Strategic Defence Review
Order. Questions are very long, and the answers are getting longer as well. We need to get many colleagues in, so can we please keep it short?
5,804 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Strategic Defence Review
Order. The statement has been going on for well over an hour and we will have to conclude in the next 20 minutes, so questions will have to be short, as will the answers.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
One of the things that feels so pernicious about scrapping the national “Get around for £2” bus fare cap is that, while certain parts of the country that were given long-term settlements under the last Government—sometimes of up to five years—have been able to maintain the cap, large parts of the country have not been able to do so. Does that not go to show that the last Government were prepared to work with people from all political parties, but this feels particularly pernicious because it is really targeted at areas that have not traditionally been Labour-supporting?
- Hansard source
Strategic Defence Review
Recommendation 26 sensibly calls for the expansion of in-school cadet forces. Will the Defence Secretary work with the Department for Education to reverse its penny-pinching cuts, and reinstate school staff instructor grants to help extend cadet forces into more state schools?
- Hansard source
Neighbourhood Policing
Six of Britain’s most senior police officers have warned that the Government’s actions are making it harder to keep our streets safe. From the damaging jobs tax to releasing criminals early, Labour is pushing forces to the brink. Does the Home Secretary agree with Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley that he will be forced to cut 1,700 police officers, PCSOs and staff this year?
- Hansard source
Neighbourhood Policing
We did not get to whether Mark Rowley was right or wrong, and I notice that the Home Secretary forgot to mention the hundreds of millions being gobbled up by Labour’s jobs tax, or the fact that police numbers reached record levels under the last Government. That aside, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has published its anti-racism commitment, saying that racial equality does not mean treating everyone the same or being colour blind, and calling for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups. Does the Home Secretary agree that the police should respond to people’s actions regardless of race? If so, why did the policing Minister endorse this barmy document?
- Hansard source
Decriminalising Abortion
I remind Members that they must bob if they want to catch my eye.
- Hansard source
Decriminalising Abortion
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that if she refers to another Member, she should have given that Member advance warning.
- Hansard source
Strategic Defence Review
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When I worked on defence reviews at the Ministry of Defence, they all had up and down arrows. From what I have read of this defence review in the brief time we have had with it, there seem to be a lot of up arrows; I could really find only one down arrow, which was about not extending the Dreadnoughts’ out-of-service date beyond 2050. Does the Secretary of State want to roll the pitch a bit and indicate where capabilities might be de-emphasised, or indeed lost?
- Hansard source
Violence against Women and Girls
On 28 April, the Minister was clear with this House that the framework for local grooming gang inquiries and Baroness Casey’s audit would both be published in May. It is now June. Presumably there is a new timeline for publishing them, so will the Minister share it with us, please?
- Hansard source
UK Nuclear Deterrent
I congratulate the Minister on his robust stance on the UK nuclear deterrent, which I welcome. From a Whip’s perspective, I am interested to know how he plans to bring his parliamentary party on side when so many have voted against the nuclear deterrent and Trident.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T2. On Saturday, 1,200 illegal migrants poured into the United Kingdom by small boat. Many gave spurious reasons to stay here, so when will the Government repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 for immigration cases and take back control of our borders?
- Hansard source
Strategic Defence Review
I very much welcome the aspirations of this strategic defence review and welcome the statement on page 7 that, “We will develop a new Defence Investment Plan”. However, as the Secretary of State knows from all the Budgets and fiscal events he has sat through, he cannot give the House a categorical assurance over future spending commitments, so will he make it clear to the House what decisions he is prepared to make with respect to the existing commitments such that he can secure that additional funding at subsequent spending reviews and Budgets? I hope that when he comes clean completely to this House, he will make clear that there will be considerable ongoing investment in the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, which does an enormous amount to secure understanding of future technologies in the defence arena.
- Hansard source
UK Nuclear Deterrent
Most military operations require an element of surprise, and the Government certainly achieved that by delivering the news of the return of tactical nuclear weapons through the medium of The Sunday Times. That marmalade-dropping moment aside, what impact will the apparent purchase of F-35 Lightning fighters from America have on the global combat air programme that we are putting together with Italy and Japan—or should I wait for the “You read it here last” strategic defence review?
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
When my hon. Friend talks about the increased risk smaller local authorities would face through franchising, he could be talking about my local authority, Isle of Wight council. Does he see anything in the Bill that is appealing to small unitary authorities, or is this really just a Bill for bigger metropolitan areas and large towns?
- Hansard source
Government Announcements
(Urgent question): To ask the Leader of the House if she will make a statement on Government announcements outside the House of Commons.
- Hansard source
Government Announcements
Is that really the best that the Leader of the House can do—an “I speak your weight” autocue recitation of points that she has made in her three previous attempts to deal with occasions when the House has been embarrassed and disregarded over the last three weeks alone? It was a hopeless miscue of a response that bordered on a contempt of Parliament itself—yet another attempt to change the subject, blame others and distract attention from the latest fiasco. Evidently the defence of the realm is not important enough to merit making its way up the list of priorities in the Government’s media handouts. Lord Robertson himself, as you have said, Mr Speaker—and I am amazed that you had to intervene on the Leader of the House during her own remarks—would be ashamed and embarrassed to think that this was being done in his name. Just three weeks ago, the Leader of the House had to be dragged to the House over the Government’s briefing on the immigration White Paper outside the House. That came just days after they had done the same in respect of prisoner recall, the UK-US trade deal and, of course, the Chagos islands. That followed instances involving tuition fees, planning reforms and even the fiscal rules, on which you, Mr Speaker, had to reprove and chastise the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now we have seen the unhappy sight of the Secretary of State for Defence, no less, extensively briefing the media on the decisions to deploy airborne nuclear weapons and build the next generation of submarines, before coming to the House. Perhaps, as I have said, they were not important enough to merit a mention beforehand. Journalists have been able to read the strategic defence review since 10.30 am, while the Opposition were prevented from seeing the document until five minutes ago, precisely in order to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. All this is manifestly in breach of the ministerial code, the Nolan principles and, of course, Labour’s own manifesto, demonstrating the Government’s arrogance and complacency and their disdain for the House and for democratic accountability, and this from—the clue is in the title—the Leader of the House, whose job is to protect and safeguard the House and its Members. Unfortunately, her obvious floundering just now made the point far better than I can. When did the Leader of the House know about these announcements, and what steps did she take to prevent the media briefings and ensure that the announcements were made to the House of Commons first? Will she now apologise for yet another high-handed Government decision for which she alone is fully responsible, in this instance, to the House?
- Hansard source
Government Announcements
The Leader of the House has just told us that the document was “trailed” to journalists, but at 10.41 this morning The Daily Telegraph published a long article in which its authors clearly set out that they had read the entire document. At the same time, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence was refused an advance copy of it, even under Privy Counsellor rules. Why do the Government appear to trust journalists with national security, but not the shadow Secretary of State?
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
This has been a really enjoyable debate. One of the great benefits of winding up is that we are forced to sit and listen to absolutely everything. Most speeches I enjoyed, but there were one or two that I did not. It is up to hon. Members to work out whether I am talking about them. The contributions to this debate have been enlightening, because they have exposed some clear differences of economic and political philosophy among the parties. The Liberal Democrats, one after another, argued for improved services, particularly rural services, but were less clear about how to fund them. On the Labour Benches, there was huge optimism and enthusiasm under the perhaps mistaken belief that the Bill, in itself, will improve passenger services for their constituents. The truth is that when we look at the terms of the Bill, it is clear that the focus of its reforms is not primarily on improving bus services for passengers—quite the contrary. In the other place, Labour whipped its peers to vote against what is now clause 1, which makes the improvement of the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain the purpose of the Bill. I send birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and make a plea on her behalf for her Whips not to be too harsh on her for her support of clause 1. Perhaps she was unaware that it was opposed by her own party in the other place. Why do the Government not want to put performance improvement at the heart of the Bill? Because that is not the Bill’s primary intention. Labour’s true focus was set out in its background briefing to the King’s Speech. It is about “accelerating the bus franchising process…building on the success of…public bus services still in operation.” No mention there of passengers, performance, improvements or cost control; it is the structure of the bus providers that has excited the Government. They intend to increase the number of municipal bus companies, presumably because they think that civil servants are better equipped to run efficient bus companies than private sector operators. I can see that, in some examples, that is possible. I spoke to the managing director of the Warrington bus company last week and I was impressed by the performance figures, although they are very unusual. However, the Government’s faith does not translate into confidence that the new municipal bus companies could win a competitive tender, as the Bill, perhaps inadvertently, allows local authorities to do away with competition. Extraordinarily, as currently drafted, it would allow any local authority to first create a new municipal bus company and then grant itself a franchise, without any competitive process. If that is deliberate, it really would be the triumph of socialist political ideology: that the state is somehow better. Franchising is an alternative solution, potentially allowing greater co-ordination of transport provision, but it comes at a cost. It takes commercial risk away from the bus operators and puts it in the hands of local authorities. It requires dynamic contract, design and management skills. It is necessarily complex and, if done badly, risks the removal of the innovative power of the private sector, replacing it with state direction. Let me say again what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made abundantly clear at the opening of this debate: we do not oppose bus franchising in principle. We support it, in fact, when it delivers value for money and, above all, when it improves services for passengers. But what we have seen from the Government today is a refusal to engage with the very real risks embedded in the Bill. The existing 2017 legislation has been referred to more than once during the debate. It recognises that mayoral combined authorities have the scale and resources needed to manage the development of franchise model. However, even here, political ineptitude and mayoral hubris can make a mess of things. Andy Burnham’s Bee Network has been touted as the socialist example to follow—[Interruption.] I hear it from the Government Front Bench right now, but let us have a look at what has actually happened in Manchester. Buses that cost the private sector £180,000 cost Andy Burnham £220,000. Bus depots that cost the private sector less than £4 million cost Andy Burnham more than £12 million—in fact, nearly £13 million. Private sector bus companies train sufficient staff for their needs while Andy’s team, having failed to secure enough trained drivers, is in the absurd position of having to pay more than 400 agency staff to drive their buses at inflated hourly rates and with accommodation costs on top. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated at £17.4 million a year and rising. Who is focusing on cost reductions in Manchester? Well, it is not the bus companies—it is not their job to reduce costs any more. In fact, the bigger the overall contract cost, the more profit they make. Require them to give above-inflation pay rises to unionised staff, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. It goes on the bill, and they get a profit percentage on top. Require them to donate to charity, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. Just add it to the bill, and get a profit percentage on top. Profits go up as the size of the contract increases. While Labour claims to have increased value for money because of the much-touted reduced profit percentage, the taxpayer is quietly fleeced. This is the doublespeak of Labour’s “value for money”. What is the real cost of Labour’s return to “On the Buses”? Had Andy Burnham stuck to his own business plan, the Bee Network should have been profitable after the transition period, but because of his self-aggrandising hubris and statist ineptitude, the loss for this year alone is forecast to be £226 million and it is likely to rise further in the years ahead—that is £1 billion in under four years. And that is in a mayoral combined authority, although admittedly a Labour one. Has this worked to increase traveller numbers? Between 2022 and 2024, Greater Manchester has experienced a 34.34% increase in ridership, according to Government figures, but let’s look at my county of Norfolk, which has a Conservative county council: its enhanced partnership has increased ridership over the same period by 43%. Let’s look at Essex—again, a Conservative-run council with an enhanced partnership, which has increased ridership by 52.3%. In the wider context, Greater Manchester has in fact underperformed. Why does the Bill remove the crucial safeguards that ensured franchising was rolled out by authorities with at least a notional capacity to deliver? Why has Labour walked away from giving the Secretary of State the power to intervene if the worst happens and services fail? Why does the Bill not require a competitive tender process when local authorities decide to run their own bus companies? Labour appears content to let any council, regardless of size, experience, expertise or cash reserves, take on these huge financial and organisational risks. That is not empowering local government; that is setting it up to fail. And that is before we talk about money. These franchising powers are meaningless without the money to implement them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington made clear, just £243 million of the £1 billion promised by Labour is destined for actual bus services. That does not even satisfy Andy Burnham’s bus habit for a year. What about the rest of the country? Without billions—literally billions—of pounds to back up this Bill, it is just posturing. So where is the money? The answer is that there isn’t any. The Government have scrapped the Conservatives’ £2 bus fare, which was genuine financial support focused 100% on passengers, and now it is rumoured that even the £3 bus fare is due for the chop. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. The Government tell us they have a plan for passengers, but it seems that their plan for passengers is to make them pay more. The Bill needs to have the improvement of passenger services at its heart. It needs to encourage the innovation and efficiency of the private sector. It needs to consider vulnerable SEND children and their educational needs. It needs to recognise the huge financial risks of franchising and municipal bus ownership, and to provide appropriate oversight and support. Most importantly, it needs a Government who are prepared to think again in Committee and be open to improvements to the Bill.
- Hansard source
Government Announcements
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on the following, as I seek to set the record straight. At the weekend I became aware of an email sent to a group of journalists from the Ministry of Defence, which stated: “We will have a reading room open for you from 1030 to Horse Guards” on Monday. “You will have the opportunity to read through the full embargoed SDR publication”. After seeing that, I emailed the Secretary of State’s office on Sunday afternoon and asked whether, given that journalists would see the publication at 10.30, we could be sent a copy at 9 am. They refused. They told us we would get a copy of the statement—that is, the oral statement to the House—in the usual way. I then repeatedly asked the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is present in the Chamber, if we could get a copy of the SDR. He refused. I have now been told something else, which is that representatives of industry were allowed to see the SDR at 10.30. This is a multibillion-pound industry that is highly market-sensitive. Mr Speaker, can I ask your advice on this point? As I understand it, the Vote Office has multiple physical hard copies of the strategic defence review, which I have not read at all, my colleagues have not read and no other parliamentary colleagues have read. It was given to me only as I came into the Chamber, so obviously I have not been able to read it. Journalists have had five hours. It is unacceptable. Can I ask if the Vote Office could, exceptionally, be asked to release it now?
- Hansard source
UK Nuclear Deterrent
I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee for securing this important urgent question. Following comments in the press last month from Sir Simon Case, former head of the civil service, that the UK should consider air-launched nuclear capabilities, I wrote in the Express on 25 May that our nuclear deterrent needed to be made even more resilient, including the continuous at-sea deterrent, but also “potentially, by diversifying our methods for delivering nuclear strike.” I believe that it would be right to diversify our methods of delivering nuclear strike, because we have to recognise the threat posed by Russia in particular, and it has the ability to operate nuclear weapons at tactical and theatre levels. To deter effectively, we must be able do the same. We support in principle moves to widen our nuclear capabilities, on the assumption that we do so working closely with our NATO allies. However, I gently suggest to the Government that they may need our support to carry that decision. I remind the Minister that eight of his Front-Bench colleagues voted against the renewal of our nuclear deterrent in 2016, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and others. If the Minister was hoping that he could rely on the Liberal Democrats, let me say that not only did all but one of their MPs vote against Trident renewal in 2016, but as a condition of supporting the coalition Government, they shamefully demanded that we delayed the renewal of our nuclear submarines, leaving us to rely on older boats for far longer. That led to longer maintenance periods, and above all, directly contributed to the punishingly long tours of duty for our CASD naval crews. Having had the privilege of serving as the Minister responsible for nuclear, and having chaired the Defence Nuclear Board, I understand why the Minister needs to choose his words carefully, but can he at least recognise that 204 days for a patrol is far too long, and that in addition to any plan to diversify the deterrent launch method, we must ensure that our strategic CASD enterprise has an effective and productive industrial base, delivering faster maintenance times? Finally, will he confirm what the estimated cost will be of delivering an air-launched option, and say by when he would expect that to be in service?
- Hansard source
Strategic Defence Review
Before I turn to the substance, in responding to my point of order, the Secretary of State said that when he was in opposition, “We were not offered a briefing”, and “We had no advance copy of the defence review.”—[Interruption.]
- Hansard source
Strategic Defence Review
The Secretary of State said that this occurred when I was a Defence Minister. Actually, in March 2023, before I became a Minister, he was invited to a reading room on the morning of publication. On the Defence Command Paper refresh in July 2023, when I was Minister, he said he did not get a copy. I can confirm, and I am happy to substantiate this, that a hard copy was dropped off at his office at 9.30 am that morning. I asked for a copy of the SDR repeatedly on Sunday and earlier this morning, and we were not given one. I have not even read the document, and I am the shadow Secretary of State. I can add that some of the biggest defence companies in this land were given copies at 8 am this morning. They have had hours to read it; I have not read it at all. This is meant to be a democracy and this meant to be a Parliament. How can we hold the Government to account? While the Government may have tried to hide the document from us for as long as possible today, they cannot hide what has happened in plain sight, which is a total unravelling of their strategic defence review because, quite simply, they do not have a plan to fund it. An SDR without the funding is an empty wish list. The ships and submarines it talks of are a fantasy fleet. The reviewers were clear in The Telegraph today that the commitment to 3% “established” the affordability of the plan. On Thursday, the Defence Secretary said in an interview with The Times that reaching 3% was a “certainty”, but by the weekend he had completely backtracked to 3% being just an “ambition”. Today, the Prime Minister was unable to give a date by which 3% would be reached. Why? Because the Treasury has not approved a plan to pay for it. The Secretary of State and I have both been Treasury Ministers and Defence Ministers, and he knows as well as I do how this works. For the Treasury to approve a plan, it will have to feature billions of pounds of cuts to existing MOD programmes, so this SDR has dodged the big decisions on existing capabilities. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the so-called defence investment plan to be published in the autumn will set out the cuts needed for the Treasury to agree a plan to get to 3%? We should have had those details in the SDR today. Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the total budget for new measures announced in this SDR over the next five years is less than £10 billion? That is less than we will be spending to lease back our own base on Diego Garcia. Is it not the hard truth that the Government are unable to guarantee the money our armed forces need, but the one plan they can guarantee is to give billions to Mauritius for land we currently own freehold? And can he finally tell us what percentage of the payment for Chagos will be met by the MOD? He has never told us before. Let me suggest an alternative path to the Secretary of State: first, guaranteeing to hit 3% and doing so in this Parliament, not the next; secondly, getting a grip on our welfare budget, rather than competing with Reform to expand it; thirdly, saving billions by scrapping their crazy Chagos plan. That is a plan to back our armed forces and make our country stronger from the party that actually last spent 3%, in 1996. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary—[Interruption.] It was a Labour Government who came in, in 1997; I do not know what Labour Members are laughing about. The terrible shame of this SDR unravelling is that this was an extraordinary opportunity to overhaul our armed forces in a world of growing threats. Only yesterday, we saw the Ukrainians once again demonstrating, with their audacious attack on Russian nuclear bombers, how profoundly war has changed. And yet it is true that some of the best long-range one-way attack drones used in Ukraine have not been built by Ukraine, but by UK defence SMEs. We are incredibly well placed to be a leading nation in the development of uncrewed forces, but how many military drones have the Government actually purchased for our own military since the general election? In a written answer to me, the answer was not 3,000 or 300, but three. They have purchased three reconnaissance drones since the election and not a single one-way attack drone. That is the reality. For the past year, the Treasury has used the SDR to effectively put MOD procurement on hold. That is absolutely shameful when we need to rearm at pace and at scale. At least the Secretary of State for Defence knows how the rest of the country feels: totally let down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there is one capability that matters more than any other, it is people. We agree on the critical importance of recruitment and retention, which is why I did so much of the work to buy back the defence estate so we could rebuild it and rebuild the substandard defence accommodation. But the Army is down by 1,000 since the election. If the Government really want to address recruitment and retention, would it not be total madness to scrap the legislation protecting our Northern Ireland veterans from a new era of ambulance-chasing lawfare? Surely nothing could be more damaging for morale, recruitment and retention than to once again pursue our veterans for the crime of serving this country and keeping us safe from terrorism. To conclude, the Secretary of State says he wants to send a strong message to Moscow, but the messages he is sending are profoundly weak: surrendering our fishing grounds for an EU defence pact that does not offer a penny in return; surrendering the Chagos islands, to the delight of China and Iran; surrendering our Army veterans to the lawyers; and to cap it all and after so much hype, producing a damp squib SDR that is overdue, underfunded and totally underwhelming. Our armed forces deserve a lot better than this.
- Hansard source
Strategic Defence Review
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to add to what I said in my earlier point of order and to seek your guidance. I reiterate how incredibly disappointing it is, as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on the day of the SDR, not to be able to read it before having to stand up and respond to the Government. I said earlier that we knew of one major defence company that received a copy of the document at 8 am this morning. I have been told of another major prime—one of the largest—that received a copy at 8 am this morning. That means that at the time that I was messaging the Minister for the Armed Forces and begging him to let us have a copy, and he was saying that we could not have one, they were reading the SDR over breakfast. Madam Deputy Speaker, you heard Mr Speaker refer to the phrase “skin in the game”; he was very concerned about a document being given early in the morning to big defence companies that have skin in the game. Can you advise us on what more we can do to probe this point and hold the Government to account on commercial sensitivity?
- Hansard source
UK Visas and Immigration: Processing Times
New research shows that foreign nationals are claiming almost £1 billion in benefits each month. We now face the highest number of asylum claims ever recorded—up another 9% since Labour took office. Meanwhile, the 42,000 appeal backlog at the end of 2024 is projected to more than double to almost 100,000 by the end of this year. The Home Secretary herself has admitted to the media that her White Paper would cut immigration by just 50,000. This is utterly inadequate. Without real deterrence and stricter measures, the visa processing delays will only worsen, so will the Minister commit to two concrete measures: implementing the previous Conservative threshold of £38,000; and introducing a legally binding annual migration cap that actually delivers accountability?
- Hansard source
Strategic Defence Review
While it is welcome that the SDR refers to the need for more routine protection of subsea cables and pipelines and of maritime traffic, there is no specific mention of the same commitment to the protection of North sea oil and gas platforms, rigs and floating production, storage, and offloading vessels. They are just as important to our energy security, which is our national security, and there could be much more catastrophic consequences if they were attacked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those structures will be included in any plan for the routine securing and protecting of critical national infrastructure?
- Hansard source
Rape Gangs: Statutory Inquiry
12. If she will establish a national statutory inquiry into rape gangs.
- Hansard source
Rape Gangs: Statutory Inquiry
Senior figures in the Catholic Church and the Church of England were found to have conspired to cover up child abuse by priests. Senior figures in the Labour party are now opposing local inquiries in places such as Bradford, London and Wales, and Ministers here oppose a national rape inquiry. We have also heard from a former Labour Member of Parliament, Simon Danczuk, that he was told not to raise the issue of the ethnicity of some of the perpetrators. When will Labour put aside its electoral interests and stand on the side of the abused?
- Hansard source
Government Announcements
My constituents will wonder about a Government who promised to do things differently. They said that they would be transparent and be whiter than white—then they behave like this. One almost feels sorry for the Leader of the House, because she is trying to defend the indefensible. It is not enough to express regret that journalists were given access to the document in full before Privy Counsellors, the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, or that this trailing in full went on days ahead. What we need is action. Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), will the Leader of the House commit to looking into the issue, whether through a formal inquiry or not? Secondly, will she meet one to one with the Prime Minister to express her clear opinion that what has happened is not acceptable? I would like specific answers to both those questions.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Buses are the most popular form of public transport in the country, carrying passengers on twice as many journeys as trains and serving thousands more stops nationwide. As the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, from the centre of London to the remotest areas, they can get teenagers to school, allow pensioners to visit friends and connect people to jobs that they would not otherwise be able to take. They keep town centres alive, connect our communities and ensure that those with mobility issues, as well as the most vulnerable, can get around.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
It is because there is no Division later. It is not because nobody cares, but because there is not going to be a Division. The previous Conservative Government recognised just how vital local bus services are to keeping communities connected. From 2020 to when we left office last summer, the previous Government committed £4.5 billion to support and enhance bus services, including more than £2 billion to help local authorities implement their bus service improvement plans. Perhaps most importantly, we also introduced the £2 bus fare cap.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Yes, indeed. We are very interested in doing that, which is why we inserted a purpose clause in the other place to ensure that the key focus of this Bill is solely on passengers. By maintaining the £2 bus fare cap, we ensured that bus travel remained affordable and accessible to as many people as possible, while helping families manage the cost of living. We have voiced deep concerns in both this Chamber and the other place about the impact, particularly on the most vulnerable, of Labour’s decision to scrap the £2 cap and raise it to £3. Make no mistake: this is bad for those in work, who will be £3,500 worse off because of this Government’s jobs tax, and bad for pensioners, who have seen their winter fuel payments cut and their energy bills rise, despite repeated promises from Labour to cut their energy costs by £300.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
As always, my right hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter, and I have to say that I agree with him. I would like to make one thing abundantly clear from the outset: we do not oppose franchising in principle. When implemented properly, franchising can be a powerful mechanism for improving services, addressing local transport challenges and delivering the quality services that passengers rightly demand and expect.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
I will make a bit of progress. However, the Bill in its original form does not do that. The Secretary of State has acknowledged, and I agree, that the Bill does not mandate franchising everywhere, and that is a sensible step, but the Bill does not prioritise passengers, and nothing in it guarantees an improvement in service standards. The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era, without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Yes, my hon. Friend is completely correct, and I will come to that a bit later in my speech. While we do not oppose the franchising of bus services, we do oppose a particular assumption that underlines this legislation, which is that the public sector is the solution to everything. Some local authorities may have the expertise and resources to successfully franchise passenger bus services, but let us be clear that many do not. The very central premise of the Bill—giving every local authority the unchecked power to implement franchising, regardless of its resources or capacity—is not an act of empowerment; it is irresponsible. By removing the need for the Secretary of State to consent to franchising, as required under the previous Conservative Government, this Government are eliminating crucial safeguards.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
With respect to my right hon. Friend, I will not, because I am conscious that lots of Members want to speak. Those safeguards are designed to ensure that franchising serves the passengers who rely on our bus services and the taxpayers who pay for them. The expertise required to design, manage and operate franchised networks is not readily available in most councils. That is why the Bus Services Act 2017 limited franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities, which are bodies with the scale, resources and democratic mandate to take on such responsibilities. Crucially, the legislation we enacted to pave the way for mayoral combined authorities to issue franchising models also required those authorities to demonstrate that franchising would deliver genuine benefits for passengers. The removal of that requirement by this Bill is concerning, and it betrays the view held by those on the Government side of the House that the public sector is inherently infallible. Members will not be shocked that I do not share that view, but they do not need to take my word for it.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
I will make some progress and then give way. Members should take the word of Centre for Cities, which has made it clear that expanding franchising could expose councils to serious financial risks, because after decades of deregulated services, many transport authorities simply lack the skills and capacity to manage a comprehensive bus network, yet would be financially responsible if an undertaking goes wrong. These are not just hypothetical concerns. The experience in Greater Manchester illustrates just how easily costs can spiral, leaving the taxpayer out of pocket. The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that initial projections published in Greater Manchester combined authority’s transport revenue budget put the cost of transitioning to a franchised system at £134.5 million for 2024-25. That figure has since ballooned, with ongoing operational costs now forecast to exceed £226 million per year by 2025-26, which is a 68% increase in one year. Over four years, the scheme could cost up to £1 billion—far, far more than anticipated. Moreover, the House will know that the annual level of bus subsidy in London last year amounted to £646 million. Greater London is the most heavily populated and most economically active area in the entire country. It also has the highest level of bus use. Yet even with all those advantages, it requires that level of annual subsidy just to keep the network running.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
The risk of the Bill is that it does not come with substantial funding attached. That is the problem. It is mismanaging the public’s expectations. I expect we will hear from a parade of Labour MPs talking about how it will transform services in their local area. Without the required level of funding, it simply will not.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which is that without substantial extra levels of funding from the Government, that simply will not happen. Local authorities may have the powers to do it, but they simply will not have the ability. The Government have talked about the amount of money they are putting into the Bill and the Secretary of State referred to it in her speech, but it is a mere £1 billion, of which £700 million has been earmarked for bus planning documents, not actual services. Less than 30% is being directed toward the delivery of bus services themselves, which will not touch the sides. Giving local authorities the legal power to do something without the money is mere window dressing. If these challenges can emerge in Greater Manchester and Greater London despite all their resources, planning and political leadership, what should we expect elsewhere? The truth is that we do not know, and that highlights the danger at the heart of the Bill. On a connected vein, through franchising, we may end up extinguishing a number of highly successful private sector businesses, reducing them to operating for a fee and doing what the state instructs them to do in terms of routes, services and fares. Quite aside from losing the expertise that the private sector brings to the network, the Government risk removing any incentive for the private sector to invest in our bus networks, potentially leaving the taxpayer with ever greater burdens. Despite my various concerns about this legislation, I would like to recognise that the Bill we see before us was greatly improved during its passage through the other place—improvements driven notably but not exclusively by Conservative peers. The purpose clause, which obligates the Secretary of State to consider service performance, quality and accessibility, was a much-needed addition, as was the amendment requiring an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 fare cap. Successful amendments requiring the Secretary of State to review bus services to villages in England, to develop a programme to eliminate serious injury during bus operations, and to require bus operators to record all data regarding assaults and violent behaviour, were all tabled by peers from other political parties to His Majesty’s Opposition and, collectively, they improve the Bill. The latter amendment was tabled by the noble Lord Woodley, a Labour peer and former joint general secretary of the Unite trade union. It was, bizarrely, opposed by Labour peers, but it succeeded with the support of Conservative peers and those of other parties. A further successful Conservative amendment was passed, mandating a review of the national insurance burden on special educational needs transport, following the increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that it is deeply regrettable that Labour peers were whipped to vote against a measure designed solely to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society. In opposing the special educational needs transport amendment in the other place, the Government asserted: “The Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant effect on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment that this amendment suggests.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 1756.] Leaving aside the breathtaking arrogance of that statement, it is directly contradicted by the very providers tasked with delivering these vital services. The chairman of the 24x7 Group, one of the largest operators of SEND transport in the country, has warned that changes to national insurance contributions could significantly raise employment costs, making some contracts unviable. That has the potential to leave thousands of children without access to the transport they rely on to attend school. To oppose even a review of such consequences is not just shortsighted; it speaks to a worrying indifference about the impact of this legislation on vulnerable passengers. The Opposition were also disappointed that Labour peers voted against introducing a safeguard against repeated franchising assessments for the same geographical area, which risks wasting public resources and creating instability for operators and passengers alike. Similarly, it was disappointing to see Labour peers not support plans to ensure that floating bus stops do not threaten the safety of those who are blind and partially sighted. Likewise, if improving passenger services is at the heart of the Bill, I fail to understand why Labour peers were whipped to vote against the amendment that would give the Secretary of State the power to intervene when franchised services fail due to poor local management. Does the Secretary of State really believe that passengers should be left stranded simply because a local authority is unable to deliver? I do not believe that to be the case and I look forward to her amending the Bill as it proceeds through the House. Why did Labour peers vote against those measures? Once again, it would appear that ideology took precedence over passengers. That is why we will push to reinstate these prudent amendments as the Bill proceeds through the House. The Liberal Democrats supported many of the measures in the other place and I sincerely hope they will do the same in this House, for the benefit of passengers. In conclusion, franchising may well play an important role in improving the bus networks of the future, but the Bill alone will not get us there. That is because the Bill does not prioritise those who matter most: the people who rely on buses every single day to get to work, attend school, reach appointments and stay connected with their communities. While we welcome the positive changes made by peers in the other place and we will not divide the House on Second Reading, we cannot vote for a Bill that lacks basic safeguards, ignores the risks and prioritises ideology over impact. We will therefore seek to improve the Bill as it proceeds through the House. I urge the House to consider not just the political implications of this legislation, but its real-world consequences for the millions who depend on these services every day.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Regarding non-crime hate incidents and the amount of police time taken to investigate them, does the Minister agree that the clue is in the name? They are “non-crime”. Does she also agree that already stretched police should focus their efforts on tackling real crime, rather than being the virtue-signalling thought police?