The Transport Committee has criticised the Government’s response to its report on improving bus services, saying it shows a lack of ambition and risks missing an opportunity to improve connectivity across England. 

The Committee’s report, published in August, highlighted how bus services are the country’s most-used form of public transport. Despite this, Department for Transport (DfT) data shows that ridership fell by 21.7% in the 15 years to 2024. The charity CPRE estimated that more than 56% of areas covered by county or unitary councils could be considered “transport deserts”.  

Further research by DfT shows that 22% of households in England did not have access to a car in 2024, and the percentage is higher among households on lower incomes. 

DfT gave a positive response to a small number of recommendations made in the Committee’s report but dismissed many others. 

Transport Committee Chair Ruth Cadbury MP said: 

“When the Government announced its bus sector reforms last year it spoke of an ‘overhaul’ and a ‘revolution’. But its approach now looks lacking in ambition, and it is hard to shake the feeling that an opportunity may be missed, particularly to improve services in rural and underserved communities. 

“A number of our recommendations regarding DfT’s role in helping local areas to up their game have been misunderstood. Meanwhile, its plans for ‘socially necessary routes’, which by their nature are commercially unviable, are in danger of being left without enough funding to be effectively implemented. 

“Throughout our inquiry we heard about the consequences of poor connectivity. Young people unable to get their first jobs or taking exhausting journeys to reach school or college. Older and disabled people feeling isolated and depressed, and high streets starved of customers.  

“Any serious attempt to revive services and make public transport equitable across the country will need new funding. And yet the most targeted proposals for how to provide funding where it would make the most difference are shrugged off with a suggestion that no decision will likely come before the next Spending Review – not for another three years.  

“The Bus Services Act is a positive and necessary start to the work of reviving bus services, but it cannot be the last word. Local authorities need more opportunity, funding and incentives to grow their networks and passenger numbers.”  

The positives: 

• The Government has said it is implementing performance metrics that will enable it to compare bus services in different parts of the country. It will measure factors including passenger satisfaction, reliability, accessibility, and safety. A nationwide rollout will begin in April 2026. 
• DfT said it will “actively consider” adding a rural weighting to the formula it uses for awarding funding under the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) scheme. 
• It will “explore” the possibility of longer-term, multi-year funding for local authorities’ bus services in the next Spending Review period. However, this would not apply until 2028 at the earliest. 
• The response was constructive about the idea of VAT relief for companies or organisations that provide demand responsive transport services, and said the Department will lobby the Treasury on this point. 
• DfT will seek views from stakeholders on whether a dedicated rural strand should be added to the Bus Centre of Excellence. 

The negatives: 

• The Committee called for a national free bus pass for under-22s to support access to jobs and education. DfT said this would not be affordable with the funding it received during the Spending Review. This means it is therefore unlikely to be funded within the next three years. 
• MPs called for DfT to adopt an ambition for local transport authorities to provide a minimum level of public transport connectivity, by the end of this Parliament, supported by long-term funding. The Government’s response misunderstood the proposal, believing it would amount to government undermining local authorities’ ability to plan their own services. The proposal had instead intended to set a broad shared ambition within which local flexibility could operate. 
• The report said DfT should support the provision of ‘socially necessary services’ – which are a key plank of its own reforms – by ring-fencing a dedicated portion of its bus grant funding. The response argued this would constrain local flexibility and risk inefficiency or reduced overall investment, but it fails to outline an alternative way of financially supporting routes that are by definition commercially unviable. 
• The Committee recommended that local authorities should be required to publish their own methodology setting out how they decide socially necessary routes. DfT said it agrees that transparency is needed but says it doesn’t agree with setting one “standardised” approach. This misunderstands the Committee’s recommendation, which did not call for a single methodology, only that authorities should be transparent about the methodology they adopt. 

(Pic: House of Commons/Laurie Noble)