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

1. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   We support the work that Sir Brian is doing, but do not feel that the new clause would contradict or otherwise impede that work. We also do not think that we ought to wait for the conclusions of Sir Brian’s work before acting. For now, we will leave the new clause as a probing amendment, but we may return to it at a future stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 8 Victim personal statements “(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements. (2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language. (3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”—(Mike Wood.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included. Brought up, and read the First time.

   Hansard source
2. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause addresses the rules on victim personal statements, about which we heard much in the evidence sessions. There is clearly a desperate need for reform to allow victims to properly and accurately communicate the impact that crimes have had on them. Our new clause introduces a right to be heard for those victims and for families making victim personal statements. We heard appalling stories of traumatised family members, such as Becky and Glenn Youens and Jeremy and Susan Everard, who were told that, no, they could not say what they wanted—they could not say anything derogatory about the guilty offender. Victim personal statements are not appropriate platforms for gratuitous abuse, but the focus needs to be on allowing the voice of victims, rather than worrying too much about the hurt feelings of the convicted offender. The new clause would ensure that victims can speak freely with the most minimal restrictions possible. We can fairly ask the judge to consider what can and cannot be taken into account for sentencing rather than removing or censoring everything in advance. It is time that we uphold the voices of victims and provide them with the platform and the dignity that they deserve.

   Hansard source
3. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   I thank the Minister for her response. This is an extremely important matter that needs to be dealt with in this legislation. I think she said that she wishes to proceed with something that broadly achieves our aims, but which addresses her concerns about the drafting. If she will undertake to work with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, before Report to find a form of drafting that satisfies the new clause’s objectives without what she clearly sees as defects in its proposed wording, we would obviously be happy to work with her and not press the new clause for now. Hopefully, we will have something that we can agree to on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 10 Sentencing guidelines on court fines “Within 18 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Sentencing Council must revise relevant sentencing guidelines so that the court must award compensation to a victim to the value of items stolen when imposing compensation for the offence of theft, burglary, fraud, or any other crime that has resulted in a financial loss to the victim.”—(Mike Wood.) This new clause would require the Sentencing Council to revise sentencing guidelines so that a court must impose compensation commensurate to the value of stolen items when issuing fines. Brought up, and read the First time.

   Hansard source
4. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause seeks to correct a long-standing imbalance in the way in which financial justice is delivered to victims of theft, fraud, burglary and similar offences. It does so by requiring the Sentencing Council to revise its guidelines within 18 months of Royal Assent so that courts must impose compensation that reflects the actual financial loss suffered by the victim. Right now, victims of crime are far too often left bearing the financial burden of the offence, while the offender, even when convicted, is handed a compensation order that does not even begin to redress the damage that has been done, either directly or indirectly. The result is an insult added to injury. Offenders walk away with a light financial consequence, while victims are left out of pocket and out of luck due to the crimes committed by others. The new clause would shift that balance, not punitively but justly. It would make it a duty, not a possibility, for sentencing to account for what was actually taken or lost. This is not an unfamiliar concept. Courts already have the power to impose compensation orders, but the inconsistency and infrequency with which they do so undermines public confidence in the system. Let us be clear: all the ordinary processes remain in place for pursuing outstanding payments, but why should we not recognise what is actually owed? If someone has a change of circumstance, it may well be that they could quite readily pay what they owe. Most importantly, this is about victims. It is about restoring faith in the idea that when someone suffers a loss through crime, the justice system stands behind them—not just symbolically but materially by seeking, as far as possible, to provide restitution. The new clause proposes the straightforward but meaningful step of revising the sentencing guidelines so that, where there is a proven loss, it must be reflected in compensation. That is not just fair; it is the very least that victims should be able to expect. I urge the Committee to support the new clause.

   Hansard source
5. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   I thank the Minister for her comments, but there is an imbalance in the system. Whereas convicted offenders may appeal against a sentence, victims do not have a similar ability to appeal against a failure to award full compensation. The new clause ought to be the presumptive starting point for compensation. Full compensation should usually be awarded, so we will press this matter to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

   Hansard source
6. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This new clause seeks to close a loophole in the recovery of unpaid court fines. At present, the Limitation Act 1980 imposes a six-year time limit on recovering debts, including fines handed down by the Crown court. Criminal fines are not ordinary civil debts. They are the product of judicial sanction, often imposed in response to serious offences, and reflect the principle that individuals must be held accountable for their actions through the justice system. The new clause would ensure that Crown court fines do not simply expire with time. It would give the Secretary of State the power to pursue unpaid fines without restriction, sending a clear message that justice delayed must not become justice denied. For victims and communities, the payment of court-ordered fines is about not only financial restitution, but accountability and the credibility of our criminal justice system. The Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, has long identified this as an opportunity to secure funding, and we all know the tight constraints on expenditure.

   Hansard source
7. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   Given the Minister’s comments, we are content not to press the new clause to a Division at this time. Again, we may return to it at a future stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 15 Duty to collect and publish data upon sentencing “(1) At the time of passing a sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must provide to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) the following information regarding the sentence passed— (a) offence type, (b) sentence length, (c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include— (i) nationality, (ii) method of entry to the United Kingdom, (iii) visa route, (iv) visa status, (v) asylum status, and (vi) country of birth. (2) HMCTS must collect and collate the information on the basis set out in subsection (1) on sentences passed in the courts. (3) Once every three months, the Secretary of State must publish statistics based on the information collected by HMCTS under subsection (2).”—(Mike Wood.) Brought up, and read the First time.

   Hansard source
8. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause was tabled in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It would introduce a new statutory duty for courts to provide structured data on sentencing outcomes, including key information about individuals’ immigration status. Transparency on crime is critical not only for building public trust in our justice system but for ensuring that we have the right tools in place to understand and respond to the realities of criminal offending. The new clause would create a clear, accountable framework for collecting and publishing sentencing data that sits at the intersection of the criminal justice and immigration systems. By requiring His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to gather and publish that data quarterly, we would enable policymakers to detect patterns, assess outcomes and develop evidence-based responses. Crucially, it would also strengthen the ability of immigration enforcement to make fair, informed decisions on removals, deportations or protections—decisions that must balance public safety with legal and humanitarian obligations. Ultimately, the public have a right to this level of transparency. For too long, assumptions have filled the void left by incomplete data. The new clause would replace speculation with facts, and in doing so it would promote more informed policy, more effective enforcement and greater public confidence. I commend it to the Committee.

   Hansard source
9. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   Given the Minister’s disappointing response, we will wish to have a fuller debate on Report. I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote now, but we will almost certainly do so at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 13 Power to make consequential provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

   Hansard source
10. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    On behalf of the Opposition, I thank all the Clerks, officials, Doorkeepers and Hansard Reporters. I also thank you, Dr Murrison, and Mr Stringer for your work on this Committee. There is much that is very positive in this Bill, which is why His Majesty’s official Opposition are pleased to support it. Obviously, there are various points on which we think the Government could and should go further, and we will seek to make the Bill even better on Report. For now, I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions over the past week. I look forward to returning to this debate on Report. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

    Hansard source
11. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called during the debate.

    Hansard source
12. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

    Israel dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah is to be welcomed, but the continuing blockage on medical and humanitarian aid going into Gaza is not welcome. As we continue to talk, children continue to die. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will make it very clear that the continuation of children dying every single day is unacceptable, and that he will stand up to the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon and to the Knesset and the current Israeli Government of Netanyahu. These deaths are just going on and on and on. How many more children need to die before something changes?

    Hansard source
13. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Topical Questions

    Melia, Gvaramia, Badri Japaridze, Khazaradze, Zurab Japaridze and Vashadze: all six opposition leaders arrested over the last two weeks in Georgia. What are the British Government going to do about it, and what is the message from the British Government to the Georgian people, who are suffering as a result of this huge democratic backsliding?

    Hansard source
14. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate. He is a passionate defender of small and medium-sized businesses in his constituency and across the country. I meet small business owners in my constituency of Broxbourne almost every week, and every single one, from Carmela’s hairdressers in Cheshunt to the Smokeshed restaurant in Hoddesdon, has made it clear to me just how damaging Labour Government policies are towards small businesses. This Labour Government have put up the cost of growing a small business significantly, with the hike in employer’s national insurance making it more expensive for businesses to bring on and employ new people. Increasing the burden of regulation is also deterring employers from taking risks with who they employ. Both of those disastrous policies are leading to fewer people in work, taxes at the highest level on record and growth down. As I have said in this Chamber before, the drastic reduction in business rates relief is crippling for our retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which are the anchor of so many of our town centres up and down our beautiful United Kingdom. As we have heard this morning, what is also holding SMEs back is the current rules around VAT registration. When I go out and speak to businesses across my constituency of Broxbourne, whether I speak to them in business forums, through Love Hoddesdon, Love Cheshunt, Love Waltham Cross or the Stanstead Abbotts small business network group, they are all united in one thing and one single policy that they reckon is really holding them back: the VAT threshold. They all moan to me about it. They all say they need an easier solution. I have so many examples of businesses that I speak to that have said, “Lewis, it is not worth upscaling our business. It is not worth trying to do better, not worth taking on more business, not worth employing more people. It is not worth doing those things because, when we go just over the threshold, it takes our competitive edge away when we are trying to compete with people that are just below that threshold.” They have all come forward with a simple solution, which is that there should be a taper mechanism to build up to the 20%, rather than the cliff edge that we have now. The situation is absolute nonsense. I have successful business owners in my constituency that go in day in, day out. As I have said in this Chamber before, I was told at the Dispatch box by a Government Minister that it is the Government that create economic growth. Well, it is not. They do not understand how business works in this country. Their whole philosophy around who creates economic growth is wrong. It is the millions of small business owners up and down the United Kingdom and all of the entrepreneurs that invest in their ideas that create economic growth. As I said, it cannot be right that I have examples in my constituency of people turning down work, not taking on more employees, and not creating the economic growth that we all want to see for this country because of measures like the VAT threshold. We heard before the general election that this Government were going to be the most pro-business we had ever seen, but they have not come up with a single policy that has helped my business owners in Broxbourne. They all think that all this Government’s policies around businesses, including changing the threshold for business rates and not looking into the issue of VAT registration, are affecting how they do business across the country. That simply cannot be right—it is nonsense. We all want more jobs created and we all want our high streets to thrive. Lots of business owners have lots of issues with what is going on in the economy right now, but this one single thing unites them. When I speak to them, they all raise this issue with me. They all want the Government to take it seriously and think up a solution. The Minister could go and speak to his officials at the Treasury and there could be a simple solution to this problem. That would create economic growth overnight. Businesses up and down the country would probably take on more employees and more business if this problem was solved. It is affecting lots of the people that I speak to in my constituency of Broxbourne. Why on earth would someone come out of the education system, invest in their idea, take risks and set up a business in the United Kingdom right now? It is so heavily burdened with regulation. We need to unlock the aspiration of the next generation, and we can do that by solving simple things that business owners come to speak to us about. We need to make sure that the VAT threshold is no longer a cliff edge and bring in a taper mechanism. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in reply to this debate. I am hopeful that he will think long and hard about what he can do about this issue, because he has the tools at his disposal to solve it. I suspect that there will be lots of consensus among those of us speaking in this debate on the issue and on what we think the solution will be. I hope that the Minister is listening and will take note of all our comments when he winds up.

    Hansard source
15. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    We have all mentioned a number of businesses that think this Labour Government are taking the wrong direction. Can the Minister list the businesses in his constituency that believe that this Labour Government are taking the right direction for business growth in this country? If he lists the businesses in his constituency, we will go and ask them.

    Hansard source
16. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

    I commend the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing this important debate. I congratulate her on her fair and robust approach to leading the Committee, and every now and again she allows me to ask some difficult questions of Government Ministers, for which I am very grateful. All of us on the Committee have taken very seriously our duty of scrutinising the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government over the past year, recognising its widespread responsibilities and the deep impact its decisions have on our constituents right across the country. I wish to mention a couple of those responsibilities. One of the biggest drivers of the financial difficulties facing councils has been the catastrophic rise in the amount of money spent on children with special educational needs. This is very close to my heart, as I have seen it from both sides. I grew up with a brother and sister who both benefited from SEND provision, and I have also been a local councillor in Hertfordshire. In just 10 years, the number of children in the county with education, health and care plans has grown by a staggering 223%, which is even higher than the 140% national rise. The funding has not kept up. Incredibly, Hertfordshire receives the third lowest funding per head out of every authority in the country. If it was funded at the national average, an extra £47 million would be available for children with the most complex needs across Hertfordshire. I hope the Minister agrees that it should not matter where in this country someone is born, because the system should have the resources to meet their educational needs. Removing this historical funding formula would be the first step in creating such a system. The Minister will of course point out that the total reorganisation of local government in this country is the answer to these problems, and that the efficiencies promised by huge unitary councils will solve the funding crisis. However, residents of my constituency of Broxbourne already feel that they are getting a bad deal from the county council, so exactly how will forcing them into a much larger council, which will have a much longer list of responsibilities for an even bigger area, help this situation? As with everything the Government touch, one of the inevitable consequences of this reorganisation will be higher taxes for my constituents. It will be constituents living under Conservative-controlled Broxbourne council who will feel this the most, as they will go from paying the lowest non-parish council tax in the country to, inevitably, a higher charge under a merged authority. There is no way that efficiencies will cover the extra spending of these bloated authorities. Reorganisation itself is not cost-free, and I am yet to see councils that have gone through a reorganisation come out saying they are awash with cash. I hope the Minister is genuinely listening to the concerns raised in this debate, and will come back with the Department of Education in the near future with genuine solutions to the SEND funding crisis, and ensure that all our constituents have a fair say when local government reorganisation is forced upon them in our areas.

    Hansard source
17. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Julia Lopez

    Rights of Women and Girls

    I should like to know what steps the Foreign Office is taking to protect women and girls in this country. There can be no better candidates for deportation than non-UK nationals who have violently raped children here. After the Casey report into the gangs scandal last week, Ministers promised that they would do everything they could to deport the men involved. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he has already told Pakistan that British aid and diplomatic visas will be withdrawn if convicted rapists are not taken back?

    Hansard source
18. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

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

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I rise to endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and to draw further attention to an issue with new clause 22: placing duties on local authorities without money coming in. Central Government are very good, and have been for decades, at requiring things of local government, which naturally leads to increased costs on councils to deliver the relevant duties and comply with the law, but councils do not automatically—in fact, very rarely—get money to go towards complying. The duties set out in the new clause seem obvious. Subsection (1) says: “It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.” Subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (g). I will not read them all out, but paragraph (a) says that authorities may consider “the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options”. There is also a requirement to report every two years. That looks laudable. One would hope it would lead to better bus services, but it would place a cost burden on local government without money coming to every local authority. That is my concern: placing duties without accompanying finance in all cases. That is why I have difficulty with new clause 22, although I appreciate the intention and sentiment behind it.

    Hansard source
19. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

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

    All the comments I was going to make have already been made by the shadow Minister. He was so complete and comprehensive that he leaves no space for any additional comment. However, I will briefly give my slant on some of the points. When I rose at the beginning of this sitting, it was to talk about the costs that would be put on to local authorities by the general duties in new clause 22. That has been dealt with. This clause will put much more significant costs on to local authorities that choose to go down the franchising route—after all, franchising is a choice available to a transport authority. Those are costs incurred by transferring a risk from commercial operators to local authorities and the taxpayer if the business does not go in the way of the business plan. The shadow Minister has already spoken about the huge cost subsidy, effectively, to the services operated in London and Manchester, where there are huge economy of scale advantages. My view is that the franchising model, if it works at all, works for high population densities—cities, large local authorities and those that can swallow bad years—and offers nothing at all for smaller authorities other than the option to take a step into the unknown for no obvious benefit. I think of my local authority on the Isle of Wight—it is fanciful to think that that unitary authority could in any way take a step towards franchising. Even if we end up with a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire county council, which has a big budget deficit, it seems highly unattractive to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight to go down the franchising route and take on all those risks. I have no direct experience of the Manchester model, but if Manchester really is the shining beacon, it is one that has cost a huge amount of money. However, that is a huge amount of money that the taxpayer in Manchester may be able to swallow. For a transport authority with a significant chunk of rurality—Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is an exception only in that it has an island attached to it, not in terms of how rural it is—I cannot see the figures adding up because no money goes with franchising. The Government may talk about money being available for bus services and the £3 fare cap. Those are welcome things, but they are not sums of money that naturally flow with an option to go down the franchising route. Although that does not go against having franchising as an option, I feel that it is going to be attractive only to a fairly small proportion of England—areas with high-density populations and those with metropolitan authorities. In this country, franchising is for the few; it is not a mass model that all local authorities will find attractive. It could lead to a more uneven quality of bus services across the country, and to a two-tier system.

    Hansard source
20. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

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

    I was not suggesting that it is an obligation. Plainly, franchising is an option. My point is that it is an option that is unattractive to smaller local authorities, which cannot benefit from the economies of scale of franchising bus services. It is much more attractive for city areas. Of course I want rural bus services to be improved; my constituency is a rural area and we want better bus services. I see absolutely nothing in the franchising option that will deliver that, because I cannot see a local authority—in my own or other rural areas—looking at it and thinking, “This is helpful.” That is because it does not, as a right, bring money with it.

    Hansard source
21. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Department of Health and Social Care

    The hon. Member is making her points very well, and I congratulate her on her success in bringing this debate to the Chamber. I agree with what she has said about fair pay for social care workers—I support that as well—but does she agree that a fair pay agreement will put undue pressure on providers unless there is some money or financial incentive attached to it so that they are able to meet their fair pay requirement?

    Hansard source
22. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the Government’s housing policy is that they are failing to identify the right places to build the right homes? Until they do that, they will not deliver these eyewatering numbers, especially if they are relying on greenfield rural sites.

    Hansard source
23. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    It is very reassuring to have you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I already feel calmer, and I am sure the Minister does as well.

    Hansard source
24. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    I will tell you at the end of the day. The Opposition welcome the Bill in principle, which is why we did not divide the House on Second Reading. We welcome it because franchising was an innovation that the previous Government introduced in 2017. At that stage, it was limited to mayoral combined authorities, although any local authority could apply to the Secretary of State for agreement that franchising could be brought in. We are concerned, however, that the Bill does not deliver the goals of value for money and improvement of passenger services as it is currently drafted. It is therefore important that we use this opportunity to carefully consider the many amendments from the Government, official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; each of them has their various merits, and there are many good ideas to improve what every party agrees is currently an imperfect Bill. That brings me to clause 1—the purpose clause—which was proposed by the Earl of Effingham in the other place, and received substantial support. It ensures that the overarching aim of the Bill is to improve bus services, and that that remains at the heart of all decisions undertaken in its provisions. By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose, the clause embeds into the legislation a commitment to improve bus services. That is not merely a formality; it is about setting a clear duty on the Secretary of State to put the improvement of bus services at the core of any decisions he or she makes under the legislation. The clause gives the Bill a necessary focus; it is the framework on which all the baubles of other clauses and requirements are hung. That is important when there is a change to structures, as the Bill anticipates, because it is easy for process to take over from the clear objectives of the Bill. In a purely commercial construct, where there is an operator driven by the profit motive—they need to drive fare box and have customers to get a return on their investment—it is obvious that the natural incentives focus on the customer. When we move to a franchise and the primacy of commercial incentives are removed, the risk is that the customer gets overlooked. In what is commonly described as full-fat franchising—rather like the Manchester example of the Bee Network, which I believe we will refer to quite frequently in Committee—the local authority takes full assumption of commercial risk within its remit and the operator is contracted merely to provide a service. That brings the temptation to mould services in favour of the supplier—particularly if the supplier is a municipal bus company, such as an in-house provider—as opposed to the passenger. With external providers, there are a couple of checks on that: first, the direct relationship between fare box and profitability, which I have already mentioned; and secondly, the local authority’s overseeing position to challenge operators and hold them to account, particularly when partnerships are the enhanced partnerships that we have in many local authorities around the country. That combination enforces the interests of the passenger, even when they are not directly consistent with commercial performance. Under wider franchising, there is a risk—albeit a manageable one—that that check will disappear, because local authorities may become both the judge and the jury. That makes the purpose clause even more important to ensure that the Secretary of State focuses on passengers in every decision. It makes it clear that the accountability for achieving that result lies firmly with the Secretary of State, and it is useful, as in any complex consideration, to have organisational clarity. Nothing in the Bill, other than here in clause 1, puts passengers front and centre—that is a notable omission from the Bill as currently drafted; all the rest deals with procedure. Placing an explicit duty on the Secretary of State provides a valuable guiding principle throughout the Bill’s implementation period, and ensures that every step taken under the Bill will be aligned with the objective of improving bus services for all those who rely on them. The Minister in his opening remarks said that the clause was not necessary, because it does not encompass “the full scope of the Government’s ambition.” Yet the clause says that the Bill will “improve the performance, accessibility and quality”. Surely “quality” encompasses safety, which was the Minister’s example as to why the clause was inadequate to describe the full scope of the Government’s ambitions. I push back on that, because quality does encompass safety in the ordinary sense of that word. Paragraph 1 of the Government’s explanatory notes for the Bill says: “The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill brings forward primary legislative measures intended to support the government’s commitment to deliver better buses.” Clause 1 honours that Government commitment to deliver better buses and should remain part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
25. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    Clause 2 amends the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the availability of franchising schemes. It is essentially a facilitating clause to allow for one of the really important changes in the Bill, which is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to any local authority other than mayoral combined authorities when deciding whether to embark on a franchising scheme.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    I agree with much of the hon. Lady’s description of Warrington’s Own Buses. A few weeks ago, I spoke to the company’s managing director and I was impressed, as I said on Second Reading. However, does the hon. Lady agree that that is because Warrington’s Own Buses has 30, 40 or 50 years’ institutional experience in running those kinds of services—experience that other local authorities simply do not have? Does she also agree that exactly the same delivery of services can be achieved through an enhanced partnership, in which the operator works in collaboration with the local authority, and it is up to them to decide what is important for the community?

    Hansard source
27. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about which system passengers prefer. The way to really judge that is through ridership—how many people take the buses. It is absolutely right that in Greater Manchester, under the Bee Network, there has been a post-pandemic increase in ridership of about 34%, from memory. However, does the Minister not accept that in Norfolk, where there is an enhanced partnership, ridership has increased by more than 40%, and in Essex, another enhanced partnership area, ridership has increased by more than 50%? The point is that it is not the scheme design that is fundamentally important, but the way in which it is approached. Does the Minister accept that we can have outcomes that are just as good—better outcomes, in fact—through enhanced partnerships as we can through franchising?

    Hansard source
28. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    The Minister is right, of course, that all sorts of different franchising schemes and mechanisms are available, and I am looking forward to his description of the Jersey model. However, does he not recognise and accept that, of the authorities that have expressed a direction of travel so far, both Liverpool and West Midlands have also decided to go down what I have described as the full-fat model? It is not just Manchester being an outlier. It is likely that the Bill will ensure—in fact, it is happening already—that full fat is seen as the direction of travel. Does the Minister not think that that is correct?

    Hansard source
29. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    Clause 3 is not controversial, so I will not make a long speech. Proposed new subsection (2A) of the Transport Act 2000 simply makes it clear that, where more than one area is specified in a franchising scheme, the specified areas “need not be contiguous.” I say no more about that. Amendment 70, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, adds a reference to bus hubs. As he is my constituency neighbour, our constituents share many of the same experiences, and I absolutely support the sentiments that he eloquently expressed: rural areas are often overlooked, bus policy is designed with the major cities and large towns in mind, and policymakers—perhaps because they have limited experience of life in the kind of rural communities that he and I serve—do not consider the very different challenges that we face. I therefore support the sentiment of the amendment, but the challenge is the cost. We keep coming back to the money—or lack of it—in this legislation, because it is disproportionately expensive. The hon. Member is absolutely right that park and ride is an interesting hub-and-spoke model for rural areas, but there is also the on-demand model, which I have previously described as the Uberfication of rural transport. The tech is obviously already there. Someone books in and says that they want to go from here to there; the algorithm sorts out the route and how many people can be picked up; and then they are delivered from door to door. Because it is door to door, it has the opportunity to provide an improved customer experience. The challenge is getting the take-up, because it requires a large number of people to buy into such a scheme, and the set-up costs are expensive. There has been a trial in Wymondham, in Norfolk, where the county council put forward a type of on-demand rural service, but the take-up was disappointingly low. Why was that? My working hypothesis is that, if it is a pilot, hardly anyone knows about it, but if there is wide-scale adoption—“This is the future of rural transport”—and it is backed up with public information so that everybody in the community cannot help but know about it, the take-up will be much greater and that then transforms the economics of it. As a fellow Norfolk MP, I fully support the concept behind the hon. Member’s amendment, but I am afraid that I question whether it is needed, given the specifics of the drafting. As “places” are not defined under the clause as drafted, I am not sure about the requirement to define a specific place—this is my lawyer’s background coming through; it is a nasty rash I am developing—and I wonder whether there is a legal need for that clarification. I will move on to clause 4. According to the explanatory notes, it inserts proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(a) into the 2000 Act to clarify that services can be specified by routes or the places intended to be served. I think that is sensible. For example, a franchising authority could specify the services by listing the principal points to be served, so, “The local services to be provided under local service contracts are ones that serve the following principal points,” followed by a list of what they are, such as the hospital, the railway station and the doctor’s surgery. Another example under this proposed new subsection would be for services to be specified route by route. I will come back to that in a moment, because that is quite an important clarification when we look at the kind of operators that will be in a position to provide these services. Specifically, there is a question about the access of small and medium-sized enterprises to contracts under franchising, which sounds a bit niche but is nevertheless important. Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(b) of the 2000 Act clarifies that services can be specified by describing intended services in general terms. It is broad and gives franchising authorities a wide range of options for specifying services under this proposed new subsection. That, again, is eminently sensible; I will not go into the detail. Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(c) of the 2000 Act clarifies that franchising authorities can combine the approaches under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, a franchise authority that covers both urban and rural areas could specify services by reference to the specific routes for the urban areas, in line with proposed new paragraph (a), and then could take a broader approach for the rural areas. Finally, paragraph (d) clarifies the catch-all that franchising authorities can specify services “in such other way”.

    Hansard source
30. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    I do not disagree with anything the hon. Member said. I do not have in my head the financial details associated with rural hubs, but it makes more commercial sense as a matter of principle, although it would probably not be profitable, to have a hub-and-spoke approach rather than an hourly service for every village. I do not know whether the hon. Member has counted the villages in North Norfolk, but there are well over 100 in Broadland and Fakenham, so that would be a challenge for any provider. The Opposition support the concept of new clause 35 if the finances—the missing link—add up, but we question the need for it, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing what it sets out.

    Hansard source
31. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    We welcome the provisions in clause 11, which relate to extending the time period in which the unduly lenient sentence scheme may be applied for. However, as the official Opposition, we still have concerns that the window of opportunity for victims to raise an appeal remains the same. The scheme can only be referred to for some of the most serious crimes—crimes that are likely to leave victims and their families with a degree of trauma or grief. How can we possibly expect that, within just a month of a sentence being issued, gathering together a clear, strong case for a sentence’s being unduly lenient would be on the minds of victims? We also know that many victims do not know about the scheme, or the opportunity to appeal. Baroness Newlove said that victims “really do not know” about it. She said: “Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking.”—[Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 8, Q15.] During the oral evidence session, many notable sources raised issues with the current timeframe. Dame Nicole Jacobs, Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, described the current system as “disorienting” and said that “we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.”––[Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 9, Q15.] Extending the window of opportunity will also surely allow a greater base of evidence from previous cases to be compiled, to bolster a referral under the scheme. It is only right that we allow victims, and the organisations supporting them, the time and space to make their case as strong as possible, ensuring that everything is laid on the table for the Attorney General to consider. Let us place victims and families at the heart of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, where they should be.

    Hansard source
32. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    China Audit

    The UK Government are still considering Mingyang as a credible supplier for turbines for the Green Volt offshore wind project, and the SNP Scottish Government have given Mingyang priority status for a factory to build turbines based in Scotland under their strategic investment plan. Both say to me that neither Government are taking seriously the threat that China poses to our energy supplies. China is, at best, unreliable and, at worst, hostile and should be nowhere near our critical national infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State finally rule out Mingyang being a permitted supplier for energy infrastructure in the future or at least give us a date for when we will hear a decision?

    Hansard source
33. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    I am very sympathetic to the hon. Member’s concerns, but how does she see the new clause fitting in with the already established armed forces covenant, which protects and promotes healthcare for veterans across the country?

    Hansard source
34. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

    My hon. Friend is being slightly charitable to the CQC. Given Penny Dash’s review, we all know that the CQC has significant problems, otherwise we would not be reviewing it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clause is absolutely vital because of the failures of the CQC up to this point, and our lack of faith in it being able to meet the challenges that this legislation will bring to the mental health sector? Does she also share our concern about the CQC’s ability to regulate and scrutinise properly?

    Hansard source
35. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    China Audit

    Will the Government publish a list of sectors considered overly dependent on Chinese input, starting with critical minerals and clean energy components, to promote transparency? Will the Foreign Secretary outline any clear Government targets for reducing those dependencies?

    Hansard source
36. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing the debate. We have learned this week that rather than the Government ensuring that funding reaches the frontline, spending on staff at the Department of Health and Social Care and seven other arm’s length bodies has increased by more than 10% since Labour came to power, while GPs, social care providers and hospices are forced to do more with less. The situation is further compounded by rising financial pressures. Despite repeated promises that additional funding would improve patient care, the chief financial officer of NHS England has confirmed to the Select Committee that all the extra money allocated to the NHS will be swallowed up by national insurance increases, inflation and pay settlements, which means that none of it will go towards real improvements in frontline care. The rise in national insurance contributions was supposed to bolster the NHS and social care. In reality, it has landed like an extra tax on providers themselves. GP surgeries, care homes, hospices and community services are all grappling with the additional payroll costs, just as they struggle with surging demand and chronic workforce shortages. The Institute of General Practice Management estimates that the average GP practice now pays an extra £20,000 a year in national insurance alone. Across the nearly 6,500 practices, that adds up to around £125 million a year—money that could otherwise pay for more than 2 million GP appointments, at a time when patients are struggling to be seen. Adult social care providers face an equally stark reality. The Nuffield Trust projects that employers will shoulder nearly £940 million in extra national insurance costs in this financial year, on top of the £1.85 billion required to cover the rise in the national living wage. Local councils already face a £665 million shortfall in delivering their legal social care duties. The Government have promised a 3% real-terms rise in NHS revenue spending each year to 2028-29, reaching £232 billion by the end of that financial year, yet despite the headline increases, capital investment is being held flat in real terms. NHS leaders have made it clear that it will not be enough to rebuild or modernise our hospitals, or to fund the facilities required to support more care in the community. The Health and Social Care Committee’s recent inquiry, “Adult Social Care: the Cost of Inaction”, has drawn attention to the enormous human and economic toll of the Government’s failure to reform the care sector. From the burden of unpaid carers to the economic impact of people leaving the workforce due to unmet care needs, the system is under severe and unsustainable strain, but rather than tackling this issue, the Government have once again kicked social care into the long grass and are waiting for a report from Baroness Casey that will probably not emerge until the very end of the Session. The cross-party talks that this Government promised have been scrapped again. Although the spending review includes £4 billion in additional adult social care funding and an increase in the NHS minimum contribution to the better care fund, there remains little clarity on how the Government will fund their commitment to deliver a fair pay agreement for care workers. It is also far from clear that the better care fund is currently structured to meet the real needs of the care sector, rather than simply alleviating pressures in primary care. These estimates are not abstract figures; they translate directly into longer waits for elderly patients, overstretched family carers and staff driven to exhaustion. Can the Minister confirm exactly how much funding the Government will allocate next year to tackle the social care workforce emergency, reduce waiting lists for assessments and services, and ensure that councils can meet their statutory obligations? What concrete recruitment and retention measures will be put in place to attract and retain carers, nurses and support workers in this vital sector, and how much new capital investment will be committed to help providers to modernise facilities and expand capacity to meet the needs of our growing and ageing population? When will the cross-party talks that the Government promised on social care happen? They must happen; otherwise, all the good effort—from Members on both sides of the House—on this issue will be lost. Finally, with social care vacancies entrenched and NHS productivity still trailing pre-pandemic levels, will the Minister set out what credible workforce and capital investment plans will be included in the forthcoming NHS 10-year plan to address these challenges once and for all? I pay tribute to all the health and social care workers—employed or voluntary—across this country. This Government, with their massive majority, have a real opportunity to make real changes. They must start doing so now, and quickly.

    Hansard source
37. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Department for Education

    I am extremely grateful to be cheekily coming in at this point, but the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded authority in the country for SEN. I hope we might hear from the Minister about how the distribution, as well as the quantum, can be made fairer. Unfair distribution exacerbates the strain in the system.

    Hansard source
38. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Davies

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this excellent debate. We arguably do not spend enough time in this place discussing small and medium-sized businesses, which account for some three fifths of employment and half of all turnover in the entire private sector. The good thing about having a debate on this subject is that we have the Government in the room, rather than behind their keyboards. That is important, because I noticed while preparing for this debate that it comes hot on the heels of a written question on the same subject, which I am afraid to say received a textbook non-answer from the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire asked a perfectly reasonable question: will the Chancellor make an assessment of the growth impact of increasing the VAT registration threshold? That was a pretty direct question, yet the Minister’s response completely ignored the point about growth and instead merely stated that the threshold was £90,000. While we are very grateful for the answer, this is something that I am sure my hon. Friend already knew. As my hon. Friend is in this Chamber, I gently suggest that the Minister provide him with a fuller answer. In some senses, raising the VAT threshold on SMEs would be a tax cut, so there is cause for optimism, given the Government’s newfound enthusiasm for cutting taxes—for those who live in Mauritius. If the Labour party is happy to take 80% of Mauritian workers out of income tax altogether as part of their £30 billion Chagos surrender deal, I am pretty sure they will be sympathetic to taking British SMEs out of VAT registration. Surely the Minister will remember that last year, when we were in government, the Conservatives raised the VAT registration threshold to the current £90,000. That took 28,000 businesses out of registration, which helped them to compete and grow, and it reduced their administrative burden. We also introduced policies such as business rate relief and full expensing to reduce costs and encourage investment in our country. Put simply, we backed British businesses to drive economic growth. Contrast that with Labour’s approach—it is trying but failing to balance the books on the back of British businesses. In its very first year in office, Labour has introduced the £25 billion hike, and the reduction in the secondary threshold of employer national insurance contributions; the rise in business rates, which the party had promised to abolish, by the way; the £5 billion-a-year burden of the Employment Rights Bill; and, let us not forget, the inheritance tax raid on family businesses.

    Hansard source
39. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Davies

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    I think the hon. Gentleman is accusing you, Mr Vickers, rather than me. I simply say to him that increasing the threshold made a big difference to the 28,000 businesses that were taken out of registration. I encourage him to speak to businesses in his constituency that benefited from what is essentially a tax cut, in addition to all the other measures that I mentioned that we introduced. The contrast between what the Conservatives did in office and the approach of the Labour Government in their first year is quite stark, and the consequences are even starker. Insolvency rates are at a 15-year high, new registrations have fallen at the fastest rate since the financial crisis, payroll employment is falling, and inflation is well above target and will be higher for longer. It is no wonder that only 14% of companies with fewer than 10 employees have confidence in the Chancellor’s growth plans. According to one survey, just 29% of UK small businesses are now predicting growth this year. Meanwhile, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that its members now view the tax burden as their second biggest barrier to growth. Here we see very clearly the vicious cycle that Labour has fallen into, just as it did in the 1970s: higher taxes and higher inflation, leading to lower growth and lower revenues, leading to still higher taxation. That is why, even though the Chancellor promised British businesses that she would not be back for more, she is now refusing to rule out even more taxes and tax rises in the autumn Budget. That is no wonder, because the National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecasts a £60 billion shortfall in the public finances—and that was before we had Labour MPs in open revolt about the slightly tiny welfare reforms and an unfunded commitment to increase defence spending by £40 billion. In that worrying context, I hope the Minister can stand up and provide some certainty to SMEs by giving his assurance that the next Budget will not see a reduction in the registration threshold, or indeed an increase in the rate of VAT. I would like him to stand up and rule those out right now, for all of us to hear. I know that these assurances will fall short of the increase in the registration threshold that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire and other Members are looking for today, but it will provide more certainty if the Minister rules those things out. I would also be grateful for an update on the so-called new business growth service, which the Government promised would be a “one-stop shop” for advice and support. That was supposed to launch in the first half of this year, but the Government’s industrial strategy has apparently now had to push that back to later this summer. Perhaps one reason for the delay is that the best advice a business growth service could possibly give anybody is “Do not vote Labour”. That is clear for us all to see. SMEs probably have quite a lot of advice of their own for the Government, but unfortunately the going rate for speaking to a Labour Minister is apparently £55,000, and one has to endure the inevitable gloom of the Labour party conference. In the spirit of this debate, perhaps the Minister could confirm whether the price tag for meeting him is before or after VAT. Either way, like most Labour policies, I expect it will bring in less revenue than was first hoped.

    Hansard source
40. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Gareth Davies

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats are keen to meet us and are willing to pay for it. Perhaps we can speak afterwards, but his constituents can speak to me any time. We are always available, across the country. This has been an excellent debate, with many views. It has highlighted the great importance of business to all our constituents, and I mean that seriously. The comments from colleagues on my side have illuminated the many different businesses that we have, whether it is Bloom Weddings, Chris and Annie’s business in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire; the fish and chip shops Old Time Fisheries and Kirkgate Fisheries in Keighley and Ilkley, which no doubt provide fantastic fish and chips but are unfortunately reducing their hours, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley pointed out; or Carmela’s in the great constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. All are having a hard time of it, but they remain excellent businesses. Some are, no doubt, places where we can all eat out. The Liberal Democrats have made some important points. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) spoke about plumbers, and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) about the hair and beauty salons and high streets in Mid Dunbartonshire. This is an important debate to have. I am reminded of the last election when one party had a key policy in their manifesto around VAT thresholds, and that was Reform. However, I am afraid that when it comes to the hard graft of making the case in this place, the party is, yet again, nowhere to be seen. I hope we can all agree that our country is stronger because of the men and women who get up every morning, go to work and drive our economy forward, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said. At the heart of every successful economy is the simple fact that prosperity begins small. It begins with the family-run café on the high street, the corner shop, the book shop and the local butchers, and the single parent who is just launching their dream from their spare room or their garage. These are not just businesses. These are stories of people who had an idea, stuck it out and made it happen. When we pile on more and more burdens, when taxes climb too high and regulation tangles dreams in red tape, we do not just make it harder to do business; the hope of what might be possible completely dims. A free society depends on free enterprise. When we get out of the way and support small businesses, we are not just fuelling the economy but lifting communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire believes that lifting the VAT threshold will help achieve that, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source