, doesn't necessarily leverage commensurate private investment or create new jobs. One of the more consequential of Reeves's announcements was that she's reviewing the criteria the Treasury uses to approve large-scale infrastructure projects, contained in the so-called Green Book. She wants civil servants to recognise the benefits of investment as well as the cost. This is fine in principle, provided the government's economists are not pushed into politically useful wishful thinking about regeneration projects that turn into white elephants. History is full of such prestigious (but in the end futile) dreams. As with the 'raid on pensions' – where funds are to be directed to invest in certain UK assets – the net effect of any misallocation of resources would be to reduce productivity rather than boost it. Is it good for Labour? Politically, the point is that it shows Labour cares about what used to be called 'levelling up' in 'left behind' areas, especially in Labour's red-wall areas previously taken by Boris Johnson and now vulnerable to challenge from Nigel Farage and Reform UK. The recent local elections showed just how deep and widespread the discontent can be. (Lisa Nandy, cabinet minister and MP for Wigan, has been warning that social pressures are so intense it could mean northern England could 'go up in flames'). Labour MPs representing marginal seats in the North West and the Midlands will thus have at least something to show for their efforts – or at least the prospect of improvement. However, it will be some time before any tangible improvements will be felt. And the irony? If Labour loses the next election, all the dividends of its investment in transport, housing and green power will be enjoyed by the Conservatives or, more remotely, Reform UK.
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Grinning and scratching his crotch, Calvin steals the Chancellor's thunder
Politicians are a right nuisance. You're in your place of work, quietly doing the crossword, when a minister shows up – and by some strange convention, you're required to stand around them for an hour while they lie to the TV cameras and dodge questions from the press. Why?! Well, someone has finally taken a stand. Let's call him Calvin (he looks like a Calvin). The latest stop in Rachel Reeves's Magical Misery Tour was a bus factory in Rochdale, where – as per usual – local workers were expected to semi-circle the Chancellor as she announced £15 billion for transport links we know we'll never see (put it this way, the service from Calais to Dover is cheaper and more reliable than Brighton to Victoria). Naturally robotic, she recited 'to serve Halton, St Helens and Woodchurch' as if announcing the service would leave in five minutes from platform three. 'Spades in the ground', she said, losing herself in the rhythm of the words, would 'link up Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale, Wakefield, Pudsey and Leeds. If you see something that doesn't look right, speak to staff or talk to British Transport Police. See it, say it, sorted.' The pre-recorded Chancellor grinned her way through the Midlands, via a rail replacement bus, to Didcot Parkway, and around her the workers listened grimly but politely, with their arms folded as if bouncing outside a nightclub on a slow Tuesday in the pouring rain. Except for Calvin, standing to her immediate right in an grey jumper and 'not bovvered' beard. He looked unhappy to be there from the off, and dropped subtle visual cues. 'Secureonomics,' said the Chancellor: he rubbed his eye. 'Not prepared to tolerate a situation in which steel is undermined': he bit his lip. 'Growth made in Britain': he sighed deeply. When she arrived at her rhetorical terminus with 'This Government promised change and we are keeping that promise,' the bus workers applauded politely – but Calvin did not. Perhaps because he knew what they didn't. The journey wasn't over. 'I'll take questions': the workers looked horrified. There's more?! One could see the precise moment that the soul left the body of a boy in a blue jumper and disappeared into Heaven, screaming for release. Like an unscheduled stop at St Leonards, these poor creatures were forced to endure 20 extra minutes of mind-blowing tedium – without the bonus of seeing Calvin's commentary. The boy is clearly an economist. As Reeves said her policies were fully funded, he nodded and rolled his eyes. When she justified her decision to raise taxes, he grinned and scratched his crotch. Social media fell in love. The Tories, who have nothing better to do, dashed off a video of his highlights (they'd better pray he doesn't turn out to be a nutcase or, worse, a Lib Dem). His performance captured both the madness of expecting the public to act as a backdrop for politicians they probably don't support, plus the widespread feeling of being trapped with Labour – as though the Great British train had broken down, the aircon won't work, the windows are stuck and Rachel from Complaints is on her phone shouting about her 'manifestow'. This, Mr Miliband, is why so many of us prefer to drive.
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
LGBT Pride Month has become a pointless embarrassment
See if you can make any more sense of this than I can. The other day, the official Facebook page for South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue posted a photo showing three employees wearing face paint. Two were plastered with the rainbow colours of the Pride flag, and the other with the pink, blue and white of the transgender flag. And here's the message that ran alongside. 'We're proud to stand with our LGBT+ communities this Pride season and beyond,' it said. 'Fire doesn't discriminate. No matter who needs us, we'll always be there.' A noble sentiment. My only question is: what on earth was the point of it? I mean, of course the fire brigade will 'always be there' for LGBT+ people whose houses have caught fire. That's always been the case, even back in the dark, distant days when homosexual acts were illegal. To the best of my knowledge, no one calling 999 to report a blaze at their home has ever been ordered to state their sexuality. ('I'm awfully sorry, sir, but in that case we can't help you, I'm afraid. We only put fires out for red-blooded heterosexuals.') What this message was intended to achieve, therefore, is sadly lost on me. Still, no doubt there's more such bafflement to come. The whole of June, after all, is Pride Month. And what was once a vital means to campaign for equality has long since descended into an orgy of competitive virtue signalling by members of what the anti-woke Labour peer Lord Glasman has so memorably dubbed 'the lanyard class'. As in: the preening elitists who seize every chance going to parade their moral superiority. Here's another example. This week, Air Canada opened Pride Month by advertising its first-ever 'all-2SLGBTQIA+ flight'. In other words, every member of the crew was one or more of the following: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, 'queer', intersex, asexual, or 'two-spirit' (that is, someone who subscribes to the American Indian belief that the body contains both a 'masculine spirit' and a 'feminine spirit'). Congratulations to all involved, naturally. Again, though, I can't help wondering what the point was. It surely can't have meant much to the average passenger. In my own experience, at least, few holidaymakers refuse to board a flight until they've ascertained the exact number of ancient tribal spirits currently inhabiting the pilot. And to be frank, I don't see how it helped the staff, either. Since when has there been a shortage of job opportunities for gay air stewards? Back in Britain, even the head of MI6 has been joining in. In a statement, Sir Richard Moore announced that 'MI6 is proudly flying the Pride flag from Vauxhall Cross, alongside the Union flag, for the whole month of June. Your sexual orientation is no bar to you working and thriving at MI6.' Once upon a time, of course, it would have been. But how many people imagined that this were still the case, in 2025? And while we're on the subject: is it really essential for Sir Richard to declare on his social media profile that his pronouns are 'he/him', as if he were some blue-haired student, rather than the 62-year-old chief of the nation's foreign intelligence service? We already know he's a 'he'. The 'Sir' was a bit of a clue. Otherwise he'd be Lady Richard. In the United States, at least, times are changing. According to Newsweek, there's been a big drop in corporations jazzing up their logos in Pride colours. Perhaps their CEOs fear being ridiculed by Donald Trump. Or perhaps too many customers twigged that it was all just a load of empty spin (having noted, for example, how few of these corporations used Pride logos in their Middle Eastern markets). In Britain, however, the lanyard class remains scrupulously observant. Yet it's hard to avoid the sense that the wider public is starting to feel patronised. Of course homophobia still exists. Like all forms of prejudice, it always will. But under the law, people who describe themselves as LGBTQIA+ have the same rights, these days, as everyone else. So when a business preaches about inclusivity, it's difficult to see what it's trying to accomplish – other than to earn some easy applause. All of which is why Pride Month increasingly feels like a pointless embarrassment. No longer a platform for the powerless to speak out – but for the powerful to show off.
