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

1. 7 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

   Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

   The hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier in the debate from the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) that some oil and gas companies advertise their work on decarbonising despite it making up only 0.3% of their business. On that basis, I could arguably edit my Wikipedia page to say that I am a professional swimmer or pub quizzer, but I do not think that would be a fair representation of what I spend most of my time doing, although it probably adds up to 0.3% of my time in some months. On that basis, would the hon. Gentleman reconsider whether he really thinks it is fair to allow oil and gas companies to advertise work that accounts for less than 0.5% of their business and use that to greenwash their image?

   Hansard source
2. 7 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

   Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

   I thank the Minister for his patience while I checked a fact. A minute or so ago, he used the phrase “informed choice” to defend why he is not planning to ban advertising for fossil fuels. Is he aware that that exact phrase, “informed choice”, was used by the tobacco companies to campaign against the ban on tobacco advertising? I am reading from a memorandum by British American Tobacco that was submitted to Parliament in 2000.

   Hansard source
3. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will speak primarily about my amendments 29 to 31, but I will also say a few words about clause 31. Amendment 29 would amend clause 30(1), which concerns the guidance for stopping places for bus stops. It is a very good clause, but my amendment would ensure that the Bill specifies additional information to be included in the guidance so that it is truly comprehensive as to what bus users need at a bus stop. It includes reference to safe and accessible travel to and from bus stops in the surrounding area, not just accessibility from the bus stop to the bus, as well as reference to toilet facilities for both passengers and drivers. It aims to ensure that clear information is set out, including standards written into the guidance for real-time bus information. If my amendment is not agreed to, I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister that those issues will be considered in the guidance. There is a strong case for ensuring that the guidance covers them. Additionally, I support amendments 40 and 42, which would usefully replace “may” with “must” in respect of the guidance. In ensuring safe and accessible travel to and from bus stops, it is important that we ensure that people can get to them across things like junctions or main roads that are difficult to cross. People often need to be able to get from the bus stop where they get off to one on the other side of the road to get the bus back. In almost every case, they will need to cross the road that the buses use, so that they can switch directions. An accessible route across the road between two bus stops is an essential component of accessible travel, and it needs looking at in the guidance. I have a very long history of work on toilets, from my time in the London Assembly. That is primarily down to my former colleague Caroline Russell, who is still in the London Assembly advocating for the issue. The cross-party transport committee in the London Assembly, which at the time was led by a Conservative, published a great report called “Driven to Distraction”, which has <span id="180" class="column-number" data-column-number="180"></span>been submitted as written evidence. It sets out various issues that bus drivers face—pressure, fatigue and all sorts of things that I will address later. Recommendation 5 in the report makes it very clear that the need to use a toilet is an issue for many drivers. We have many more female drivers with serious pressures on them, particularly if they have their period. We also have some older drivers who may experience difficult issues in trying to access toilets while they work. Making sure that drivers have access to toilets is very important. I also draw Members’ attention to the written evidence from Lorraine Robertson, a veteran bus driver. She has worked with other bus drivers to put together what she calls the bill of rights for bus drivers, which contains the right to a clean, serviced toilet and rest facilities on all bus routes. That is incredibly important. Other work done by the London Assembly, including by my former colleague Caroline Russell, includes highlighting the loo deserts that exist on the tube network. It is very easy for an individual London Assembly member to gather information on that; they simply have to ask Transport for London. However, it is much harder to gather such information on bus stops and bus routes, which is one reason why I am trying to put a requirement into the Bill. The fact that someone can travel for half an hour or more on the tube with no toilet services available was instrumental in persuading the Mayor of London to start correcting the situation. He has adopted a goal that sets out a maximum travel time before there is access to a toilet near or inside a tube station. Ministers should consider having a standard for a maximum travel time on buses before there is access to a loo, for the benefit both of drivers and of passengers. I think that the Mayor of London has adopted a standard of something like 20 minutes. When we think about bus routes in smaller towns and cities, access to a public toilet within 20 minutes of travel time is not an onerous thing to make local transport authorities pay attention to. On information, I refer hon. Members to the “Better Bus Stops” report by the Campaign for Better Transport, which has done extensive research into what is needed for bus stops. The report talks about having things like toilets at all interchanges. The campaign is very clear that real-time information is incredibly important, but currently there is no national standard. In Brighton and Hove, at Preston Park station, the real-time information for people disembarking from trains, telling them when the next bus is arriving at the nearest bus stop, is out of action because the bus company and the council are switching to a new system. It would be really good for the Government to start laying out standards for a good bus stop and good real-time information, and for local transport authorities to start adopting a common system that can stay in action instead of being switched around when contracts change. Those would all be real improvements to clause 30 that the Minister should consider. Amendment 30 would amend clause 30(7) by adding to the definition of “facilities” information about access to a bus stop in the nearby area. That would make it a bit clearer that that information is part of the facilities around bus stops, to make them more accessible. I have received some correspondence from campaigners who are in the room today asking that my amendment 30 be <span id="181" class="column-number" data-column-number="181"></span>withdrawn. I just want to clear up a slight misunderstanding. The amendment does not refer specifically to crossings across cycle lanes or anything to do with floating bus stops. As I have said before, it is primarily about ensuring that bus passengers can reach their return stop accessibly, but also that they can cross nearby junctions. That is what the amendment refers to. On clause 31, I would like to add some words of support. I am very persuaded by some examples that I have been shown by campaigners, particularly about shared borders, which I understand that Ministers are now reconsidering have any support for at all in the guidance. I have also seen some very bad examples of inadequate traffic islands and crossing facilities for floating bus stops. I have heard very convincing testimony about the guidance on the placing of zebra crossings across cycle lanes. When bus stops are used by multiple routes, buses are often unable to stop at the place where people might expect; the bus will sometimes have to stop much further back, and it really does create confusion, so real thought needs to be put into the guidance. By and large, clause 31 is very good as it stands, but we should feed learning into it on an ongoing basis. That is best done through guidance, not through a moratorium or by putting anything too specific into the Bill. It is important that it can be adjusted when learning arises from practice.

   Hansard source
4. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   Let me clarify. Absolutely not: the hierarchy starts with people who are on foot or wheeling, and it moves down, via cycling, with motor vehicles at the bottom. I would like to read out the evidence from the London Cycling Campaign. Its design solutions would ensure that the roads are safe, and many of them involve having extra space. The evidence sets out that “extra space could also mean wider pavements, better sightlines”, for cyclists who need to give way and “less fraught interactions at floating bus stops between different mode users.” The London Cycling Campaign argues that we should “ensure bus services, walking, wheeling <em>and</em> cycling all get appropriate priority and capacity in funding, design guidance <em>and</em> on the ground in terms of physical space. And that likely means being more willing to reduce space and priority for private motor vehicles in more locations.”<span id="182" class="column-number" data-column-number="182"></span> That hierarchy is what I referred to. Where things are really difficult, it may be the right solution in a lot of cases to keep the bus on the main carriageway and make the other vehicles wait. However, that is for the design guidance. None of us is a traffic engineer—unless a Member wants to interrupt and point out that they are. That guidance must be produced in consultation with disabled people, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted, and it must also have the hierarchy in mind. Those designing the guidance should be much more willing to take space away from vehicles and to keep buses on the carriageway, if that is necessary to provide sufficient space to ensure that the roads are safe and accessible.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   On the budgets that the Minister just mentioned, was he clear that the money for retrofitting will come out of active travel funding, rather than bus services funding, or is it a bit of both?

   Hansard source
6. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   I am very impressed with the clause; it adds good things to the Bill and it is appropriate that drivers are given good information and training on how to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. Some of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister are covered in proposed new section 144F(2) of the Transport Act 2000, where it says “respond appropriately”. In many cases, the appropriate response may be to call the police, and sometimes it may be to report back to senior people within the organisation or merely to ask that CCTV be reviewed to see whether an offence has been committed. Those are all appropriate actions that do not put people in any danger. I also want to speak in support of amendment 61, from my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It would be a very good addition to the clause, because many sub-crimes—things that fall below the level of crime—will still raise alarms to do with domestic abuse. A lot of progress has been made in training people who work in pubs and nightlife on the Ask for Angela service. Bus drivers may also be approached and potentially asked for support or help to get away, and they need to be able to respond appropriately. People need training on how to spot others who might be in danger and to act appropriately. Will the Minister also give us some reassurance? The clause contains the very broad definition of “criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”. I want to raise the issue of child criminal exploitation; I tabled related amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill on Report. Issues such as county lines and spotting children in danger could be part of this training. During that debate, I also spoke about the need for people to treat children as children, not criminals, as they might be vulnerable or in danger themselves. There are also issues around unconscious biases and the adultification of black children in particular. Those things might all potentially be within the scope of this training, because it is important that people are given more duties to deal with criminal issues and training to avoid some of the pitfalls. Finally, I ask the Minister for an update on discussions with trade unions and the potential new duties in amendment 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). Since he is not a member of the Committee, I want to make sure that the Minister responds to his question about involving trade unions to ensure that training is prepared appropriately and in discussion with them.

   Hansard source
7. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 37, page 40, line 23, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 24 and insert “1 January 2027,”. <em>This amendment, along with Amendment 33, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered before 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).</em>

   Hansard source
8. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   Clause 37 is a good clause on the mandate for the use of zero emission buses in England. In essence, as it stands, it sets zero emission standards for new buses registered after a certain date. Rather than mandating that that date may not be before 1 January 2030, my amendments 32 and 33 would set it as 1 January 2027. I think that is the appropriate level of ambition for the Bill. I am very aware that air pollution remains an enormous, preventable public health threat and that road transport plays its part in that. In certain hotspots in every town and city, bus travel is responsible for a significant amount of the pollution that people breathe in. That pollution is disproportionately experienced by the people who use and wait for those buses, and the pedestrians along the routes of those buses. We need to have the highest possible ambition. Buses under Transport for London have had that mandate in place since 2021, despite any legal requirement. All buses procured in London since that day have been zero emission capable, and have been deployed without any kind of problem. The investment has been put in, and it was done in part because of the imperative to clean up dirty air. Bus availability is now clearly no <span id="212" class="column-number" data-column-number="212"></span>obstacle to the amendment being accepted. Double-deckers, single-deckers and all kinds of buses are available to provide services. One constraint, though, is the ability to charge those buses at depots.

   Hansard source
9. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

   As I understand it—the Minister might want to intervene if I am not correct—proposed new subsection (3)(b) sets the condition that the bus is first registered “on or after a date”. The condition is placed on new buses, not on any bus being used. It gives considerable leeway for existing buses to continue to be used. The clause is about procurement, and that is what I understand it to be mandating. As I say, not every single bus in London has yet converted to zero emissions, but for several years now, new buses being purchased have had zero tailpipe emissions. That is not to say that they do not create any air pollution at all; much air pollution comes from brakes and tyre wear, and dust off the roads—there is a lot more air pollution than what comes out of the tailpipe.

   Hansard source
10. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I thought so—I am not as radical as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham thinks. I think that the amendment is entirely reasonable on bus availability and procurement. It does not speed up the rate of procurement, or mandate that at all. I am aware that there are challenging issues at certain depots. However, having spoken to private bus operators about this, they often do not lack the willingness to invest in charging infrastructure, and I am sure the imperative for a publicly owned bus company would be even higher. Instead, the constraint for some of them is the ability of the local electricity infrastructure to support the load produced by the rapid charging of very large vehicles with very large batteries.

    Hansard source
11. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    Is the hon. Gentleman taking into account the lifetime of a bus and the changes in running costs?

    Hansard source
12. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments 32 and 33, but I am quite disappointed. I take his points about potential downsides. I assume that, in outlining them, he took into account all the lovely investment that he was just talking about and assumed that there would be no additional Government investment to enable the target date to be met. I would like the law of the land that we create during this process to retain the hope that there may be increases in investment in public transport and buses in future Labour Budgets. I will withdraw amendment 32, but I would like to press amendment 33 to a vote. That would remove the stipulation that the date cannot be before 1 January 2030 <span id="221" class="column-number" data-column-number="221"></span>and give Ministers the opportunity to look again at whether an earlier date is possible. I appreciate that it is too much to expect the Minister to accept the new date proposed in amendment 32 today, but I think it is completely reasonable to expect the Committee to agree to give him an opportunity to look again at the date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Amendment proposed</em>: 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.—<em>(Siân Berry.)</em> <em>Question put</em>, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
13. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I support the speeches made by the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for North Norfolk, and I am exasperated that the clause is being rejected. I asked the Secretary of State about incorporating vision zero goals in the road safety strategy, as it is an entirely reasonable aim for there to be no deaths on our roads. To reject such a goal only for buses seems utterly unreasonable, and contrary to what the other place decided. Every death that is due to a bus is 100% preventable, and we should be setting the goal of eliminating bus-related death. It is already part of the Bill—to take it out is even worse than not including it in the first place. I am very supportive of keeping the clause in the Bill. It does not go into detail about what is required but would merely ensure that the goal is set, which is completely reasonable.

    Hansard source
14. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
15. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I have tabled a number of new clauses relating to safety of working conditions, health and safety, and reporting of bus safety. I want to speak in detail to new clause 5, but I will speak only briefly on the other related new clauses. We need to see a step change in attitudes and effort on bus safety. Buses are a poor relation compared with other forms of transport in terms of the amount of work and care that goes into the safety of drivers and working conditions, much to the detriment of public safety. I therefore fully support the written evidence from the RMT. I am disappointed that this issue was not voted on in the Lords, because there is a clear case and a high need for it to be looked at. It is a shame that a Bill with such potential to include these kinds of measures does not, hence these new clauses. In its written evidence, the RMT argued that “decades of fragmentation and deregulation has led to poor working conditions in much of the sector and a stark lack of oversight for health and safety. As a report into the UK’s deregulated bus market by former UN rapporteur Philip Alston states ‘privatisation also appears to have resulted in lower quality jobs in the bus sector and unsafe working conditions’.” Given that the Bill is intended to undo and help to mend some of the harm of privatisation, and to create better standards, these measures need to be brought in. Bus workers are subject to many health and safety risks, including fatigue. I have met with bus drivers about the impacts of fatigue and the kinds of shifts they have to carry out. We will discuss new clauses about working times later. When drivers spot issues, they need to have a confidential reporting system such as that in <span id="234" class="column-number" data-column-number="234"></span>new clause 5. It would be good to include in the Bill a means of reporting confidentially without fear of repercussions, which is a safety measure used in many other industries. I will speak more on the individual measures in the new clauses to come, but they all need to be looked at. They come as a package to ensure that drivers have better working conditions, that there are better qualifications in management, that things can be reported, and that data on the current situation can be collected and used to focus attention on these issues in future.

    Hansard source
16. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I do not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 6 Bus safety performance data “In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert— <em>‘144F Bus safety performance data</em> (1) Local transport authorities must— (a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and (b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy.<span id="235" class="column-number" data-column-number="235"></span> (2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’”—<em>(Siân Berry.)</em> <em>This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
17. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
18. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    New clause 6 relates to the same issue of bus safety. It requires local transport authorities to collect and publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and to submit that bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of it assessing the data’s accuracy. That is a very important thing that we should be doing at a national level. This is another probing new clause, so I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about how that will be done in some other way. It is now routinely done in Transport for London’s reporting, which has been incredibly useful for everyone interested in road danger, such as people interested in pedestrian and cyclist safety. It has been a really good thing, so extending it and making it a duty on every local transport authority should be very basic and not resisted.

    Hansard source
19. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    This is a probing new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 7 Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service “(1) In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert— ‘, subject to subsection (1A). (1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’”—<em>(Siân Berry.)</em> <em>This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
20. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
21. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    This new clause would set a permitted driving time for bus drivers—drivers of public service vehicles—that matched the permitted driving time for heavy goods vehicle drivers. Currently, the permitted driving time for bus drivers is considerably less stringent than for HGV drivers. Some of the data that we have received from the RMT on this issue shows that bus drivers can drive up to 10 hours a day and they have a 30-minute break as a minimum—I am sure that many operators operate different shift patterns than that, but this is what is permitted—after five hours and 30 minutes of driving. In every two consecutive weeks, there is a requirement for them to have 24 hours off duty. However, there is some flex in the rules, which means that someone can actually drive for 130 hours across two weeks. To me, that is asking for trouble. I feel that drivers are potentially being put under far too much pressure by these rules and that we need to look at having this kind of limit in our law. Two similar new clauses have been tabled: new clauses 42 and 43. They take the same limits but treat them more in aggregate, which may be an attempt to be more flexible. I would be really interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how bus drivers’ hours will be regulated in a way that ensures greater safety than is currently the case.

    Hansard source
22. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    Would the Minister not agree that shorter consecutive hours and more flexible shift patterns might attract more people to consider bus driving as a potential career?

    Hansard source
23. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 8 Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities “In the Transport Act 2000, after section 123X insert— ‘123Y Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities Officials from a franchising authority responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme must have certification from— (a) the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, and (b) the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health.’”—<em>(Siân Berry.)</em> <em>This new clause would require officials from franchising authorities responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme to have IOSH and NEBOSH certifications.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
24. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.<span id="239" class="column-number" data-column-number="239"></span> Following on from my other new clauses, this new clause would simply mandate that those who work in franchising authorities and who are responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing franchise schemes be qualified through the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. That would, I hope, lead to greater focus on health and safety in the work that they do.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 9 Review of the use and costs of bus travel for children “(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the use of bus services by children. (2) The review must assess— (a) the level of use of bus services by children, (b) the degree to which cost is a limiting factor in children’s use of bus services, (c) the potential health, social and environmental impacts of children being unable to use bus services as a result of the cost of those services, and (d) the potential impact of making bus travel free for children. (3) For the purposes of any review undertaken under this section, ‘child’ means any person under the age of 18. (4) In conducting a review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and youth organisations.”—<em>(Siân Berry.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children and to consider the impact of making bus travel free for children.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
26. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    New clause 9 is about looking again at services for children, particularly their uses of them and the cost of them. The new clause defines a child as “any person under the age of 18” and I think that is significant. It means that it overlaps, I think, with new clause 25, which we are debating separately and which looks at 16 to 25-year-olds, but anyone under the age of 18 needs access to buses. They are, almost by definition, not drivers and not always going to have access to a car, but they are always going to need access to essential goods and services and things that help them to thrive, particularly education. I have heard evidence too many times from young people who are struggling to access college for training and other opportunities because of a lack of bus services. The cost of bus services for children varies hugely around the country. We have many different proposals from different Members, including colleagues in the Liberal Democrats, trying to get the Government to look again at the cost of bus travel for young people as part of the Bill. What I would like to hear from the Minister in response to my new clause and other new clauses that hon. Members have tabled is that the Government will look again at the cost of travel for young people. We have the example of Scotland, where young people can now access buses for free up to the age of 21. We have the example of London and other local authorities that are paying their own money out to make it possible for younger people to get free travel.<span id="241" class="column-number" data-column-number="241"></span> It really should be Government policy that young people up to the age of 18, or 21, can travel for free, so that they have the maximum opportunities to access training, social occasions and all the ways in which they become fully fledged adults. I think the Government should be making this a priority in the Bill. They have not yet done that, and this new clause helps them to do so.

    Hansard source
28. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    On a point of clarification, under subsection (1) of the new clause, could local transport authorities collaborate to conduct this kind of research? I worry that a single local transport authority might struggle to carry out robust research on its limited amount of data, whereas it might work slightly better if they were to team up.

    Hansard source
29. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 10 Review of the English national concessionary travel scheme “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS). (2) A review undertaken under this section must assess— (a) the effectiveness and impact of the ENCTS for eligible persons, (b) the impact of the timing restrictions of the ENCTS, and<span id="243" class="column-number" data-column-number="243"></span> (c) the approximate cost of removing timing restrictions of the ENCTS to allow eligible persons to use the scheme 24 hours a day and seven days a week. (3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and relevant user groups.”—<em>(Siân Berry.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS) and explore the consequences of removing timing restrictions.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
30. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
31. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I will be as brief as I can. New clause 10 and the other new clauses in the group are all aimed at the same thing. It is an anomaly in this day and age that older people and disabled people have a time restriction on the use of their bus passes. The Government must look at that, particularly in relation to recent changes to <span id="244" class="column-number" data-column-number="244"></span>welfare policies and the ongoing cost of living crisis that means that more and more people, according to the Government’s own aims, will be going to work. They also may be taking part in valuable volunteering for the community. The Government must look at this again, and I support any provision that will achieve that.

    Hansard source
32. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    I shall do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 13 Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops “(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England. (2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”—<em>(Jerome Mayhew.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em> <em>Question put,</em> That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
33. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    NHS 10-Year Plan

    In the constructive spirit that has characterised much of this discussion, I welcome much of what the Secretary of State has announced today: bringing care closer to people in their homes, investing more in prevention—it is all good stuff. But there seems to be a missed opportunity here. In the 143 pages of this document, there is virtually <span id="458" class="column-number" data-column-number="458"></span>no mention of social care. Lord Darzi told us last year that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. Six months ago today, the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks and urgent work on the Casey commission, but the commission is delayed and the cross-party talks have never materialised. Will the Secretary of State please treat the care crisis with the urgency it deserves and bring forward that work, so that we can build the necessary cross-party consensus to fix the care crisis?

    Hansard source
34. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

    The hon. Lady is making an extremely powerful case about this long-standing injustice. As she has pointed out, the WASPI campaigners are making really constructive suggestions to resolve the matter, offering to reach out and sit around the table with the Government. Does she share my frustration that the Government are refusing to do so, effectively forcing a court process, which is just leading to longer and longer delays, when there is such a clear injustice and an unprecedented rejection of the PHSO’s recommendation.

    Hansard source
35. 2 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

    Let me start by putting on record that I know at least two people who have participated in Palestine Action protests, but that is not why I am speaking today. This is about fundamental principles. This is a chilling moment for British democracy. Let us be clear about what is happening: a political protest group is being silenced. Is it not hugely ironic that this is being done today, given that this morning, hundreds of women MPs, including the Home Secretary, celebrated in Westminster Hall the 97th anniversary of equal votes for women—a victory won by the suffragettes, a direct action protest group? I have three key points. First, it is a clear overreach to conflate direct action with terrorism. Secondly, this will have a chilling effect on the democratic rights to free speech and protest. Thirdly, it is utterly cynical of the Government to wrap up the proscription of Palestine Action with the proscription of two other clearly terrorist groups. The Terrorism Act 2000 makes it clear that strict proportionality and necessity tests must be met before any group is proscribed, but this decision on Palestine Action is not necessary or proportionate. As Amnesty International and others have made clear, there is ample criminal law that can be used to respond to a direct action protest network such as Palestine Action. It may have engaged in criminal damage; its supporters may break into airbases; it may have been charged with offences such as violent disorder and aggravated burglary; and it may have carried out actions that I absolutely do not condone—indeed, I condemn the attacks on properties in Stamford Hill, which may understandably have stirred up genuine fear, and I find the words spoken by one of its co-founders at a rally in the aftermath of the 7 October Hamas attacks absolutely horrific—but that does not make Palestine Action terrorists. That bar is, and should be, extremely high. It is commonly understood internationally to involve the use or threat of violence against civilians to instil fear, whereas the stated aim of Palestine Action is to prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It is not just the members and supporters of Palestine Action who are being silenced but, by association, millions of members of the public. This proscription represents a grave risk to the free speech and protest rights of those who are rightly concerned that a genocide is happening in Gaza on this Government’s watch. Millions of people in this country are active, whether online or in their communities, in campaigning to end the UK’s complicity in that genocide. There is a clear risk that proscribing Palestine Action will criminalise people who, for example, share a social media post, and there is potential for imprisonment for up to 14 years. This proscription interferes with the fundamental rights of members of the public to protest against the Government’s policies, and it is clearly disproportionate in the light of the actions of the group.<span id="366" class="column-number" data-column-number="366"></span> I am also deeply concerned by the Home Office’s utterly cynical decision to wrap up the proscription of Palestine Action with that of two other groups that undeniably meet the terrorism test. This has clearly been done to make it extremely difficult for MPs to vote against the motion. I want it on record that I and my Green party colleagues absolutely oppose the proscription of Palestine Action, and we will oppose any similar attacks on the civil disobedience that is such a proud part of UK history. Let us compare the charges against Palestine Action with those against the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Running paramilitary training camps, producing guides on how to fatally attack somebody and white supremacist neo-Nazis organising in support of satanism are clearly terrorist acts, whereas proscribing Palestine Action appears to be a purely political move, unworthy of a democracy supposedly committed to human rights. No wonder there is significant opposition to this move across Parliament, including from the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Lord Falconer. It is a massive distraction from the continuing horrors in Gaza that Palestine Action wants to bring to an end, as do many in the Chamber—

    Hansard source
36. 2 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, every single person who just voted no on the statutory instrument wanted to vote yes on the proscription of the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement, but we were prevented from doing so by the cynical way in which the Government lumped together those two clearly terrorist organisations with Palestine Action, which we could not support. Can you please advise me and the other MPs who just voted no if there is any way that, in future, proscription orders for unrelated organisations could be voted on separately, so that each MP can apply their own critical assessment of whether each group has met the tests of proportionality and necessity that are required for a terrorism proscription?

    Hansard source
37. 2 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Engagements

    <Question HRSContentId="{70D11F9A-35CB-4D0F-AFC1-E6750CEED7CF}">Q4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{D92C189F-E02B-48E5-B77D-D28B5B8A0555}"></QuestionText>Given that the Government appear to be in listening mode, will the Prime Minister agree to scrap other measures that are pushing more people into poverty, such as the cruel two-child benefit cap, and the harsh and totally unacceptable cuts to universal credit for ill and disabled people that remain in yesterday’s dog’s breakfast of a Bill?</Question>

    Hansard source
38. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Clean Air (Human Rights)

    I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish the right to breathe clean air; to require the Secretary of State to achieve and maintain clean air in England; to make provision about environmental targets and minimum standards in relation to clean air; to make provision about the powers, duties and functions of public bodies in England in relation to air pollution; to give the Office for Environmental Protection additional powers and duties related to clean air; to require the Secretary of State to comply with the United Nations Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution; to require the Secretary of State and public authorities to apply specified environmental principles in carrying out their duties under this Act; and for connected purposes. I am grateful for the chance to present the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, alongside cross-party colleagues. The Bill is about the right to breathe clean air, and the right to grow up and to grow old without stunted lungs, without preventable diseases like asthma, and without disabling and potentially lethal harm being done to our lungs, hearts and brains by preventable air pollution. We call this Bill Ella’s law because it is also about a little girl—a nine-year-old who made history and whose memory powers this campaign for environmental, social, and indeed racial justice. I am grateful to the many hon. and right hon. Members who are here to listen to her story today. Ella’s mother, Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah CBE, is also here in the Gallery, with Ella’s sister and brother, Sophia and Robert. I know that the whole family have many good friends in this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Ella Roberta Adoo-Kissi-Debrah had nearly 30 emergency hospital admissions between her first diagnosis of asthma at the age of six and her tragic death, aged just nine, on 15 February 2013. Throughout her illness there had been no mention of air pollution being a possible factor in her condition, and Ella’s original death certificate simply said that she had died of acute respiratory failure. Her mother Rosamund did not know why her lively, sporty and talented daughter had become so ill after being such a healthy child. Years after Ella died, Rosamund began to ask questions and push for answers. The family lived close to the heaving South Circular Road in London—one of the busiest main roads in Europe. With the help of medical and scientific experts such as Professor Stephen Holgate, Rosamund began to realise that there could be a link between the high air pollution where they lived and the course of Ella’s illness. Together they began to ask: was air pollution responsible for Ella developing asthma in the first place, and were high pollution days responsible for triggering the repeated attacks and emergencies that eventually took her life? Taking new knowledge and evidence, working with legal professionals like Jocelyn Cockburn, a long road began to a new inquest and a landmark new death certificate that, for the first time in the world, cited air pollution. In December 2020, deputy coroner Philip Barlow ruled for this change, and said that “excessive levels of air pollution”<span id="157" class="column-number" data-column-number="157"></span> had made a “material contribution” to Ella’s death. In his report to prevent future deaths, he recommended that the Government should take note that there was no safe level for particulate matter and that World Health Organisation guidelines should be seen as minimum requirements. He said that legally binding targets based on them would reduce the number of deaths from air pollution in the UK, and highlighted the lack of public awareness and information about daily pollution levels. That is what this Bill will do: set targets in law, based on the very latest World Health Organisation guidelines, and provide a pathway to comply. Ella’s illness began in 2010 and spanned a period when the area around her home experienced some of the highest levels of air pollution, consistent breaches of legal limits and terrible injustices. In 2010, that area should not have had anything like those levels of pollution. That is because, following intensive work by the campaigner and friend of Ella’s law, Simon Birkett, the founder of Clean Air in London, alongside environmental campaigners in Europe, European Commission directive 2008/50/EC had entered into force in June 2008. That directive set limit values for annual average nitrogen dioxide concentrations in the air people breathe of 40 micrograms per metre cubed, and those limits should have been met by 1 January 2010. It also set the first limit values for small particulates, which are even more deadly at the smallest particle sizes and in much lower concentrations. In the UK we did not achieve these limits before 2010, when Ella’s illness began, or even soon after. Instead, this period was one of delay to clean air zones, deception by diesel car manufacturers and even a mayor putting glue on the roads next to the air quality monitoring stations on days when legal particulate limits might be breached. This was a true scandal and a tragedy. I hope the Government are aware that the 2010 limits are still far from being fully reached in parts of England today. Their own projections say that parts of the country will not become compliant until 2029, 2032 or even 2045. Those legal limits were based on the 2005 air quality guidelines from the World Health Organisation. In 2021, the WHO halved its guideline for the smallest particulates and slashed its guideline for nitrogen dioxide from 40 micrograms per metre cubed to 10. A new EU directive entered into force for our neighbours in December 2024. It is clear that we need something new here as well, and success is clearly possible. There has been much better action in recent years in some areas, notably London, and a good proportion of that has been due to the influence of Rosamund on the Mayor of London, as well as determined campaigning by groups like Mums <span id="158" class="column-number" data-column-number="158"></span>for Lungs, the Healthy Air Coalition, Asthma + Lung UK, Clean Air in London, Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and many others. We are making some progress, but to respect the right to breathe clean air, we must move faster and work more widely in the transition to clean heating, cleaner transport and cuts in pollution from aviation, farming and industry. The second best time to do the right thing is always now. Last month, on Clean Air Day 2025, I was pleased alongside other MPs to meet doctors and campaigners, including Rosamund, on their walk and wheel to Parliament from Great Ormond Street hospital. They brought us the latest important medical evidence from the Royal College of Physicians, whose new report to MPs highlights and summarises evidence gained over the last decade, showing that there are now links between air pollution and almost every organ in the body and the diseases that affect them. It estimates that during 2025, 500 premature deaths per week will be attributable to air pollution, and calculates that there was an economic burden of £27 billion in 2019 due to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life. Above all, the report highlights how air pollution is a preventable public health threat. This Bill would give us the tools to prevent it, bringing the nearly 70-year-old Clean Air Act 1956 up to date and in line with the excellent blueprint published today by the Healthy Air Coalition. Introducing the Bill again during this Session is important. The cross-party proposers want to extend and build on the efforts of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and others who helped steer a similar Bill through the other place in 2022. My predecessor the former hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, promoted the same Bill in this House after that, right up to the end of the previous Parliament. The ultimate hope of us all is that this Government will adopt and back Ella’s law in her memory: adopt its provisions, take up the important actions it will mandate and recognise in law the human right to breathe clean air as soon as possible. For the other children who still die unnecessarily due to air pollution, and for the families who still lose loved ones to dementia, cancer, heart disease and other issues caused and made worse by dirty air, I ask the House for leave to present this Bill in that hope. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Ordered,</em> That Siân Berry, Ms Stella Creasy, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Wera Hobhouse, Shockat Adam, Seamus Logan, Claire Hanna, Afzal Khan, Ellie Chowns, Ruth Jones, Uma Kumaran and Dr Roz Savage present the Bill. Siân Berry accordingly presented the Bill. <em>Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 November, and to be printed (Bill 279).</em>

    Hansard source
39. 1 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    This cruel mistake of a Bill must fall today. The reasons in the amendment tabled by the Green party stand, and with my colleagues I will vote to stop it on Second Reading and support the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The proposals are a mess, the timetable is breakneck and other hon. Members have said it right: it is about the spreadsheet. The rush to get it through before the Budget is a dead giveaway that this is about making cuts and not improvements. The Government’s actions in that way do not respect sick and disabled people. Way before making any changes to social security, real dialogue should have taken place that respects their rights and needs. Already, three in four people who need to use a food bank have a disabled person in their household. The Bill will further impoverish hundreds of thousands with cruel cuts in support. The Government’s promises of changes from removing to denying support will harm millions in future and create a multilayered mass of injustices. The Bill clearly must fall today. Instead, why not do what Greens, disabled people’s organisations and many Members across the House have proposed and work with disabled people to co-produce a social security system that is fair, humane and accessible, without pre-emptive criteria? A whole playbook of proposals was put forward by the hon. Member for York Central on tabling her amendment. Why not do that? Why not develop policies that are genuinely good value, which do no harm and which achieve the stated objectives of helping to invest in people to save money? Why not raise the investment needed to save on future spending from fair taxation on the very wealthiest, who are orders of magnitude away from the struggle to survive that MPs hear about every day from the people the measures are aimed at? The least advantaged should not pay, but there are those who clearly should. I echo many Members across the Chamber when I say that I am sad that a Labour Government have brought us here. This is in such contrast to the post-war principles that the party once stood by, which were about real social security alongside investment in jobs. Shamefully, in its current form, the Bill brings in the largest social security cuts since summer 2015, 10 years ago when George Osborne was Chancellor.<span id="215" class="column-number" data-column-number="215"></span> The compromise proposals that mainly protect current claimants are unfair and divisive, and so many will remain unhelped if our honourable colleagues give in. What about the young people whose disabilities are yet to develop and who will need PIP to thrive? What about the people who fall sick or get injured the day after these measures come into effect? And what about the people with conditions such as Parkinson’s, MS or ME, who are still effectively excluded from the Government’s serious condition criteria because the Bill does not allow for fluctuating conditions? This whole process has truly scared people, and it has mobilised them. I have heard directly the testimonies of worry and fear from hundreds of my constituents in Brighton Pavilion. The Secretary of State knows that I have raised with her the terror that people are feeling right from the start. Will she now apologise for that? I have heard from a roundtable of organisations in Brighton who are supporting people to get by. They have told me how people are using disability benefits to cover just the very basics, such as shortfalls in rent, heating costs and food. I have heard how local employment services are hanging by a thread and local authority support has been hollowed out. Brilliant organisations such as Amaze, Money Advice Plus, St Luke’s and Citizens Advice are already inundated with people concerned for their futures. They want structural barriers and inequalities removed first, but they want investment in people as well. Today, we must vote down these proposals, so that the Secretary of State can listen and learn and go back and do better. Those who are sick, injured or disabled today and in the future need our solidarity, and they will get it from the Greens.

    Hansard source
40. 30 Jun 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

    I stand in solidarity with the workers in the oil industry who are facing such uncertainty and fear. This incident illustrates perfectly why a carefully managed worker-led transition <span id="74" class="column-number" data-column-number="74"></span>away from oil and gas is so desperately needed to avoid a chaotic collapse in which workers pay the price. Will the Minister agree to implement my Energy and Employment Rights Bill, whose proposals include the publication of a plan for the redeployment and retraining of oil and gas workers, paid for by oil and gas companies across the industry rather than piece by piece and crisis by crisis?

    Hansard source