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

1. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

   My hon. Friend is right. In broad terms, the Bill facilitates additional opportunities for local transport authorities, which is a good thing. As I have said, allowing franchising is in fact a Conservative concept. It goes back to the days of Mrs Thatcher, but more recently, the 2017 changes allowed franchising without consent for mayoral combined authorities. In fact, any local transport authority was allowed to apply for franchising operations, but with the safeguard that it required the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport, because of the huge commercial risks associated with franchising for local transport authorities, particularly smaller ones. That was an eminently sensible safeguard that I have spoken about previously, so now we have that risk. Even if the local transport authority is capable of managing that risk, of developing the expertise to design these complex systems in-house, as is anticipated, and of starting a municipal bus company on top of designing the franchise operation, we cannot get away from the conclusion that is expensive. Whichever way it is designed, if it is going to improve services, it will be expensive.

   Hansard source
2. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

   I am grateful for that thoughtful intervention. In principle, the answer is yes, which is why we legislated in 2017 to allow that in principle and why we supported Greater Manchester through the implementation of the Bee Network. That happened under not Labour, but the Conservatives. However, it comes with financial risk. There needs to be clarity on where the costs are and an absolute, laser focus on minimising them, just like in any other business. The hon. Member did not say that the forecast in the Bee Network’s business case, which enabled it to get the go-ahead, was for it to make a profit. I accept that there will be periods where it makes a profit and periods where it makes a loss, but it should break even overall. Over the forecast period, however, the plan was for it to make a profit of £94 million—that was how it was sold. For it to make a planned loss in 2025-26 of £226.3 million and change, given the huge cost overruns that I hinted at in Tuesday’s sitting, is a disaster. It makes me wonder where that has come from. I remember the hon. Member watching with interest on Tuesday as I talked about the more than £17 million overrun on agency bus drivers, because the transport authority had failed to provide enough qualified drivers having misunderstood the nature of the TUPE regulations regarding their transfer from the previous operators to the franchise process. There was also the massive cost overrun on the purchase of bus depots because it was the only buyer in the market. There was an explosion in costs for the purchase orders for new buses, with a surcharge of £40,000 on every bus that Andy Burnham’s Greater Manchester combined authority buys because of the design requirements that he has put in, including bits of leather on the seats—we will not go into the detail of that. If we are not absolutely laser-focused on the costs, that is what happens. The biggest overrun, which perhaps I should have led with, was the increase in wages. There has been an increase in unionised power—which arguably could be a good or bad thing—and an increase in hourly rates for bus drivers to £16 an hour, which is above the market rate. There are not just bus drivers in a bus company; there are all sorts of other roles as well. I should also mention the failure to be efficient with the application of capital. In a private organisation, having bus washers is important, because having clean buses is part of the service and it affects the customer experience. Since the Bee Network has been in place, and the local transport authority purchased the depots, there has been a rather unfortunate occurrence whereby the bus cleaning mechanism—the washers—have been out of action for over a year. The processes and the efficiency within the new structure have to date proved inadequate to get the funding to repair the washers, because that is capex rather than opex. I am assuming that is what the problem is—that it is an unplanned expense, so the authority has to go through the rigmarole of a public sector procurement process. No doubt it will get there in the end, but the consequence is that the bus depot is sending out buses that have not been cleaned for a year. Is that an improvement in service? No, it is not. I say that not to denigrate franchising. Franchising can be done well—it is not a necessary consequence of bus franchising that there are dirty buses—but the evidence that we have at the moment is that even a really sophisticated operator such as Greater Manchester, with a mayoral combined authority and the financial resources, but without the experience of running buses, suffers very significant bumps along the road. That needs to be addressed. If that is happening in a large local transport authority, what is the likelihood of it happening in a small one—for example, in Norfolk county council in my neck of the woods? That is one of our problems with the Bill. Going back to amendment 49, proposed new section 123Q(5B) of the Transport Act 2000 deals with intra-boundary services. I am applying the same logic as I did to amendment 47. Why should local transport authorities have the power to refuse to grant a service permit if they are satisfied that there are benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the area, or to persons living in that area, and that those benefits will outweigh any adverse effect on any existing local service? All the amendment requires is for local authorities to act in the wider interests of consumers—the passengers. The proposed service might have an impact, but if we are satisfied that overall the net benefit is in the positive column and not the negative, why would we not agree to it? Let us think of the passenger—the consumer—rather than the supplier. The amendment would be a particularly important safeguard if the local transport authority was also the owner of a municipal bus company, which was the supplier of the local services contract. There would then be an added layer of opacity in the process, because the contractor and contracted would be the same organisation. A challenger brand could then come and say that it wanted to provide additional services, and it could be assessed to be net beneficial to the economy or the people living in that area, nevertheless the local authority could refuse to grant a permit, even though it is the operator that would be adversely affected—let us imagine how that would look. The temptation, of course, would be to say that the award was refused for wholly improper reasons: a circling of the wagons to protect one’s own. I hope that the whole Committee would agree that that would be an improper reason to deny additional access to the people living in the area, and/or to deny a benefit to the economy, yet there would be a strong temptation. If the authority has built its bus service network, and a little so-and-so comes in and demonstrates that it can go one step better, but that would have a negative impact on the authority’s cosy plans, people in the authority are going to think, “I don’t want to be troubled by this.”

   Hansard source
3. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

   The hon. Member is absolutely right that there is a fundamental difference of philosophy here. She appears to back what I described as the cosy relationship—but let us not use pejorative language; let us call it the mechanism of state supply. She thinks that that is more important than improving the experience of passengers in that location and/or improving the economy, because that is the hurdle that would have to be crossed for the change made by amendment 49 to take effect. I accept, acknowledge and celebrate that difference. As a Conservative, I stand up for the consumer—for the resident—in my constituency, not for the supplier of services, even if it is the state supplier. Those are the people who I represent, those are the services that I am trying to improve, and that is what amendment 49 would do. The amendment would require the local authority to act in the wider interest of consumers, not that of its own suppliers. That is particularly important where the authority has skin in the game. If I am unsuccessful—as I have a sneaking suspicion that I might be—in persuading the majority of the members of the Committee to support amendment 49, we should at least expect transparency in any decision-making process where the decision taker, the local authority, is taking a decision that affects a municipal bus company owned by that authority. At the very least—as we will discuss in relation to other amendments—we should insist on absolute transparency in those commercial relationships, so that the disinfectant of sunlight can shine on the exact rationale for a commercial opportunity being refused. Amendment 50, my final one in this group, goes one stage further. It would get rid of the complex “balance of benefits” argument entirely and replace it with a simple assessment of the application: will the proposed service have benefits for the economy of the area or persons living in the area? If yes, the licence would be granted. The impact would be similar to that of amendment 48: it would simplify the process and give agency to the applicant. If they could prove that their service would deliver benefit, the local authority would grant a service permit.

   Hansard source
4. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

   I fear that the hon. Member and I may agree more than he perhaps thinks. As I said, I accept that rural routes are unlikely to be profitable, but that does not mean they should not be provided. That is why I went on to talk about demand-sensitive transport, as well as to mention the suggestion from the hon. Member for North Norfolk about rural transport hubs. Those can be subsidised, either through an enhanced partnership or through a franchise process. I accept that they will not be part of a purely commercial result, but that is not what I was suggesting in the first place.

   Hansard source
5. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

   The risk of the franchising model, as we are already seeing in Greater Manchester, is that the size of the contract determines the amount of profit. Although the profit percentage is reduced, it is applied to the full size of the contract. Ironically, there is no incentive for the operator to reduce costs—for example, by pushing down wages—because wages are paid as agreed under the contract, and then the operator receives the 3% or 4% on top of that. My concern is that, as currently evidenced in Greater Manchester, we are seeing costs rise despite services being operated by private sector companies.

   Hansard source
6. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

   It is jolly nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. As I spoke to the amendment before lunch, it falls to me now only to press it to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
7. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

   I will start with clause 10, to which explicit reference has not yet been made, and under which section 123D of the Transport Act 2000, which refers to auditing, is to be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8). Subsection (2) sets out that a franchising authority may not proceed with a proposed franchising scheme unless it has obtained a report from an “approved person” on the assessment of the proposed scheme. The approved person—this is important—will replace the requirement to obtain a report from an auditor. We read, under the new drafting, that the approved person must be independent, but based on that drafting we have no idea what other qualities the approved person may or may not have. Subsection (3)(c) requires the report to state whether the information relied on in the authority’s or authorities’ assessment is of sufficient quality for the purposes of the subsections, which I will not go into. Subsection (4) will replace section 123D(3); it states that the Secretary of State must issue guidance as to when it is appropriate to appoint an approved person and what the franchising authority needs to take into account when selecting an approved person, including in relation to whether a person is independent. Subsection (7) sets out that an approved person means a person specified in regulations by the Secretary of State. That raises the question whether the local transport authorities have the technical know-how and/or financial competence to create and then run these franchises. That is the big question that we have been debating backwards and forwards over the past few days. We know that they are expensive; we know that they are complex. I will not rehash arguments that I have made already, which we can take as read. We know that it is crucial that any plans be fully developed, properly costed, stress-tested for viability and generally fit for purpose before we press go on an entirely new system. The requirements of clause 10 are important in facilitating that stress testing. On the face of it, the clause appears to water down the independent oversight, particularly on financial management. One of the core risks of franchising, as we have discussed, is the transfer of commercial risk from the operator to the local authority. That is a very significant change—one of the most significant changes. Here we are, having a report on the plans: we no longer need an auditor who is financially qualified. Instead, we have an approved person. It could be an auditor, but we just do not know. The only qualification that we are told the approved person will have is their independence. That is a good thing, but subsection (7) writes a blank cheque to Ministers: “‘approved person’ means a person specified…in regulations made by the Secretary of State.” We have not seen those regulations; I assume that they have not yet even been drafted. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the point. What specifications will he seek to put into the regulations? If the Government want the Committee to vote in favour of substituting an approved person for an auditor, it behoves the Minister to tell us the kind of people who would qualify as an approved person, beyond their mere independence. I look forward to his detailed response, so that members of the Committee can feel satisfied that we are discharging their duty properly by understanding at least the direction of travel of the regulations. I want to know what qualities, qualifications or expertise will be required. I question why the term is not defined in the Bill, but instead left to future regulations. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to sit down now and decide what kind of person we wish an approved person to be. It is not dependent on future information becoming available. It seems to be slightly sloppy drafting to define a term in reference to a future regulation—that is no definition at all.

   Hansard source
8. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

   Clause 12 amends the Transport Act 2000 to set out the new process for varying a franchise scheme. In particular, subsection (2)(b) removes the minimum notice period of six months before a variation can come into effect. I will not seek to divide the Committee on this, but what assessment has been undertaken of the impact of a reduced notification period on service providers? What confidence can the Minister give current service providers that the impact will be minimised? What was the original rationale for the six-month delay, and what has changed to remove the need? Government amendments 7 to 10 are sensible clarifications to ensure that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act applies only where such policies are mandatory. I fully agree with them. Government amendments 11 to 16 tidy up the requirement for consultation with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, where a proposed franchising scheme under amendments 11 and 12, or a variation of an existing scheme under amendments 13 to 16, would affect the devolved area. Again, that is a sensible clarification that needs no further elaboration.

   Hansard source
9. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

   Clause 13 amends the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 to allow franchising authorities to make a direct award for the first local service contract under a franchising scheme to the “incumbent operator”—that is the important phrasing. The intention, as I read it, is to allow for a smooth transfer of operations to the new scheme, where the qualifying conditions are met. Proposed new regulations 16A(1)(a) and (b) specify that the award must be of a local service contract within the franchising scheme and where no local services are currently provided. Proposed new regulation 16A(1)(c) sets out that the operator must have provided the same or similar services for at least three months prior to the new contract. I acknowledge the objectives of the clause, but I am concerned that it raises more issue than it addresses. The approach could look like a cosy agreement, which is a theme that I have addressed a couple of times today. Where we are awarding a further contract to an existing contractor, without going to market or tendering more widely, there is a perception, if not a reality, of a cosy agreement. It cuts out competition and favours one operator over the others, and it is not just for a short period; it is for a period of up to five years, as set out in clause 13(3). The likelihood of a challenge from other bus operators in the area, who are angry about being excluded, may well be quite high, yet proposed new regulation 16A(2) requires the local transport authority to publish information relating to the contract only within six months of granting the direct award. We therefore have a transfer that may look like a sweetheart deal between the local transport authority and the existing service provider, which may be the municipal bus company but could equally be a private provider, while the judicial review, which is the mechanism by which an external aggrieved party can challenge that decision, has an application deadline of three months—12 weeks. Under the clause, the requirement to publish the information on which that judicial review could be based falls fully three months after the judicial review deadline, so there is a problem with the timings set out in the Bill. What is the point of publishing the information in subsection (3) six months after the date of the award? Other operators cannot go to judicial review, because the deadline has already passed, so what use is it and to whom? I have a simple question for the Minister. What process should operators follow to challenge a sweetheart deal, as they obviously should be able to do? If the information is six months’ old, it cannot be through judicial review, because they will not have been provided with the information before the three-month deadline. What process do the Government recommend that operators should follow, and what information will be available to them? What is the reason for such a long delay in providing information? The information is there from day one, because the local authority and the existing provider will have signed a contract, so all that needs to be done is publish it. What governance provisions will be in place to guard against improper preference, because it may well feel like that has been involved to excluded competitors looking in from the outside? They need to have extra special confidence that there is sufficient governance in place to guard against that, especially if the provider is a municipal bus company, for the obvious reason that they have skin in the game—I will not rehearse that argument. Amendment 72, tabled by the Green party, would have an effect similar to amendments 34 to 37 by removing the ability to grant a contract to a private operator working outside a franchising scheme—for example, in an enhanced partnership.

   Hansard source
10. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I am so sorry—it is in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). I will therefore address amendments 34 to 37, which would allow for a direct award to local government bus companies. I fully understand the rationale behind the Bill, but looking at clause 13, I do not think that that award is excluded by the current drafting, because the term of art is “operator”, and a public bus company could be an operator.

    Hansard source
11. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    That was absolutely not clear from the drafting, and I do not feel able to support such opaque drafting. It would not be right to slip in five words and change the whole meaning of the clause. Perhaps it would be better to draft a new clause; I suspect the hon. Lady has time to do so before the end of the Bill’s consideration.

    Hansard source
12. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I rise to speak briefly in support of Liberal Democrat amendment 66, which inserts a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of the existing network of local services—through proposed new subsection (4B)(a)—and the requirement to identify any gaps in provision, through proposed new subsection (4B)(b). Proposed new subsection (4B)(c) states that what further action the local transport authority intends to take to address the gaps identified must be set out. Proposed new subsection (4C) would require the authority to publish both the assessment and the resulting plan after the relevant consultation. It is clearly a good idea to identify the scale of opportunity in the local area as well as what is already available. Such good information would inform good future decisions, so I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment. Amendment 64, which was also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a statement every six months with information on socially necessary services across a county and the number of whole routes cancelled, as well as frequency and days of the week. I am not supportive of it. Although I understand the rationale behind the amendment, and it would be interesting to have that information on a regular basis, it would be truly onerous to require the Secretary of State to provide that every six months for services right across the country. As with all things, when we are trying to design effective government, we have to balance benefit and cost. In my respectful view, such a requirement tips into being simply too onerous. Assessments are, by their nature, local or regional, and I do not understand the practical utility of national reporting when the people who really need to know the information are in the local transport authority that would be providing the information in the first place. I therefore confirm my support for amendment 66 and my opposition to amendment 64.

    Hansard source
13. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    Amendment 39 would add healthcare services, schools and educational facilities to the list of socially necessary local services. The hon. Lady is, of course, right that those are important destinations for bus services—so important that they would without doubt come under the services side of the definition. Since the clause as drafted refers to enabling “passengers to access…essential goods and services”, the amendment is otiose. I understand the political point that the hon. Lady is seeking to make through amendment 38 but, as drafted, nothing could be done with that information under the clause. In fact, the amendment would have a negative effect, because it would simply muddy the waters with historical data without being helpful in establishing the future direction of travel for local transport authorities.

    Hansard source
14. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 54 would place a duty on local transport authorities to identify and then satisfy the need for all—and I stress “all”—socially necessary services, irrespective of supply, under an enhanced partnership. The amendment does not explain how the services would be supplied by the local authority—presumably, there would be a tender process—but it would require the authority to produce a report within six months. That report would identify the need, estimate the costs of provision and associated funding gaps, estimate the impact of a new service “on local accessibility and transport needs”, provide “a timeline for the operation of the service”, and specify local funding shortfalls. That measure, if adopted, would be a truly revolutionary departure for the identification of local need and subsequent funding, because it would hand demand assessment to the local authority, but the cost of provision to the Secretary of State. What could possibly go wrong? I genuinely look forward to the Minister supporting the amendment and explaining how he will fund that. The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74 would require the Secretary of State to advance proposals within 12 months to “guarantee a service for socially necessary services”, where that service has been absent for six months and “the local transport authority is unable to run the service.” That is a second extraordinary proposal, because it would again place identification of need—according to the highly subjective definition of social necessity—in the hands of the local authority, but would give the Secretary of State a legal duty to supply that assessed need. It envisages the Department for Transport directly running individual routes that have escaped the design of the franchise network or the enhanced partnerships. Presumably, since the Department for Transport has to supply for that need, it will be liable for procuring, right across the country, individual routes that are not part of a wider contractual arrangement. There we have it: the Department of Transport directly running individual routes, spread across the country, independent of wider bus provision. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.

    Hansard source
15. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will deal with this in a slightly different order from that in which the Minister addressed it. I will deal with clause 14 in toto, and then look at Government amendment 6, which removes two subsections from the clause. Clause 14 amends the Transport Act 2000 by requiring local transport authorities to identify and list services in the enhanced partnership area that are “socially necessary local services”—we have already discussed this at some length this afternoon—and then to specify requirements that must be followed if a bus operator of those services wishes to vary or cancel them. Subsection (2) amends section 138A of the Transport Act 2000, which talks about enhanced partnership plans and schemes, and it requires local transport authorities to identify and list socially necessary local services within their enhanced partnership plans—so far, so sensible. The term is defined in subsection (2)(c), which inserts proposed new subsection (15) into section 138A and provides a definition of “socially necessary local service” as, “a local service which— (a) enables passengers to access— (i) essential goods and services, (ii) economic opportunities (including employment), or (iii) social activities, and (b) if cancelled, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access those goods, services, opportunities or activities.” That is not necessarily a problem, but it is worth noting that this definition is quite subjective in its application. It is not easily measurable what such a service is, nor is it standardised between local authorities. The Minister will say, “Devolution will allow a thousand blossoms to bloom,” and I conceptually agree. However, I wonder whether, if we have different interpretations of the same term—“essential goods and services”—in different parts of the country, that raises a question about how the provisions will be applied across the board. I understand the desire to devolve assessments to local need, but the determination does, after all, have commercial consequences for operators. As ever, where commercial opportunities are challenged or threatened, that brings with it a risk of legal challenge. That is why I raise the flag with the Minister—I am not going to do anything about it—that this is a potential future pitfall, where different local transport authorities apply the same definition differently. If the Minister recognises that the definition is subjective, is he concerned about the risk of challenge? The route to formal challenge within an enhanced partnership structure would typically be by judicial review. Is there another form of challenge that the Minister would recognise as part of this process? What guidance will be given to local transport authorities in the assessment process? He referred to some guidance in his earlier responses; I saw him glance towards his officials. I would be grateful for more detail. I think the issue can be dealt with through guidance, so it would be helpful to understand what form it will take for local transport authorities. Has that already been formulated? Either way, do we have an indication of when the guidance will be published? It is clearly an important document when looking to turn these concepts into practical policies. Clause 14(2)(a) inserts new paragraph (ba) into section 138A(3) of the Transport Act 2000, requiring local transport authorities to identify which local services in their area are socially necessary services and to list those services in the enhanced partnership plan. Clause 14(2)(b) inserts new paragraph (4A) into section 138A of the 2000 Act, requiring local transport authorities to keep the list of socially necessary services under review and amend it as necessary. The idea here is presumably to ensure that the list of socially necessary local services reflects any sudden network changes in an enhanced partnership area. So far, so good.

    Hansard source
16. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    No, I am pleased to say that I am not, Sir Desmond. Clause 14(6) makes specific reference to this. It was a requirement that was inserted into the Bill by the other place. I will read it to you: “The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the impact of the level of employers’ National Insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities…and lay it before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the day on which this Act is passed.” As such, this is fairly and squarely in the scope of not just the Bill, but this clause. Government new clause 6 would specifically remove that subsection, so I am setting the scene as to why that is a very bad idea. We understand the effect, which will be a 15.2% increase in employment costs. If an employee works 780 hours on the minimum wage, they earn around £8,923, which is currently below the minimum threshold. In that instance, following the increase, the employer’s national insurance contribution will go from £0 to £678. That is the additional cost of that employment. Who will pay for that in a SEND contract?

    Hansard source
17. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    Thank you for that indication, Sir Desmond, but exactly the same arguments that apply to the providers of bus services for a fee also apply to taxis. You can insert the word “bus” whenever I have said “taxis”; exactly the same argument applies for both providers. The additional cost of employing a part-time worker, such as a bus driver, in a bus company would be £1,303 per employee per annum, so we have a real problem. Bus providers—and others—are being swept up in the net of increased employer national insurance contributions. It is simply a fact that a large number of the school contracts will become unsustainable under the current format, yet no payments have been offered, either as part of this Bill or elsewhere, to compensate local transport authorities, county councils or whichever authorities are responsible for the provision of bus contracts for education and special education needs, even though the actions of this Government are making these contracts unsustainable. Thousands of these contracts around the country will need to be handed back to local education authorities. Staff will be made redundant, causing a further shortage of drivers for passengers, and thousands more schoolchildren will be left without transport unless there is movement on this. There needs to be movement of one form or another. In an ideal world, bus SEND provision would be excluded from employer national insurance contributions. However, in the absence of that, an alternative form of funding must be provided, if it is still the Government’s desire that provision be made by local authorities for bus services for SEND children. For this reason, subsection (6), which mandates a review of how the increase in national insurance contributions from 6 April will affect socially necessary bus services, including SEND transport services for children, is so important. The provision would mandate that the review be laid before Parliament within three months of Royal Assent. This is urgent. The negative impact has already started. We need movement from the Government, or there will be real problems that affect real people. Again, these are the most vulnerable in our society. I therefore oppose Government amendment 6, which inexplicably seeks to remove this necessary assessment from the Bill. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)

    Hansard source
18. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Local Bus Services

    The Government know that bus franchising is commercially risky and very expensive for any local authority. We know that because Transport for London costs taxpayers £650 million a year in subsidy, and Andy Burnham’s Bee Network in Greater Manchester is currently on course for an annual deficit of £226 million, when its business plan was for a forecast profit. What is the point of giving risky franchising powers to every local authority in the country when the Government do not provide the money to support them?

    Hansard source
19. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Local Bus Services

    I am grateful for that answer, and we have four hours of Bill Committee later today to rehearse the arguments yet again. In an earlier answer, the Minister said that he is providing £1 billion of support for buses in this financial year, but surely he knows that £700 million goes to help local authorities navigate the huge administrative burdens that come with franchising and the other schemes that the Government have in mind. That leaves just £255 million for actual bus services across the whole of England. That is only enough to satisfy Andy Burnham for a year, yet we have full fat being pursued by Liverpool and West Midlands. I ask again: where is the money to support those ambitions?

    Hansard source
20. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Topical Questions

    The Minister may be aware that the outline business case for improvements to the A31 at Hickley’s Corner in Farnham will come before her in a couple of months’ time. While I understand that she cannot make any promises now, will she at least agree to look kindly on that application and meet me to discuss it?

    Hansard source
21. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Transport: Economic Growth

    To achieve growth, businesses rely on our world-class logistics and haulage sector. Given that Logistics UK said that it was “disappointed” that the logistics sector had not been identified as one of the foundational industries in the industrial strategy this week, what happened? Did the Department for Transport go into bat for our logistics sector? Did it lose the row? Or did it not bother? What will the Secretary of State be doing to ensure that our logistics sector is seen across Government as foundational to any growth mission?

    Hansard source
22. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Transport: Economic Growth

    The Secretary of State clearly has not listened to Logistics UK—I hope that at least she knows where the lower Thames crossing starts and ends. Let us turn to another foundational industry to transport and growth: fuel. Elizabeth de Jong, chief executive of Fuels Industry UK said about this week’s industrial strategy: “we are disappointed not to be named explicitly as a ‘foundational industry’ today, given the vital role of the fuels sector in enabling growth”. Why has our transport-critical fuels sector also been left behind by the Government?

    Hansard source
23. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

    G7 and NATO Summits

    When it comes to the evils of terrorism and aggression across the middle east, all paths lead back to the Iranian regime—be that the sponsorship of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis or, indeed, at the heart of the regime, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Although I fully appreciate that the Prime Minister will not speculate on proscription from the Dispatch Box, will he at least reflect on how it can be that, despite calls from both sides of the House over many years to proscribe the IRGC, it still has not happened, not least given that he took the right and proper action to proscribe Palestine Action after the attack on Brize Norton last week? How is it that the IRGC still sits un-proscribed?

    Hansard source
24. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Topical Questions

    Both Grand Central and Hull Trains have seen their passenger numbers increase dramatically since the pandemic, by more than 50% and 20% respectively. That is a significant increase compared with other operators. Why does the right hon. Lady think that might be?

    Hansard source
25. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Topical Questions

    I was not hoping to trade statistics— I was hoping that the right hon. Lady would answer the question. I will provide the answer: it is because they are open access operators. They have to compete for passengers by providing a service that passengers want at a price they are prepared to pay, and it is clearly working. Why have the Government indicated to the industry that they are not supportive of open access by stating their opposition to eight of the nine proposals submitted in February?

    Hansard source
26. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    G7 and NATO Summits

    I welcome the increase in defence spending. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to explain where the money is coming from, particularly as his Government continue to weaken our economy and when another expensive benefit U-turn—on top of the winter fuel U-turn—is on its way?

    Hansard source
27. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Business of the House

    Brilliant organisations such as citizenAID, which was co-founded by two of my former bosses, Major General Tim Hodgetts and Professor Sir Keith Porter, provide brilliant education about civil resilience and emergency preparedness. In an increasingly uncertain world, will the Leader of the House commit to Government time for a debate on that really important issue, so that we are upskilling our citizens in case of serious incidents?

    Hansard source
28. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Floating Solar Panels

    My hon. and gallant Friend is talking about the use of prime agricultural land, and food security is part of national security, as is energy security and, indeed, water security. However, there is a huge trend of prime agricultural land being devoted to solar plants, including in my constituency of Epping Forest, where a new plan is about to go in for a 237-acre plot between Thornwood and Epping Upland. He is articulating alternatives for the placing of solar panels, and there are plenty of such places up and down the land—brownfield sites, reservoirs, railway sidings, rooftops of agricultural buildings—so does he agree that we must protect prime farmland and the green belt, and make sure that solar panels go in the right places?

    Hansard source
29. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    IVF Egg Donation: Young Women

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing an important debate at such short notice. IVF counts as a medical miracle, in many respects. Since the technique was pioneered in the 1970s, some 12 million babies have been born by IVF or associated procedures. In the UK, there have been more than 70,000 donor births since 1991, when we started counting egg, sperm and embryo donations. Such births now account for one in 170 live UK births. For many families and individuals, those treatments have given hope where they otherwise would have none. Those suffering from fertility problems have been able to pursue their dreams of having a family with the help of IVF, and success rates have increased over recent decades. The children born as a result of these treatments have given great joy, love and happiness to their families. With that in mind, the previous Government committed to broadening access to these services. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, the women’s health strategy for England, published in 2022, included removing barriers to access for same-sex couples. The previous Government also changed the law so that same-sex couples would not have to go through specific infectious diseases screening before pursuing reciprocal IVF. Those measures were designed to ensure that as many as possible could enjoy safe and equal access to treatment. In my constituency, I was approached by a lady who has medical reasons for her infertility, and is married to a gentleman who had a child many years ago in a previous relationship. She found that she was not eligible for access to IVF. If she said she had no partner, she would be eligible for a sperm donor. If she said she had a female partner, she would be eligible for a sperm donor. Since her partner, however, had a child from a previous relationship, she was not able to have treatment for her medical condition. Personally, I did not think she should be denied access to that, so I have been campaigning with the local ICB, which is currently doing a review. I hope that review is not disrupted by the changes the Government have made to ICB funding. IVF is a highly complex procedure, with several different approaches now available to doctors and patients. One of those approaches involves an intending parent receiving donor eggs from another woman. That can be a lifeline for those who cannot use their own eggs, whether due to age, quality or other physiological factors. It relies on the generosity and selflessness of the donor women who contribute their own eggs so that others may have a chance of raising children. That process contains risk, and although we recognise the huge opportunities that IVF offers and the generosity of the donor women, we must make sure that the procedural risks, advertising and regulation are properly managed. Typically, egg donors must be between 18 and 35, be in good health, have no inheritable conditions, and pass a variety of screening and suitability tests. Those requirements are designed to provide reassurance for intending parents, but in order to find as many potential donors as possible, many companies pursue aggressive advertising strategies to attract eligible donor women. When I first thought about this, I thought, “I haven’t seen any adverts for such a process.” Then I recognised that, of course, I am not in the target audience, because I am too old. With social media, when we think about something, before we know it, it has appeared on our phone or another device, in the corner of the screen as an advert. I am advised by women who are of the right age that they feel they get a lot of adverts to encourage them to be egg donors—more than they would like to see. Does the Minister agree that the guidance on internet advertising in particular needs to be updated, especially in the light of the targeting of adverts at particular demographic groups? Will she commit to investigating how many women are targeted by adverts for a service that they would not consider engaging with, and ways of being able to avoid those? There are also risks to the process. It is especially important that women know the full extent of the risks before they agree to a medical elective procedure, in particular one that is not for their own benefit. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is one of the main risks for egg donors and causes symptoms rising from mild discomfort and bloating to serious respiratory problems, renal failure and, in extreme cases, death. A 2023 review study in the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics found that severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurs in 1% to 10% of stimulation cycles. That is quite a wide range of uncertainty, and it is partly why many donors have argued for more research to be done to support informed consent and proper regulation on how the risks are communicated to donors. We have already heard in this debate about the long-term risks. Given that the HFEA will know who all the ladies who have generously given of their eggs are, does the Minister have any plans to look back at that data in an anonymized fashion to see whether any long-term health risks can be identified? Will she also talk about the steps that the Department is taking to ensure that high-quality research is accessible for those considering egg donation, and about whether companies are mandated to conduct and provide it as part of their advertising? We have talked about compensation during the debate. Fertility companies make much of the altruism motivating donors to give their eggs, and that no doubt forms part of the reasoning of donors who admirably wish to help others less fortunate than themselves by contributing their eggs. It is also true, however, that fertility companies provide compensation payments. Those are capped at £986, a limit intended to ensure that women are not enticed to donate eggs due to financial need, but a risk remains that women more in need of financial assistance may be attracted by the payments. Recent coverage has highlighted that some services present donation as a second income stream. Clearly, however, women who put themselves through a lengthy, often uncomfortable and potentially dangerous process in the name of helping others should not be out of pocket as a result. Getting that balance right requires careful attention. The Government must ensure that they review the compensation rates and how it is provided —as a flat sum or on receipt—to ensure that we get this right. Beyond the financial cap, companies are also allowed to advertise benefits in kind, such as discounted egg freezing for women who donate some of their eggs to others. In essence, therefore, they are saying to ladies, “If you come to donate some of your eggs, we’ll allow you to store your own eggs for a much reduced price, in case you need them later.” Some women might see that as a reason to donate eggs—that they cannot afford to freeze their own otherwise. What are the Government doing to manage the kind of additional incentives that might encourage women to donate eggs when otherwise they would not? Does the Minister plan to regulate non-monetary incentives in the future?

    Hansard source
30. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    IVF Egg Donation: Young Women

    I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to companies making profit out of providing IVF services, or whether he is talking about those who profit from egg donation itself.

    Hansard source
31. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    IVF Egg Donation: Young Women

    I think it is reasonable for companies to provide IVF as a service in the private sector, but making profit out of the specific egg donation itself is a separate issue. I agree with him on that. Regarding other ethical issues, we must think about the longer-term impacts of egg donation and ensure that women are properly equipped to deal with them. Children born from egg donation have a legal right in the UK to contact the woman who donated the egg from which they were born, and to obtain their name, age and last known address from the HFEA. The first cohort of children with that right were able to use it only relatively recently, in 2023, so it may be too soon to know what the long-term impacts might be for the children or donors concerned, or to what extent it may affect their family relationships or emotional wellbeing. Will the Minister tell us how many children are known to have exercised that right since 2023? What is the Department’s assessment of the likely long-term impacts on those children, their families and the donors? IVF offers a lifeline that can transform people’s lives for the better, but where women are donating eggs to others, we must make sure that they are aware of the risks, and that they are doing it for the right reasons, not because they are being enticed financially. The Government must ensure that compensation does not become financial incentivisation, that advertising is accurate and unbiased, that women’s wellbeing is put first, and that the public have the information they need to make informed choices about their bodies and their healthcare.

    Hansard source
32. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Passenger Rail Performance: Cumbria

    Rail services are important in Cumbria, but they are also important in Sleaford. For some time, I have been campaigning for lifts at Sleaford railway station for those who have difficulty with stairs. I was pleased when the previous Government included Sleaford in the Access for All scheme, and having raised it at previous Transport questions, I was delighted when the Rail Minister wrote to me to confirm that the feasibility studies will go ahead. When I met Network Rail yesterday, I found that it is stuck. Network Rail has done as much as it can, but the money ready for it has not been officially unlocked. Could the Secretary of State look into that and ensure that the work goes ahead as soon as possible so that people can access the second platform even if they have trouble with stairs?

    Hansard source
33. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    Local Bus Services

    A blind resident in my constituency, Marilyn, relies on her guide dog and the local bus network to live independently. However, changes under the Government’s £1.7 million active travel grant, including floating bus stops on Rifford Road in my constituency, force her to cross fast, bidirectional cycle lanes just to board a bus. That goes against safety advice from the Guide Dogs organisation and the Royal National Institute of Blind People and is causing real distress. Does the Secretary of State agree that Government-funded infrastructure must be safe and accessible for everyone, and will she commit to reviewing active travel guidance to consider the role of floating bus stops that put blind and visually impaired people at risk?

    Hansard source
34. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    G7 and NATO Summits

    There has been some recent confusion from Defence Ministers surrounding the purchase of 12 F-35A nuclear-capable fast jets. Can the Prime Minister please inform the House of the proposed in-service date for this important capability?

    Hansard source
35. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Reed

    Armed Forces Day

    It is both a pleasure and a privilege to close today’s excellent debate on Armed Forces Day. I pay tribute to colleagues across the House for their thoughtful and passionate contributions. I rise on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to express our sincere thanks to all those who serve and have served in our armed forces—regulars, reservists, veterans and cadets—and to the families who support them every step of the way. Armed Forces Week, which began on Monday and culminates this Saturday, 28 June, with Armed Forces Day, is a national moment to say one thing clearly and collectively: thank you. Thank you to those defending the UK and our interests around the world. Our armed forces represent the very best of our country: committed, courageous and professional. They work tirelessly, often in the most challenging conditions, to keep us safe and uphold the values that we share. Today’s debate has been particularly powerful because of the personal reflections shared by so many right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) represents a strong military constituency—one in 20 serves, or has served, in the military. Having watched the hon. Gentleman in defence debates, it is clear to me that he is a passionate advocate for his constituency, with strong military links. He talked about the Royal Military Police, a regiment that plays a vital role that we need to hear more about. I enjoyed hearing about the airborne police officer unit—an interesting skillset that we could potentially see in the Met. He also talked powerfully about his constituents Kate and Rachel, veterans who faced internal adversity because of their gender and sexuality. As he said, rightly, courage does not know any gender or sexuality. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) talked strongly about the skills that military people bring to civilian life. Having seen many veterans in my constituency make that transition, I know how many skills they bring. He advocated for more support for them to make that transition, and mentioned the real need for the armed forces covenant to be strengthened. I was glad to hear about the reception he held here recently in support of the covenant, and it would be good to support him in future such endeavours. We must ensure that the sacrifices made by our service personnel are never met with silence, as he says, but with real lasting commitment and action. I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) that gratitude for service is not enough on its own. Only a quarter of veterans believe that service is valued, and I completely agree that that needs to change. He spoke powerfully about Northern Ireland veterans, especially the Special Air Service, a regiment in which he served. He spoke about the injustice that group of special forces soldiers, and others in the military, face from the opening up of domestic legal frameworks. Those veterans were in battles that were fought under orders, under the yellow card legal system and under the view of the Royal Military Police. There were strong legal frameworks surrounding those operations, and my right hon. Friend made the point that those veterans joined up and served our country, but the view is now that they can be prosecuted in later life. That is not right, and I look forward to the issue being debated later this month and, I hope, overturned. The petition on the subject is currently live, and there has been a significant uptick in the numbers signing it in the last few hours. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) made remarks about her personal connection to the armed forces, and her husband’s service in the reserves. It was interesting to hear about the 216 Royal Artillery regiment in her constituency and her link to the Royal British Legion. She made a powerful case for greater support for training, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to it. I also echo her support for expanding the cadet programme. I spent many happy years in the air cadets, and I see what value they bring to society and as a pathway for people to join the military. I align myself with her comments. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was, as ever, a strong advocate and champion for the military units in his constituency. We regularly hear him calling for more support. He served the UK in operations during the global war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he knows first hand the challenges that come from the evolution of war and the need for kit to keep pace with the evolution of threats. As he rightly said, no plan survives first contact with the enemy, and those words remain as true today as they have ever been. It is crucial that we not only learn the lessons of modern conflicts, but ensure that our armed forces retain a broad range of capabilities to meet the demands of the evolving environments that we may be involved with in the coming years. My hon. Friend also made the fair and timely observation that making our armed forces work on a hot Saturday in late June is perhaps not the best way to honour them. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) rightly highlighted the volunteers who work tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure that our armed forces are commemorated properly. They often miss out on enjoying the events themselves, so I hope that they will find time to relax and enjoy some sunshine with their families. We thank all of them and their grassroots groups for their vital support for these commemorations. She also shared a moving story about her great-aunt and mother, which touched many of us in the Chamber. They welcomed Polish servicemen into their home and they became part of their family nearly 50 years ago, demonstrating how service personnel become deeply woven into our communities and lives. As always, I am sure the Red Arrows will deliver a magnificent display over Cleethorpes this weekend. I hope that she manages to enjoy an ice cream—and hopefully a few beers, too—with the Secretary of State when he is in her constituency this weekend. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is the proud mother of serving Royal Navy sailor, Olly, whom she has spoken about many times. She represents a city with a high number of service personnel and veterans—one of the highest in the country—and one of the homes of the Royal Navy. I say that as a Devon MP, and standing opposite the Minister, who represents Devonport. She also raised an interesting point around the protective services BTEC course. I have seen the value of that at first hand in my constituency at Bicton college, and it is interesting to see young people flourish in that environment. Again, just like the cadets, it provides a strong pathway for those who want to go into the military or other protective services. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), again, represents a strong military constituency—4,800 veterans and 11% of households. He has long been a proud advocate for the Royal Marines, with the Commando Logistic Regiment in his constituency. I was impressed to hear about the work he has done with SSAFA, the armed forces charity. It was enjoyable and interesting to go away with him recently on the trip he spoke about to Normandy to see the D-day commemoration. It was particularly poignant to meet the D-day veteran Norman Ashford, who is 100 years old. He was a Royal Marine and, as the hon. Member said, made countless trips up and down on to the beaches that day. I had a great deal of respect for him when I met him and heard his stories. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke about the RAF photographic units—tales of derring-do. It is a unit that I have enjoyed learning about as the campaign has been growing, and I look forward to that debate being rescheduled and brought back to the House. He made some interesting points about the contributions of people from all over the world, including the Commonwealth, to our armed forces, and the need to celebrate them this Armed Forces Day. It was interesting to hear about Hardit Malik, the first Indian fighter pilot in world war one with the Royal Flying Corps, fighting against the famous German Red Baron. Lastly, my near neighbour in the south-west, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), has a strong military family, and I have spoken to her many times about her brother’s service. She raises an interesting and important point about the pathway for people who want to join the military. She talked about her constituent trying to join the Intelligence Corps and the waiting time to join being far too long. It would be interesting to discuss whether something can be done to provide concrete start dates. I, too, speak from personal experience. I am proud to have served in the Royal Marines, and after leaving regular service a decade ago, I was fortunate to continue as a Royal Marine reservist with the Royal Navy parachute display team. It was—to say the least—one of the more unconventional side-gigs in public service, giving me a literal bird’s eye view of Armed Forces Day celebrations. Over several years, I had the privilege of parachuting into national Armed Forces Day events in Guildford, Cleethorpes and Llandudno. From thousands of feet above, seeing the crowds gathered to show their support was genuinely humbling. Although I will admit that, at that height, my primary concern was not so much national pride as avoiding crash-landing into someone’s picnic. Those kinds of events are not just pageantry, as Members from across the House have said today; they are powerful tools for engagement and recruitment. I have vivid childhood memories of attending large air shows and other military displays, but one personal favourite, and one that I am sure many hon. Members attended, was the royal tournament at Earl’s Court here in London. The Navy’s high-octane field gun competition and the Royal Signals’ famous White Helmets motorcycle display team made a lasting impression on me, and without doubt helped shape my decision to join the military. As defence spending rises, and as difficult choices are made to support that increase, it will be more important than ever to showcase our armed forces and their capabilities. That visibility ensures public understanding and accountability for where taxpayers’ money is spent. There is also a broader point. As the national security strategy outlined this week, the threats we face are serious. The possibility of a hostile attack on the UK, which for many decades was seen as unimaginable, is now again within the realm of possibility. A time may come when we must once more defend the things that we hold dear. We must therefore forge a renewed relationship with defence—not seeing it just as a line in the Budget, but recognising it as a fundamental pillar of our national security and resilience. Armed Forces Day is about more than capability; it is about morale. It is about recognising the extraordinary service of our sailors, soldiers and aviators. Public support matters, as it lifts spirits, strengthens bonds and reminds those in uniform that their country stands firmly behind them. That support must go further than symbolic gestures, as we have heard repeatedly in today’s debate. The armed forces covenant is a solemn pledge—a year-round commitment from Government, businesses and communities to treat those who serve, and their families, with fairness and respect in everyday life. The message from today’s debate is clear: gratitude must be backed up by action on housing, employment and a dignified transition to civilian life. These are responsibilities we all share. The Government’s strategic defence review rightly proposes a whole-of-society approach to national defence. It is welcome, and it is necessary. Defence is not just the task of our armed forces; it is a shared civic responsibility. True resilience relies not only on military capability, but on strong institutions, cohesive communities and national unity. At the heart of that resilience is trust—a social contract between the nation and those who serve it. We must do all we can to honour that trust, which is why we cannot ignore the serious concerns raised by veterans, especially those who served in Northern Ireland. The strength of feeling in that community is real and justified. My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington mentioned that in his speech. I place on record my thanks to the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for his principled support for a judicial review of the Clonoe inquest, and I hope his judgment is actively being sought by his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, especially as they reflect on their plans to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Our veterans deserve clarity, compassion and fairness. The strength of the Royal Navy, the British Army and the Royal Air Force lies not just in firepower or training, but in the character of those who serve. Their dedication, discipline and selflessness are a credit to our country. So let us use this Armed Forces Week not only to reflect, but to renew our commitments to serve those who serve us, to honour those who have worn the uniform, and to ensure that future generations understand the debt we owe. We are grateful. We are proud. We will remember them. We will support them. And we will thank them.

    Hansard source
36. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Armed Forces Day

    I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Would he accept that the actions of the Royal Military Police attached to fighting units are a direct reflection of the Army and of our national character in upholding the rule of law even in warfare?

    Hansard source
37. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Armed Forces Day

    It is an honour to speak today ahead of Armed Forces Day—a day not just of pageantry, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, but of principle. I congratulate the Government on reinstating the pageantry as well—it is a good thing. It is a day to recognise the men and women who serve, or who have served, in His Majesty’s armed forces: the quiet professionals who carry the weight of our security, often in silence and too often without thanks. As we have heard, we owe them and their families a debt of gratitude that we can never really pay, but gratitude alone is not enough. As the Minister said, only a quarter of veterans feel that their service is properly recognised, and there is a reason for that. I will speak plainly about it, and I hope the Minister will not take it as partisan. I hope he will take what I have to say, in what will be a difficult five minutes of listening for him, as a call for action and assistance—or, if he likes, a call for help. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, there is a shadow that hangs over our armed forces: the political and legal vendetta targeting the veterans of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. Those men answered their country’s call in one of our country’s darkest hours. Without hesitation, they stood between the innocent and the terrorists, often literally—they were often in the way of the bullets. Now, decades later, they are treated not as heroes but as suspects. The frankly inadequately informed inquest into the SAS-IRA conflict at Clonoe is just one incident in which elderly veterans are being persecuted; there will be many more. We should never forget that terrorists killed 722 British soldiers during the troubles. The people who carried out those murders have effectively been exonerated by the British state. I do not blame the state for that—it was necessary at the time—but today, we witness a legal crusade against the men who risked everything in the service of peace. This is not justice; it is an attempt to rewrite history. It is prosecution driven by politics, not facts. While the killers walk free, authorities hound the soldiers who stopped them from killing and treat those soldiers like criminals. The legacy Act—forgive my shorthand —was designed to put an end to this travesty. For their own reasons, the Government have decided to repeal that Act, but if they do not properly replace it with effective legislation, they will hand the initiative back to those who spent decades glorifying violence. I hope the Minister will pay attention to every detail of the paragraph I have just spoken, because it is important. The Government must decide whose side they are on in this exercise. Our veterans, who are now in their 70s or even older, deserve peace in retirement, not a knock on the door and questions about battles they fought to defend the public half a lifetime ago. Those battles were fought under orders, under supervision and under yellow card rules, and immediately afterwards, everybody faced close judicial examination of their behaviour to ensure they had obeyed the law in every respect. To refer back to the speech made by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), the military police were often involved in those investigations—it did not always make them popular, but it was a necessary part of the process. Not one of the conditions I have described applied to the psychopathic murderers those soldiers were up against. I have repeatedly asked the Government to end this shameful campaign of retrospective injustice, and I will continue to ask until I get a meaningful answer and a resolution to this running sore of injustice. That is why I support the petition that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford referred to, with its 145,000 signatures—an astonishing number in such a short time. However, this is just the start. This issue is not just massively important to our veterans; if this rewriting of history succeeds, this weapon of lawfare can be used against soldiers in any future conflict, destroying the effectiveness of our troops in future operations. This morning’s edition of the Daily Mail carried a powerful headline announcing the start of a campaign to highlight that very problem. When we look at that headline, though, we should remember that this is not just about our special forces; it is about the whole of the armed forces. There are at least 20 inquests into actions by Government agencies and forces that could potentially be restarted by the Government after the end of the legacy legislation. Only a minority of those inquests are about special forces; most are about conventional forces, or about the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Defence Regiment. If we continue down this path, not only will we betray our past; we will jeopardise our future. This campaign of persecution sends a chilling message to the next generation: “Serve your country, risk your life, and face prosecution in your old age.” Why would any young man or woman sign up for that? The truth is that many will not. I know that the Minister referred to better recruitment and retention figures, but that will not last if this battle is lost by the British state. This challenge has been most high-profile when it has struck at our elite units, such as the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment—the Det, as it was once known—but it applies to every rifleman, soldier and member of the military who carries and wields a weapon in defence of his country. Those soldiers, who operate in conditions of extreme danger and uncertainty, are required to make impossible decisions at great speed while under fire, or in terror of being under fire. They expect neither recognition nor reward, but just one thing: the support of their Government. We expect our soldiers to put their lives on the line for our country, but why would they do that if their country will abandon them after their service? Instead, they face doubt—doubt that creeps into the field, into the command and into mission planning. If soldiers must weigh every trigger pull against a future court case, we cripple their ability to act. What is the point of the armed forces if we render them useless through legal ambiguity? I am the last person to tolerate unnecessary killing or misbehaviour by our troops. Those who were in the House at the time will know of my past campaigns on torture and rendition. I will not stand for that, but we must balance properly the rule of law as it applies to each environment. We already have thought-through rules of lawfare established in the Geneva convention, and that is where we must look first when conducting a war. From 2005 to 2007, during the operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq, our military achieved, along with the Americans, spectacular results in saving lives. I reiterate that that was about saving lives. In Baghdad, the number of vehicle-borne suicide bombings fell from 100 a month to just one after we engaged. Sectarian assassinations—once rife—all but ceased, care of our military. That was not the work of indiscriminate bombing or division-level assaults; it was achieved through precise, controlled and surgical raids into some of the most hostile environments, generally by elite forces, and backed by careful planning. The impact was staggering. Even a hostile “Panorama” programme showed that 95% of terrorist neutralisations were captures, not kills. That was under unbelievable circumstances, and thousands of innocent lives were saved. That was a matter not just of operational skill, but of moral discipline. In the midst of close-quarters combat against some of the most dangerous men on earth, our forces showed a restraint few could match. I have no doubt that mistakes are made from time to time, and those should be answered for, but if we allow our opponents to use lawfare to destroy these capabilities, we are left with blunt instruments—the bomb, the missile and the drone—with which, instead of capturing or killing just the guilty, we kill every innocent civilian on a bus or every guest at a wedding party. Our military has been brilliant at doing the opposite—at being targeted, lawful and effective. Dismantling that capacity would be not only militarily reckless, but a betrayal of the principles that the Minister said we stand for, which distinguish us from those whom we fight. Let us today do rather more than clap politely at a parade. Let us act. Let us end the relentless hounding of our veterans. Let us give our serving forces the legal protection and political support they deserve. Let us recognise that if we find it difficult to recruit, it is a consequence of a state that too often turns its back on its defenders. This Armed Forces Day, let us make one promise: that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the very nation they have so bravely protected.

    Hansard source
38. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    G7 and NATO Summits

    At the NATO summit, was the Prime Minister able to add his voice to the congratulations and thanks that the NATO Secretary-General paid to President Trump for the successful military strike on Iran’s nuclear programme?

    Hansard source
39. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Business of the House

    The constituency of Bromsgrove and the villages is 89% green belt. Under this Labour Government, our housing target has gone up by 85%, yet nearby Birmingham has had its housing target reduced by 20%, despite there being at least 140 hectares of brownfield land in the south of the city alone. Surely the Leader of the House agrees that that does not make sense. If it does make sense to her, could she explain it to my constituents?

    Hansard source
40. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    G7 and NATO Summits

    I welcome the increase in defence spending, but how on earth is the Prime Minister going to pay for it when his party cannot agree on a small reduction in the welfare bill?

    Hansard source