5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

   Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

   I believe that this was a deliberate attack by Putin to test the resolve and resources of NATO and that we will see more in the coming weeks, months and years. Russia was very quick to put out disinformation by pumping the airwaves in the cyber-space. Can we ensure that we are providing all resources to counter disinformation, which is a battlespace on its own, and that we are ramping up against the current threat that Russia is pushing out across NATO countries?

   Hansard source
2. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

   Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

   In the Minister’s excellent response, he talked about the geopolitical situation. During my time in office, I saw more and more co-operation between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. He talked about the emboldening of Putin. Does he share my concern that the recent show of unity at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit in China may well have emboldened Putin? That should be a wake-up call for all western democracies to stand together in defence of their mutual values?

   Hansard source
3. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

   Qatar: Israeli Strike

   It is not only on this issue, but on many other issues that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other middle east nations have developed a real niche and leadership in mediation and conflict resolution. Will the Minister look at our own conflict resolution unit and its resources and spend, and double down on how we are working with the Qataris on all their mediation efforts?

   Hansard source
4. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Qatar: Israeli Strike

   Despite the atrocious terrorist attack in Jerusalem, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she says that blowing up the enemy’s negotiators does not exactly suggest an interest in a negotiated solution. However, I would like clarification on the Government’s position on recognition of a Palestinian state. On 1 September, the then Foreign Secretary said that he proposed to recognise a Palestinian state, but that Hamas would not benefit from it, because they would have to be disarmed. Does that mean that Hamas must be disarmed before recognition, or will recognition go ahead, as seems to be the case, whether Hamas are disarmed or not?

   Hansard source
5. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

   I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, but the reason for that is that, until recently, the commitment of the United States to NATO was never in question. It is in question now because of the nature of the incumbent of the White House. President Putin either has some sort of hold over Donald Trump, about which we do not know, or he successfully flatters him. When President Trump is in the country, can we point out to him in the strongest possible terms that this response by Russia a couple of weeks after rolling out the red carpet for the killer in the Kremlin shows nothing but disrespect to the White House and its occupant?

   Hansard source
6. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   I rise to support new clause 47, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I will also make a passing reference to his excellent new clause 2, which I wholeheartedly support and which—as we have heard—is designed to remove the time restrictions on when disabled persons’ concessionary bus passes can be used. New clause 47 is very simple and, I would like to think, very logical. It simply requires that the Secretary of State should, “within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”. I was first alerted to this problem by some very effective lobbying done in Parliament a few months ago, which other right hon. and hon. Members may well remember. I was lobbied by a number of my constituents, who said to me that there was not much point in having a concessionary pass to use buses free of charge if they were unable to do so except when helped by a companion. It rather made a mockery of the concession. I followed this up with a visit to the New Forest branch of Mencap, and the implications of the scheme were impressed on me as being so obvious as to require little supporting argument. What is the point of giving somebody something for free if they cannot use it without the assistance of someone else, unless a designated companion is able to travel with them for free on the same bus pass? A number of county councils, for example, allow this, but it is a discretionary power. That seems rather strange, because a number of aspects of the scheme are statutory requirements. I believe this should be one of them, if it is not to make a nonsense—as I have already explained—of the statutory requirement that disabled persons should have a free bus pass. I have tabled a couple of written questions on this topic. One in particular—number 48343, tabled on 27 April—asked the Government whether their review of the English national concessionary travel scheme had made a recommendation on the question of companion passes for the disabled. The answer read, in part: “The Department for Transport conducted a review of the ENCTS and is currently considering next steps. The review did not consider adding companion passes to the statutory criteria for the scheme.” The answer then added a standard formulation that I have received in response to other questions on this topic: “Currently, local authorities in England have the power to go beyond their statutory obligations under the ENCTS and offer additional discretionary concessions, such as extending the travel time criteria for the ENCTS.” I simply put it to the House that if a pass-issuing authority has a statutory duty to provide disabled people with a free bus pass, there ought to be a statutory duty to require a designated companion to be included on that same pass for those who cannot use it without a companion. That is probably not something that will be decided today, but I hope the impeccable logic of my argument will appeal to the Minister and that within 12 months he will take the action requested.

   Hansard source
7. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   It is good news that 66% of local authorities recognise the importance of companion bus passes for those disabled people who cannot otherwise use a bus, but given the lack of logic of giving somebody a pass that they cannot use, is this not one of those cases that ought to be taken away from discretion and simply added to statute as a matter of common sense?

   Hansard source
8. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

   Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

   I commend the hon. Gentleman’s statement on our support for Poland. Of course we have to support Poland; it is quite right that we should do so. May I return the hon. Gentleman to the main issue here, which is Russia’s intense bombing attacks on Ukraine? I recently came back from Ukraine. Every night in Kyiv, Lviv and other towns, people are being killed by this brute. This is just an example of what is going on across the border on a greater scale. This question remains for us. Have the Government really made overtures to the US President to say that the time is over for constant statements that say that we may do something, we will do something and we will have sanctions? Surely, we now have to get the US to massively up the level of sanctions. That is what Russia fears. Also, European nations must be told that they cannot buy any more oil or gas that has been run through India or wherever. That has to stop. We have to make that work. And we have to make sure that, at the end of it all, Russia pays a penalty right now and understands that. Will the British Government please take the opportunity, when the US President comes over, to say, “Enough is enough. Please act and get this thing done”?

   Hansard source
9. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   On that point, does the hon. Lady accept that increasing the fare cap from £2 to £3 is likely to reduce ridership, whatever is contained in the new clause?

   Hansard source
10. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that the provisions apply to people who travel on trains but not on buses? Does he understand why the Government made that distinction?

    Hansard source
11. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    My constituents want the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services to be improved, and that is why I support new clause 34. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for re-tabling it. When the Secretary of State spoke to the Bill on Second Reading, she said that improving bus services underpins the Government’s plan for change. If that is the case, it strikes me as odd that the Government would strip out a new clause made in the other place that specifically stated that that was the purpose of the Bill. I also support new clause 29, which calls for a review of the provision of bus services to villages in England. There are many villages in my constituency with poor or non-existent bus routes, with particular problems in Spaxton, Enmore, Combwich, Fiddington and Stockland Bristol. These villages find themselves just off the main routes, with the residents left all but stranded, unable even to get to and from Bridgwater unless they have a car. Even in the villages that do have services, far too often the bus service stops in the early evening. For example, the last No. 16 bus to Langport, which serves Westonzoyland, Middlezoy and Othery, leaves Bridgwater at 5.15 pm. That means not only that the services fail to cater for those who want to travel for leisure, but that many constituents are unable to use buses for commuting because they cannot get home after work. The review should also consider integration between different modes of transport, which is an important issue for those living in rural areas who need to travel further afield. There has been no usable bus stop at Bridgwater railway station for several years because of road layout problems. It is a relatively small fix, but despite running Somerset council for the last three years, the Lib Dem administration seems unable to fix the problem. We must ensure that the Bill obliges local authorities to act in circumstances such as these, and I hope the review will assist in that. Another problem my constituents would wish the review to consider is seasonal timetables. I am fortunate to represent a beautiful part of Somerset that attracts large numbers of visitors to both the coast and the Quantock hills. During the summer, demand for buses is understandably higher. What the bus operators seem to forget, however, is that the local resident population relies on bus services continuing all year round. Seasonal buses help those in the north of my constituency commuting to work or college in Weston-super-Mare. The reduced frequency of the No. 20 bus service and the lack of a Sunday service in the winter months mean that fewer people can rely on it. I hope that the Government accept the need for this review and that its results better inform policy when the new franchising is rolled out. I support amendment 23, which calls for an assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap. The £2 cap was a great achievement of the last Conservative Government, and I was disappointed when the Labour Government decided to scrap it. They increased the amount that all our constituents have to pay by 50% and then proclaimed it a triumph. It sounds like something from Soviet propaganda. We are supposed to welcome this glorious new £3 bus fare as some sort of victory of the proletariat over the forces of capitalism, conveniently forgetting what preceded it. I want to see the £2 cap reinstated, and I hope that the assessment will be the first step toward that. I want to see bus services improved for my constituents. I believe that amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34 would improve the Bill, and I urge the Minister to accept them.

    Hansard source
12. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Qatar: Israeli Strike

    Do not the events of yesterday underline the critical need to secure a ceasefire and, above all, to move into a political process? Will the Minister—we are all pleased to see him continuing in his role following the reshuffle—commit to building on the important work done by Egypt, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to effect that peace process? All of them have underlined the fact that there is no place for Hamas in Gaza or anywhere else in government following the events that have taken place.

    Hansard source
13. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), not least because of the unique experiences she brings to this debate and the important way she has put it together. I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible, because I think that some 20 Government Members spoke in the debate and the Minister will have a lot to answer and get through. Obviously, a lot of the speeches have been about humanitarian access, as that is what the debate is about. Many stories have been brought forward about reports from the ground, and it is indeed undoubtable that a famine is taking place. The first thing I would like to probe the Minister on is whether he has had any reports on where all the violence is coming from at the humanitarian aid points. Is it purely from one side, or the other? Has he had any reports on what the security situation is and how that could be improved? I ask because we obviously want to see aid getting in in any way we can. In that sense, you—

    Hansard source
14. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

    I apologise sincerely, Mr Stringer. Has the Minister got the plans for what will be said to the President of the United States to cover these very important aspects? Why is there such violence around the aid points, and what influence can be brought to bear to get more aid in? Some Members have suggested using assets such as the Royal Navy. Indeed, the last Conservative Government were involved in trying to put harbours in and get aid in place. These are all important aspects, because the first point that we come to today is the value of human life and doing everything that can be done to stop what is a man-made famine, wherever the original or ongoing responsibilities for that may lie. The events going on in the middle east shock us all; indeed, the events of last night shocked us all. That includes the President of the United States making statements that perhaps surprised us all and showed that it may be time for the Israeli Government to rethink whether they can act with impunity, because it appears the Americans were not aware of what was happening and are absolutely furious at what appears to be an attempt to scupper any peace deal. That shows the importance of the Israeli President coming to see the Prime Minister today. It is important to keep those engagements alive, and to be able to look people in the eye and be honest with them. Often, friends can give people the most honest opinion, and it is important to keep those relationships in place. The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy said that it is not Hamas that pays the price for the lack of humanitarian aid, but the starving children. What assessment has been made of where aid is going when it is received on the ground, and what can be done to secure that aid for the populations that need it? We are in a position to leverage influence on the Israeli Government, but I am concerned that declaring recognition of a Palestinian state without calling for the release of hostages may damage the ability of the Israelis to listen to what is said. The significant shifts in foreign policy at this time must be balanced with trying to get a tangible outcome to this event. Everybody wants to see this conflict come to an end. Everybody wants to ensure that the events of 7 October cannot happen again. We must be able to be in the room and to work with the Israelis and the Americans, who have such influence in this area, to ensure that we can reach that position as quickly as possible. I think the Minister will have plenty of time to answer all the questions that have been raised about humanitarian aid, but I want to draw on the comments made by the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about getting to the ceasefire and what takes place afterwards. I urge the Minister, if he can, to outline any plans the Prime Minister may have, in meeting the President of the United States, to clarify where American thinking about the day after the war is. We have heard many conflicting reports of the things that may go on, some of which may well be genocidal acts. On that note, is it still the position of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary to support last week’s letter from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which said that the Government did not recognise a genocide? Can the Minister outline the thinking behind that? There is plenty of international law that makes the situation opaque, so perhaps he can outline exactly where that thinking came from. With that, I will sit down, because the Minister has a huge amount to get through. A lot of valuable comments have been made today, and I thank all Members for outlining their points in very precise terms.

    Hansard source
15. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Engagements

    Q3. A few short weeks ago, a constituent of mine died in a tragic fire at the Lady Bailey residential park in Winterborne Whitechurch. The fire was attended by 50 Dorset and Wiltshire firefighters and others. This summer alone, 900 grassland, woodland and crop fires have equalled the busiest year on record for that fire service, and I extend my thanks to all of them for all that they do. The Prime Minister will be aware that rural funding is always an issue and that the delivery of rural services is always a challenge. Will he arrange for the relevant Minister at the Home Office to meet me and senior officials in that fire service to discuss the needs of our rural area to ensure that my constituents and those across the counties of Dorset and Wiltshire are kept as safe as they possibly can be?

    Hansard source
16. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Qatar: Israeli Strike

    The events that took place earlier this week in Jerusalem, and yesterday, prove that the two extremes in this conflict have no interest in peace. Hamas benefits from the violence, and the right wing of the Israeli Government also profits as it seeks to expand Israel’s territory and subject the Palestinian people. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and amplify the points that he made. Following yesterday’s events, Trump and the American Administration appear to be as annoyed with Israel as the rest of the world are, so is it now time to call Israel’s bluff through the United Nations? Is it not time to seek the engagement of blue helmets or some similar force, to enable us to say, “We, as an international community, have people on the ground. Don’t you dare fire into that area. Let us now trigger peace talks.” Without that catalyst, those two extremes will just continue, along with the performative merry-go-round of “Here we go again”, condemnation, and another statement or urgent question. I fear that in three or four years’ time, there will be rubble in Gaza, the Israeli Government will be even more of a rogue Government, and we will be no further forward.

    Hansard source
17. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Engagements

    Today is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day. Given that the Prime Minister has been so keen on resets in recent weeks, will he reset his relationship with our farmers and reverse the family farm tax?

    Hansard source
18. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

    The Minister agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that industrial collaboration between the UK and Poland is an important part of our relationship. A key part of that is primarily focused on ground-based air defence, and these events surely underline why that is critical to us and our allies. Will he tell us what progress there has been on the joint UK-Poland future common missile programme to create longer-range ground-based air defence for both nations?

    Hansard source
19. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Keighley Picture House

    I rise to present a petition to save Keighley Picture House from closure. When Bradford council announced its intention to sell the cinema building, there was deep concern that the Picture House cinema—a key landmark, open since 1913—would close with it, as it was advertised for a redevelopment opportunity. Residents of Keighley deeply value their cultural heritage. This petition, which I launched to make clear to Bradford council people’s deep feeling that selling the building was not an option, has received 5,421 signatures. Losing the Picture House would be another blow to our high street—one that Keighley simply cannot afford. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley Declares that Keighley Picture House has been part of the town’s heritage since 1913 and must be saved from redevelopment by Bradford Council. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work constructively with Bradford Council and Keighley Town Council to guarantee the future of Keighley Picture House as a cinema and cultural venue for generations to come. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003111]

    Hansard source
20. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Surrey county councillor. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing today’s debate. For all the reasons that he so ably laid out, it is now well overdue that we honestly assess the impact of the Equality Act on people in the workplace and wider society and consider whether there is need for change. It is best practice to always reassess and measure outcomes, rather than assuming that something is working as intended. I wish to focus on the public sector equality duty in the Act and on its broader impact on our public institutions. It was undoubtedly a well-meaning clause. However, as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The public sector equality duty in section 149 imposes a legal burden on public bodies to “have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity…and…foster good relations” between people with different protected characteristics. That all sounds rather wonderful, but the reality is that it has become a powerful, often unaccountable force that we see distorting public priorities and fuelling ideological dogma. We see local councils that are more concerned with ensuring that residents are anti-racist than with ensuring that bus services to schools and colleges are adequate. We see them painting rainbows on our roads rather than fixing them, and speaking warm words about the importance of accessibility for disabled people while failing to cut hedges back or adjust bus stops. We all undoubtedly support the ambition that everyone—no matter their protected, or indeed unprotected, characteristics—be given the same opportunities, be treated fairly and have the chance to thrive and prosper through hard work and talent. However, looking at the impact that the public sector duty has had, I believe that it was a mistake to think that that was the answer. If anything, it has highlighted difference, undermined meritocracy and, in some cases, pitted groups against each other. It is now often helpful to someone’s career or studies to be oppressed in some shape or form, leading to the absurd situation in which some of the most talented people are blocked. That does no one any favours, and certainly not our country. EDI, or DEI as some people call it, has become a lucrative industry. Every public body, from local district councils and hospitals to police forces and schools, is now required to evidence, audit, review and revise policies in the light of how they impact protected groups, regardless of the outcomes that those policies deliver. A 2022 Policy Exchange report found that major public institutions are spending tens of millions of pounds annually on equality, diversity and inclusion roles, as well as training and compliance measures, all to ensure that they tick the right boxes against the public sector equality duty. The issue is not just the cost. What makes the public sector equality duty potentially damaging is the way in which it enables particular ideologies to seep into institutions and spaces that ought to be wholly neutral on such issues. Because the duty is so broadly framed, and because it requires anticipatory rather than reactive compliance, it has given rise to a culture of pre-emptive overreach. Public bodies feel compelled to insert themselves into questions of speech, behaviour and belief that ought to lie outside their remit. More and more, we see a move away from facts and evidence towards fashionable beliefs within institutions that should be impartial. We see that in councils demanding that their staff include pronouns in their signatures, in police forces being trained to detect unconscious bias, and even in the Welsh Government, where they have pledged to make the country anti-racist. There is nothing neutral or impartial about such choices. They reflect specific world views, and by embedding them in policy and practice, the public sector equality duty is demanding adherence to such ideas as a precondition for working in the public sector or using its services. That cannot be right. It is little wonder that public confidence has been eroded. More in Common’s “Shattered Britain” report tells of swathes of the public who now view public institutions with mistrust, partly because within such institutions a narrow set of values now dominates, and any dissent is smacked down as bigotry or even dismissed as far-right. Like all Members present, no doubt, I have heard accounts from my constituents of what that looks like in practice. I have heard from people who feel baffled and confused by all the focus on diversity, unconscious bias and pronouns, rather than on things that actually affect their day-to-day life in a meaningful way, such as fly-tipping and potholes. My central point is that the public sector equality duty does not just waste taxpayer money; it actively distorts how services are delivered and allows ideology to permeate them. We have seen NHS trusts wasting fortunes on a parade of diversity-focused roles. In the case of NHS Fife, the bureaucratic machinery was brought to bear against a nurse for objecting to a biological man entering her changing room. Meanwhile, West Yorkshire police felt that it would be a valid use of £4.5 million to send their entire workforce away to be lectured for two days on the slave trade. We can only wonder if that time would have been better spent trying to solve some crimes. I am of the view that we should reconsider whether the public sector equality duty is fit for purpose, and whether a return to a model under which equality means equal treatment for all would have better outcomes.

    Hansard source
21. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

    I think the hon. Member and I will just have to disagree, because I do not believe that legislation is the solution to these things. What is much more powerful is societal attitudes and norms, and education. That is how we get the change that we want. That is also how to ensure that the spirit of the ambition is met. As soon as we try to legislate, there will be loopholes and grey areas where it is not quite clear what something means. We have got ourselves mixed up in a whole host of issues and trouble as a result of trying to define something that is common sense. All of us in this Chamber undoubtedly share the same ambition. We want everyone to be treated fairly; we just disagree on the way to do it. I do not think that it is possible to prescribe in legislation how people should act decently. There will always be some loophole or difference in interpretation that means that the law can be misused. I believe that it is absolutely right to move away from thinking that legislation is the silver bullet to all our ills. We should actually put faith in the behaviour of the people of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford says, we dealt with these things before and we have the mechanisms to do this. Most people in this country are well-intended and trying to do the right thing. Let us have some faith in this country and not just tie ourselves up in knots. Let us get back to delivering for our constituents and residents. They do not want us tying ourselves up in knots, effectively looking for social injustice the whole time rather than cracking on and sorting out our NHS so that everyone gets the treatment they need, and ensuring that our schools are giving the best education for our children. Let us get back to the priorities of the British people and stop wasting our time with all this stuff. Right: back to my speech. I think I have summed it up in my response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), so I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. It has been a good use of our time to debate how effective the Equality Act and its various provisions have been. I hope that we will continue this important conversation.

    Hansard source
22. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the Minister on maintaining his role during what some have described as the purge of the Home Office. It is therefore appropriate to thank him for his remarks about the legislation, and pay tribute to his staying power. Turning to the draft regulations, the periodic updating of codes of practice is a regular occurrence for Governments. With the codes last altered in 2023, it has been deemed necessary to provide further clarification. The regulations we are debating today appear to present proportionate clarification to the existing system, while maintaining the powers necessary to question individuals. As the Government have stated in their documentation, the changes should not alter the original intention of the legislation. Furthermore, steps appear to have been taken to ensure that the powers within the Acts remain usable under the new guidance. The response of the independent Office for Police Conduct illustrates the broad agreement that these powers will continue to be used appropriately by the authorities. On the broader point, measures that ensure transparency and improve communication—for example, ensuring clear notification—should be welcomed, provided the powers remain effective. The steps on examinations appear proportionate. However, they will also make the process more effective and quicker. I recognise that the clarification relating to public order policing is somewhat limited. However, I note that the amendment to the code explains that the examples of changes provided are illustrative, not exhaustive. Given some of the recent debate around the relationship between protests and terrorism, I ask whether the Minister has had conversations with the police to ensure that those using this power have a sufficient understanding of the changes, so that officers can accurately identify those who may be involved in the instigation of acts of terrorism, and avoid incidents such as those in the past that have prompted these changes. I am aware that many of the changes are in line with recommendations from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. On that point, I would like to ask the Minister about the changes to the code of practice concerning schedule 7 and Northern Ireland. Given the ongoing challenges with terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Minister’s code of practice set out the continuing use of the 2000 Act. However, that appears to contradict the recommendation of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who proposed abolishing the power under schedule 7 on the basis of its lack of use. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could outline how he envisages the power being used in future, and whether it still has a role to play in stopping the heinous acts of terrorism that we unfortunately continue to see in Northern Ireland. Stopping terrorism is a responsibility of the Government, which Members across the House take with the utmost seriousness. It is therefore right that we support measures that improve the system.

    Hansard source
23. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Qatar: Israeli Strike

    This is clearly a very, very serious moment for the middle east. No one in this House wants to see a spiral of escalation of hostilities. Both Israel and Qatar are important and valued strategic partners for the United Kingdom, and we value and recognise the extensive efforts by the Qatari Government to secure the release of hostages and work towards securing a ceasefire. It is tragic, as the Minister has highlighted, that security guards were killed in this attack, but there are some fundamental issues here, and many of these points have been made from the Dispatch Box time and again. This is a moment for our country. Britain must contribute and provide the British expertise necessary for conflict resolution and support strong regional initiatives, including backing Qatar and the Qataris on releasing the hostages and achieving a ceasefire. On top of that, of course, we must work with our allies in the United States, and next week’s visit from President Trump is a crucial moment. There can be no more equivocation, as this issue continues to afflict the region day after day after day. It is also true that we certainly should not be mourning the Hamas leaders who have been killed. Hamas have held innocent hostages in terrorist captivity for over 700 days, and they were responsible for the atrocities of 7 October 2023, which also killed British nationals. In recent months, Israel has been removing terrorist actors across the middle east—the leadership of the Houthis, Hezbollah and malign individuals in the Iranian regime too. That means that our Government must play a strong role and stand firm on degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities and that malign influence in the region. In recognising the sensitivity of the situation in the Gulf, will the Minister confirm what actions he and the FCDO will take to stabilise efforts to secure the release of the hostages; what proactive steps are being taken to degrade Hamas and their capabilities; and, of course, how we can work constructively with our partners in the region to drive the right outcomes, including achieving a ceasefire?

    Hansard source
24. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

    Mr Naish, you seem to have bounced around every seat on the Back Bench. Are you finally comfortable and ready to ask a question?

    Hansard source
25. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point of order and for giving advance notice of it. Ministerial correspondence is not a matter for the Chair. However, all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government—I see Members on the Treasury Bench nodding in agreement and am sure that they will ensure that the appropriate Minister is made aware and responds to the hon. Member’s request as soon as possible.

    Hansard source
26. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I also thank him for correcting the record in so much detail at the earliest opportunity.

    Hansard source
27. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 1—£2 bus fare scheme— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2. (2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into a scheme established under this section. (3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 23 of this Act. (4) The Secretary of State must review the terms of any scheme established under this section every three years. (5) The Secretary of State may amend a scheme established under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument. (6) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to cap bus fares at £2. New clause 2—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes— “The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes. New clause 3—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage— “(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services within their areas. (2) Any review must assess— (a) how fare levels influence ridership trends; (b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures; (c) changes which may improve accessibility and increase patronage; and (d) the potential benefits to bus patronage of the simplification of ticketing systems. (3) A local transport authority must complete its first review under this section no later than six months after the passing of this Act, with subsequent reviews conducted at least once every three years. (4) The results of any review conducted under this section must be made publicly available. (5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, community representatives, and any other stakeholders the authority deems relevant.” This new clause would require local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services in their areas. New clause 4—Duty to promote bus services— “(1) It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction. (2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider— (a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options; (b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives; (c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage; (d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility; (e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; (f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion; (g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services. (3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including— (a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable; (b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage; (c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and (d) plans for future improvements in bus services. (4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.” This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas. New clause 5—Reporting on accessibility of bus services— “(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries. (2) In this section, "relevant authority" includes— (a) a county council in England; (b) a district council in England; (c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009; (d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023; (e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England. (3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory. (4) The report must also include— (a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings; (b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation; (c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups; (d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required; (e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers. (5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed. (6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.” This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory. New clause 6—Public sector equality duty— “In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading “Transport” insert— “A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation.”” This new clause would place bus companies under the public sector equality duty. New clause 7—Young person’s discount scheme— “(1) The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a discount on bus fares for people aged between 19 and 25. (2) Any scheme under this section must provide for a discount amounting to a third of the price of relevant fares.” This new clause would introduce a discount scheme for young people, providing 19-to 25-year-olds a third off bus fares. New clause 8—Review of impact of VAT changes on demand-responsive bus services— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of the VAT system on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services. (2) A report under subsection (1) must consider— (a) whether the current system of granting a zero-rated VAT exemption to public service vehicles with 10 seats or more while subjecting smaller vehicles to VAT on fares— (i) influences the choice of vehicles used for demand-responsive bus services; (ii) has any other impact on the provision or operation of demand-responsive bus services, (b) the potential for VAT exemptions to facilitate the rollout of demand-responsive bus services. (3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives from the intelligent mobility sector, local authorities, bus operators, and public transport users. (4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to support the growth of demand-responsive bus services across the UK.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of current VAT rules on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services. New clause 9—Free bus travel for unpaid carers— “The Secretary of State must work with local transport authorities and operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which— (a) provides free bus travel to those in receipt of carers allowance, and (b) supports local transport authorities to expand provision for other unpaid carers.” This new clause would require the Government to introduce a scheme to provide free bus travel for those in receipt of carers allowance and improve bus provision for carers. New clause 10—Review of capacity of Bus Centre of Excellence— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing— (a) the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities in establishing and operating franchising schemes under the Act, and (b) additional resourcing required for this purpose. (2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to— (a) an assessment of the current operational capacity, staffing levels, and expertise of the Bus Centre of Excellence; (b) an evaluation of the effectiveness and reach of current training programmes and support services provided to local transport authorities on franchising, and their suitability for authorities able to franchise services under the Act; (c) an identification of specific additional financial, human, and technological resources required by the Bus Centre of Excellence to adequately deliver comprehensive training and ongoing support for all local transport authorities considering or implementing franchising schemes under the Act; (d) an analysis of the impact of current capacity limitations on the pace and quality of franchising scheme development and implementation by local transport authorities. (3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, representatives from the Bus Centre of Excellence, and bus operators. (4) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any steps to ensure the Bus Centre of Excellence is adequately resourced for its role in supporting bus franchising.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities for bus franchising. New clause 11—Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015. (2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to— (a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions; (b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas; (c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities; (d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions; (e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility. (3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including— (a) local councils and local transport authorities; (b) bus service operators; (c) public transport user groups and community representatives; (d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and (e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies. (4) Any report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015. New clause 12—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme. (2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in— (a) rural areas; (b) coastal communities; and (c) suburban areas.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes. New clause 13—Power to convene for bus service coordination— “(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England may convene other agencies and public bodies that have transport functions and obligations for the purposes of coordinating bus services within, to, or from its area. (2) The power under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, the power to convene NHS trusts and other health bodies for the purposes of coordinating bus services with non-emergency patient transport services. (3) The purpose of convening under this section is to promote the efficient, integrated and accessible provision of bus services across different sectors and to ensure that bus services meet the needs of the communities they serve. (4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the coordination of transport services with other public services. (5) Local transport authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the exercise of functions under this section. (6) The Secretary of State must publish— (a) any guidance issued under subsection (5), and (b) any variation or revocation of that guidance.” This new clause would empower local authorities to convene other agencies for the purposes of coordinating bus services. New clause 14—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the impact and feasibility of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes. (2) A review under this section must include, but may not be limited to— (a) an assessment of current usage patterns of concessionary travel passes and the impact of existing time restrictions on passengers, particularly persons with disabilities and older people; (b) an evaluation of the potential social, economic, and environmental benefits of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, including impacts on access to essential health services, goods and services, and social activities; (c) an analysis of the financial implications for local transport authorities and bus operators of removing time restrictions, and potential funding mechanisms to mitigate any adverse impacts; (d) investigation of passenger volume at different times and regional variation; (e) recommendations for any legislative or policy changes required to implement the removal of time restrictions. (3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) local transport authorities; (b) bus operators; (c) bus users and organisations representing people with disabilities and elderly people; and (d) any other persons or organisations whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult. (4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the completion of the review.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes (such as “Freedom Passes”). New clause 15—Rail bus links scheme: proposals— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing local rail connections. (2) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance accompanying the scheme on— (a) the departmental funding which will be available for the purposes of the scheme; (b) the qualifying criteria which will be used to assess eligibility for the scheme, which may include, but may not be limited to, insufficiencies in funding, vehicles and equipment, workforce or expertise.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing connections. New clause 16—Bus pass scheme for persons in post-16 education— “The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a half-price discount on bus fares for persons in post-16 education.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a discount on bus fares for people in post-16 education. New clause 17—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of— (a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance; (b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards. (3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe. New clause 21—Fare cap for school-only services— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, extend the £3 bus fare cap to school-only services. (2) Where the £3 bus fare cap is subsequently increased or decreased, an equivalent change applies to the cap for school-only services.” New clause 22—Minimum bus service standards: review— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England. (2) The review conducted under this section must— (a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities, (b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.” New clause 23—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders— “(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders. (2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law. New clause 24—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops— “(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England. (2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England. New clause 25—Franchising authorities: joint forum— “(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions. (2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.” This new clause would require all local transport authorities that introduce franchising schemes to establish a joint forum with trade unions and operators. New clause 26—Consultation of trade unions— “In section 138F of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (6)(f) insert— (fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,”. This new clause of the Transport Act 2000 would require local transport authorities to consult trade unions when proposing to make an enhanced partnership plan. New clause 27—National Bus Forum— “(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Bus Forum. (2) The purpose of the National Bus Forum is to address issues affecting the provision of local bus services at industry-wide and strategic level. (3) The membership of the National Bus Forum must include— (a) HM Government, (b) trades unions, (c) bus service operators, (d) local authorities in England, and (e) any other body or persons as the Secretary of State deems necessary.” This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Bus Forum whose membership includes unions, operators and local government, in line with a recommendation by the Transport Select Committee. New clause 28—Review into floating bus stops— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England. (2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a vote on the proposals.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the safety of existing floating bus stops and publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a vote debate on the proposals. New clause 29—Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England. (2) The review under subsection (1) must assess— (a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act, (b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services, (c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and (d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England. (3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.” New clause 30—Consultation: bus funding formula— “(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation. (2) The report published under subsection (1) must include— (a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula, (b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and (c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted. New clause 31—Poor performance of franchising— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to take over the management of a service where, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there has been a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract. (2) A statement under subsection (1) must set out— (a) the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service, and how these circumstances are to be identified; (b) the actions which the Secretary of State may take to redress the failure to deliver the service; (c) the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement of when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management. New clause 32—Requirement to consult and notify before service review discussions— “(1) A local transport authority or bus operator must not enter into formal discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service unless— (a) notice has been given to parish and district councils affected by the change or withdrawal, and (b) a period of public consultation has been concluded. (2) The authority or operator must publish, before giving notice and holding the public consultation— (a) the date on which formal discussions regarding changes to the service are proposed to commence, (b) a summary of the reasons why alteration or withdrawal is being considered, and (c) information on participating in the public consultation or submitting representations on or alternatives to the proposed changes.” This new clause would require local transport authorities and bus operators to notify relevant councils and initiate a public consultation before entering into discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service. New clause 33—Duty to promote and increase bus usage— “(1) A local transport authority must include in its local transport plan a strategy to promote and increase bus usage in its area. (2) The strategy must— (a) set out specific, measurable objectives for increasing bus ridership, (b) establish 2015 as the year against which progress will be assessed, (c) include measures to encourage modal shift from private vehicles to buses, and (d) explain how the authority will monitor and report progress.” This new clause would require local transport authorities to include in their transport strategies a specific plan for increasing bus usage, including measurable objectives and assessment against 2015 as a baseline year. New clause 34—Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services— “(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility, and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain. (2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.” This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality, and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain. New clause 35—Enhanced partnerships: stakeholder forum— “(1) Every local transport authority in England that has formed an enhanced partnership must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a stakeholder forum to monitor the delivery of the enhanced partnership. (2) The forum established by subsection (1) must meet at least once every three months, and its membership must include trade unions representing bus workers, passenger groups, and local businesses. (3) Where two or more local transport authorities are working together in an enhanced partnership scheme, a single forum should be established to meet the duty set out in subsection (1).” New clause 36—Concessionary travel for 16 and 17 year olds in education or training— “(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows. (2) After section 150 insert— ‘150A Free bus travel for 16–17 year olds in education or training (1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons aged 16 or 17 and who are— (a) in full-time education, or (b) undertaking training on a course or programme that has been approved by Skills England. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’” New clause 37—Secretary of State duty to ensure services for certain towns— “(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every town in England is served by bus services which— (a) operate seven days a week, and (b) serve specified locations. (2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the relevant local authorities for the areas to which the duty applies, (b) the integrated care boards for the areas to which the duty applies, and (c) residents, or organisations representing residents, of the areas to which the duty applies for the purposes of determining the specified locations which must be served.” New clause 39—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Wales)— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for— (a) bus service operators, and (b) bus passengers, on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Wales. (2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Wales to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England. (3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Welsh Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.” New clause 40—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Scotland)— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for— (a) bus service operators, and (b) bus passengers, on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Scotland. (2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Scotland to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England. (3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.” New clause 41—Driver access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)— In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert— ‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System for drivers of PSVs (1) Local transport authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS). (2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.’” This new clause would ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System). New clause 42—Bus safety performance data— “In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert— ‘144F Bus safety performance data (1) Local transport authorities must— (a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and (b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy. (2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’” This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor. New clause 43—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service— “In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A). (1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’” This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers. New clause 44—Concessionary travel for people under the age of 22— “In the Transport Act 2000, after section 150 insert— ‘150A Free bus travel for people under the age of 22 (1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons under the age of 22. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’” This new clause would require transport authorities to provide free bus travel for children and young people who are under the age of 22. New clause 45—Minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services— “(1) It is a requirement for local transport authorities to provide a minimum level of bus services for individuals reliant on off-peak and nighttime transport to local and regional employment centres. (2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, commission each local authority in England to undertake an audit of the minimum off-peak and nighttime bus services required by those working in key employment centres in their respective areas. (3) For the purposes of the audit specified in subsection (2), local authorities must consult with bus companies, trade unions, employers and members of the public. (4) Where more than one local authority is responsible for the delivery, or funding, of local transport services in their respective localities, the audit specified in subsection (2) must be undertaken as a partnership between the relevant local authorities. (5) Within three months of being commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake the audit under subsection (2), each local authority, or partnership of local authorities, must publish— (a) the findings of its audit, and (b) proposals for delivering the off-peak and nighttime services identified by the audit as necessary to fulfil the requirements laid out by subsection (1). (6) For the purposes of subsection (2) a key employment centre means a city, a town with either a population above 50,000 people or whose economic output represents more than 10 per cent of that local authority’s economic activity.” This new clause establishes a legal duty for local authorities to ensure a minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services to local employment centres, require the Government to commission local authorities to undertake an audit of local service requirements and produce proposals on providing a minimum level of services. New clause 46—Duty to consider funding for service enhancements— “(1) A local transport authority in England must consider whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services. (2) In exercising the duty under this section, the authority must have regard to— (a) the potential for increased ridership; and (b) the overall sustainability of the network. (3) Service improvements under subsection (1) may include— (a) increasing the frequency of existing services; (b) extending operating hours; (c) improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; or (d) extending the routes of local services.” This new clause would place a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate public funds to improve existing bus services where this would grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network, and sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. New clause 47—English National Concessionary Travel Scheme: Companion Passes— “The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”. New clause 48—Free travel for uniformed police officers— “(1) The holder of a PSV operator’s licence must permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local service which has one or more stopping places in England. (2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, make a statement on options for compensating operators of local services for any costs that arise or revenues lost fulfilling the duty under subsection (1). (3) In this section— ‘local service’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985; ‘police officer’ means a member of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales or a special constable appointed for such an area; and ‘PSV operator’s licence’ has the same meaning as in section 82 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.” This new clause would permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local bus service in England. Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4). Government amendment 31. Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert— “(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4). (A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’; (A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert ‘, and (c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme. (2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include— (a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and (b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’ (A4) After subsection (6) insert— ‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’” This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes. Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 6, line 33, at end insert— “(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000. (12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead. Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 6, line 38, after “2010)” insert “, or with special educational needs (within the meaning given by section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014),”. This amendment would require local transport authorities wishing to proceed with a franchising scheme to consult bus users with special educational needs, or groups that represent them. Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, after “fit;” insert— “(db) relevant train operating companies and other public transport operators, for the purposes of ensuring coordination during peak travel times and tourist seasons;”. This amendment would add other transport operators to the list of parties who are to be consulted when making or varying a franchising scheme. Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, leave out line 10. This amendment would retain the requirement for consultation when varying a franchising scheme. Government amendments 32 and 33. Amendment 66, in clause 14, page 10, line 5, after “services” insert “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”. Amendment 5, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert— “(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must— (a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities; (b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities; (c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models. (4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting— (a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area; (b) users of local services; (c) NHS providers; (d) education providers; (e) local employers and businesses; (f) people with disabilities; and (g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.” This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services. Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 10, line 20, leave out “and” and insert— “(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, and (v) schools and colleges.” This amendment would ensure that primary health care services, schools and colleges are considered as “socially necessary local services”. Amendment 60, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, after “activities.” insert— “(16) A service which was abolished in the 15 years before the day on which the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 was passed may also be considered a socially necessary local service for the purposes of this section and section 138C.” This amendment would mean that previous bus services could be considered as socially necessary local services. Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert— “(5) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where— (a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and (b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service. (6) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme. (7) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so. Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert— “(5) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable. (6) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to— (a) the scope and nature of the service; (b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps; (c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs; (d) a timeline for the operation of the service; (e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall. (7) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (6)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered. (8) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (7). (9) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).” This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established. Amendment 8, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert— “(5) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out— (a) the number of socially necessary local services in England; (b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled; (c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services; (d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation; (e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and (f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership. (6) For the purposes of subsection (5), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000. (7) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues. Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert— “(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.” Amendment 27, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, after “comfort” insert “;— (d) identify what, if any, provision is made to facilitate access to child and adolescent mental health services and other community-based mental health services not attached to hospitals.” This amendment would require bus network accessibility plans to consider access to CAMHS and other community-based mental health services. Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 17, line 3, at end insert— “(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly. (4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024. (4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert— ‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’” This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act. Amendment 28, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert— “(6A) Guidance issued under subsection (6) must require local transport authorities, when making grants to operators, to take into account factors relevant to the provision of services in their area, including but not limited to— (a) the rurality of the area or areas to be served; (b) the age profile of persons in the area or areas to be served; (c) measures of deprivation in the area or areas to be served; and (d) the percentage of persons with disabilities in the area or areas to be served.” This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the making of grants to bus operators to require authorities to consider factors relating to the demographics of the area or areas to be served when making grants. Amendment 29, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert— “(6A) The guidance must include information on when and how local transport authorities and mayors may give grants for the purposes of replacing or otherwise providing for bus services in rural or isolated areas when a socially necessary local bus service has been withdrawn, including details of what Government support or funding will be available for such purposes.” Amendment 61, in clause 23, page 19, line 3, after “environment,” insert— “(ba) about the operation of concessionary fare schemes by the local transport authority,”. This amendment would include information about concessionary fare schemes in the guidance about the making of grants by local transport authorities issued by the Secretary of State. Amendment 9, in clause 23, page 19, line 13, 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. Government amendments 35 to 38. Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”. This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws. Amendment 59, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, at end insert— “(2A) A local transport authority whose area is in England, or two or more authorities acting jointly, shall have the power to make byelaws prohibiting any person on the bus network from, to the annoyance of any person— (a) singing; or (b) using any instrument, article or equipment for the production or reproduction of sound. (2B) Local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, make byelaws in accordance with the powers provided in subsection (2A). (2C) Bus service operators, including those delivering services as part of a franchising, concessionary, or other scheme, must work with local police forces to ensure the effective enforcement of byelaws made under subsections (2A) and (2B).” Government amendments 39 to 42. Amendment 18, in clause 30, page 32, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places. Amendment 64, in clause 30, page 32, line 22, at end insert— “(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,”. This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section to cover the provision of toilet facilities. Amendment 11, in clause 30, page 32, line 29, at end insert— “(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”. This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place. Amendment 12, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take reasonable steps to implement”. This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented. Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert— “(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1). (6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.” This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Amendment 19, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert— “(6A) The bodies listed in subsection (6) may depart from such guidance only if— (a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and (b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure. (6B) The bodies listed in subsection (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.” This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published. Amendment 20, in clause 31, page 34, line 32, at end insert— “(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.” This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 34, line 39, at end insert— “(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders. (1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.” This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. Amendment 14, in clause 34, page 37, line 18, after “2003” insert— “(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).” This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse. Government amendment 43. Amendment 15, in clause 34, page 38, line 16, at end insert— “144H 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 regularly undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility. Government amendments 44 and 45. Amendment 62, in clause 37, page 41, line 26, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 27 and insert “1 January 2027,”. This amendment, along with Amendment 63, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered after 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c). Amendment 1, in clause 37, page 41, line 33, at end insert— “(3A) A vehicle does not fall within subsection (3) if it previously had the tailpipe emissions listed in subsection (3)(c) but has since been converted to a zero-emission drive train.” This amendment would qualify buses that have repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies to be considered as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of this Bill. Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 42, leave out lines 1 and 2. Amendment 30, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, leave out “2030” and insert— “2028 in relation to vehicles to be used in areas containing all or part of a National Landscape, or 1 January 2030 in relation to all other vehicles, and the Secretary of State may by regulations provide any— (a) financial remuneration, or (b) specific guidance (or both) that they deem necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the deadlines specified in this section.” Amendment 16, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert— “(6) The provisions of this section apply to any mayoral combined authority in England, where “mayoral combined authority” means an authority established under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.” This amendment would clarify that the provisions of section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities. Amendment 17, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert— “(6) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing how adequately and easily local transport authorities have been, or will be able to, access funding to replace polluting buses with zero-emission buses for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section. (7) A report under subsection (6) must include, but may not be limited to— (a) an assessment of current funding mechanisms available for the transition to zero-emission buses, including grants, loans, and other financial incentives; (b) an evaluation of the sufficiency of available funding to meet the projected costs and timelines for local transport authorities to achieve a zero-emission fleet by 2035; (c) a review of the barriers and challenges faced by local transport authorities in accessing existing funding, including administrative burdens, eligibility criteria, and capacity constraints; (d) recommendations for improving the adequacy and accessibility of funding to accelerate the replacement of polluting buses with zero-emission buses. (8) In conducting the review under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, bus operators and manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles. (9) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to ensure sufficient and accessible funding for the transition to zero-emission buses.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the adequacy and accessibility of funding available to local transport authorities to transition their bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The report must include an evaluation of current funding mechanisms, barriers to access, and recommendations for improvements. Government amendments 46 to 50, 34 and 51 to 57.

    Hansard source
28. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    Order. Please be seated. I should have to say “Order” only once. You just said the word “you”, so let’s restart that intervention, which should be short.

    Hansard source
29. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    Order. Will Members please be seated? Before I go to speeches from Back Benchers, I want to be clear about where we are and what we are debating, because there seems to be some confusion among colleagues. We are debating the remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, and we are on Report. Speeches should relate to the amendments listed on the amendment paper, not the Bill as a whole, so please check the amendment paper; I say that for Back Benchers who hope to contribute. I know that the next Member knows exactly what they are doing. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

    Hansard source
30. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    Order. I talked so highly of the Select Committee Chair and said that she does everything right, but I think she mentioned a colleague by their name, not by their constituency. Can we try and stick to the etiquette?

    Hansard source
31. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about the Duchess of Kent; she lived an exemplary life of public service, and will be very much missed. I agree with the Prime Minister, as all of us in this House should: we stand shoulder to shoulder with Poland and all our NATO allies against Putin’s aggression. A NATO country has just had to defend itself against Russian drones. Now more than ever, we need our ambassador to Washington fully focused on this issue, and liaising closely with America. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in Peter Mandelson?

    Hansard source
32. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    This is interesting. The Prime Minister says that the ambassador has expressed full regret, but the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein have called for Lord Mandelson to be sacked. Just so the House is aware, in 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of child prostitution and sex trafficking, which took place between 2002 and 2005. That is the precise period when Lord Mandelson called Jeffrey Epstein his “best pal”. Was the Prime Minister aware of this intimate relationship when he appointed Lord Mandelson to be our ambassador in Washington?

    Hansard source
33. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I asked the Prime Minister if he knew about the relationship. The fact that he did not answer indicates that he probably did know. I was not asking a question about process; I was asking a question about his judgment. The Daily Telegraph reported today that while Lord Mandelson was Business Secretary, he brokered a deal with Jeffrey Epstein, and that this occurred after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences. Given this new information, does the Prime Minister really think that it is tenable for our ambassador to remain in post?

    Hansard source
34. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I think it is embarrassing that the Prime Minister is still saying that he has confidence in a man who was brokering deals with convicted child sex offenders while sitting in Government. That is a disgrace. This Government have repeatedly refused to declare Lord Mandelson’s full interests. As part of the appointment, there will have been extensive Government vetting, covering details and timings of Peter Mandelson’s dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. Will the Prime Minister publish all the documents, including those about Lord Mandelson’s interests?

    Hansard source
35. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister cannot answer any questions. That is not the behaviour of someone who has full confidence. The ambassador should be in the White House, talking about how we respond to an incursion into NATO airspace; instead, he is giving interviews about himself to The Sun. This is a man who has already had to be removed from Cabinet twice, and now we learn that he was brokering billion-pound deals with Jeffrey Epstein while he was Business Secretary. I did not get a proper answer. The Prime Minister is talking about process, but this is not about process; this is about judgment. Just last week, I told him that he should sack his Deputy Prime Minister. Labour Members were all cheering and congratulating themselves, but she was gone two days later. His phase 2 is broken, and he has a wholly new Front-Bench team. I will ask him again: will he ensure that these documents are published? Will he actually instruct Peter Mandelson to publish all his correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein?

    Hansard source
36. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    A load of waffle and whataboutery. All Labour Members are interested in right now is their pointless deputy leadership election, while the country out there is suffering from an economic crisis. The Prime Minister has an ambassador mired in scandal, not focusing on NATO. He lost his Deputy Prime Minister just last week for evading taxes. He has a new Home Secretary and a new Foreign Secretary who are just learning the ropes and not able to help with this issue. We have strikes crippling our capital city and damaging our economy. He could use the minimum service legislation that the Conservatives introduced to make the lives of the people out there better, but he will not, because he does not have the backbone to face down the unions. The unions are running the Government; all the deputy leadership candidates are chasing after them. With this Government, it is more strikes, more scandal and more chaos. Is not the link between all this his bad decisions, his bad judgment and his total weakness?

    Hansard source
37. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    The Minister should see how committed we were in office, because I gave more than a billion pounds to Manchester for that scheme and for setting it up. Indeed, the National Audit Office recently praised our £2 bus fare scheme, saying it “achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage.”

    Hansard source
38. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    What bus passengers really want is reliable, affordable and cheap bus travel on a growing network. That is what was guaranteed under the last Conservative Government’s £2 fare cap. It was a commitment in our manifesto, and one that worked. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may jeer, but the National Audit Office said—they might want to listen—in praise of the DFT that the “DFT’s £2 bus fare cap achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage”. That is a policy abandoned by Labour but stood up for by the Conservatives. This Labour Government scrapped it, and they keep on pretending that a 50% increase to £3 is actually beneficial to taxpayers. There is zero indication of how the Bill will improve passenger numbers or ensure rural coverage. Indeed, the Bill creates an even more fragmented and inconsistent service across the country. Labour has scrapped a national fare cap and failed to replace it properly, and now it expects local councils to pick up the bill without any extra funding. The last Conservative Government delivered real investment for passengers, backing bus services and improvements in the west midlands, and Greater Manchester with £1 billion. I was there with Mayor Burnham, and anyone would think it was all down to him. I am sure Ministers are finding dealing with Andy as interesting as I did. We also did so in West Yorkshire, delivering bus service improvement plans, and working with local authorities to get real results. The Bill is the opposite of that. It will drown councils in process, drive up costs and threaten rural connectivity while ignoring what passengers really need. Without significant subsidies, councils will naturally prioritise cities and towns over villages, leaving our rural communities even further behind. Just as we have seen in our courts and our prisons, the Government risk creating yet another two-tier system—this time for buses—where city regions are supported and everyone else is simply forgotten. How else to explain forcing operators towards zero emission bus registration without any plans to help make that transition for them? After hammering rural communities with attacks on family farms, the Government will do exactly the same all over again with reduced services because they are not providing extra funding. To make matters worse, they are undermining the very infrastructure that buses rely on by cutting roads funding in road investment strategy 3 by 13% in real terms and delaying or cancelling critical projects. The Government cannot promise better bus services while cutting the very roads that they and all other users depend on. In tearing up the safeguards around the Secretary of State’s oversight, Ministers are giving councils free rein to set up municipal bus companies without ministerial sign-off or competitive tendering. Let me be absolutely clear: if those companies fail, the responsibility lies squarely with the Secretary of State, with taxpayers left to pick up the Bill. Moreover, the Bill has completely ignored the shortage of bus and coach drivers across our country. We have called time and again for 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to be allowed to drive buses beyond 50 km a day. Fifteen months ago, the consultation ended. This Government have had 14 months, yet last week, in answer to a written parliamentary question, they said that they are still considering their response to the consultation. It is a straightforward and common-sense change that would help tackle driver shortages, boost businesses and tourism, and get more buses back on our roads. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor have told this House repeatedly that they will pursue growth by any means necessary, yet when an opportunity clearly presents itself, as this has done, they do not seem to want to move at all. In this week of hugely damaging and disruptive strikes in our nation’s capital—we will see further bus strikes across the country next week—the Government are putting ideology ahead of delivery and siding with the unions over passengers, with a Bill that fails bus users, fails rural communities and fails to guarantee value for taxpayers. That is why we on the Conservative Benches will vote against the Bill tonight, and I urge all hon. Members to do the same.

    Hansard source
39. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Urgent Care Centres: Hillingdon

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. He has highlighted the issues in his constituency, and he is lucky enough that Hillingdon hospital is going to be refurbished. Given the delays to the Watford General refurbishment, where spades will not be in the ground until 2032 at the earliest, does he agree that Mount Vernon is even more critical for the surrounding areas with the capacity that it provides?

    Hansard source
40. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    Political choices are made locally and nationally. Labour Members talk about the past 14 years, but we Conservatives won control of Lancashire county council in 2017, and increased the bus budget by 50%. We put on bus routes that the Labour party in Lancashire had made the political decision to cut, just as it chose to put up the price cap from £2 to £3. These are political choices.

    Hansard source