Showing every spoken contribution, including 142 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 15 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

   Welfare Spending

   The hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted the terrible record of the previous Government and the number of children who went into poverty <span id="198" class="column-number" data-column-number="198"></span>during that period, which includes an extra 250,000 who went into poverty as a result of the introduction of the two-child benefit cap. He has listed some actions that this Government are planning to take. Will he add to that list his support for scrapping the cap, and will he join figures in his own party, such as Lord Kinnock and Mark Drakeford, in supporting the introduction of a wealth tax for the super-rich, so that we can fund the tackling of inequality and support the most vulnerable?

   Hansard source
2. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

   Topical Questions

   <Question HRSContentId="{B50E06E5-B36C-40DC-B9F2-DC2D37EF7CC9}">T3.  <QuestionText HRSContentId="{8255E99A-0370-4441-80B0-213D2D60F7BB}"></QuestionText>Two major reports—one from Shelter, which is coming, and one last week from Heriot-Watt University—have exposed something that I have observed myself in housing casework for many years, as a councillor and as an MP: people from some minority groups, even beyond the structural racism in society, experience worse outcomes and even direct discrimination from councils in regard to their access to housing. Will the Secretary of State commit to writing a formal response to me on the recommendations in those reports?</Question>

   Hansard source
3. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I rise to represent my constituency, which is home to the 22nd SAS Regiment, the Special Reconnaissance Regiment and the 18th Signal Regiment. I am sure the House will wish to join me in recognising the professionalism and dedication of the men and women who make up those regiments, who are such an integral and highly respected part of the Herefordshire community. That is reflected by more than 1,000 of my constituents signing the petition, which is second only to the number of signatories in the neighbouring Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency. Northern Ireland legacy matters are, of course, incredibly sensitive, as we have seen today. It is vital that legacy processes are based on a fair, balanced and comprehensive approach, and that those processes are implemented <span id="28WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="28WH"></span>with the necessary rigour, independence and, crucially, consultation with all the affected communities, including armed forces veterans. For all the communities affected by the troubles, legacy processes should provide as much certainty and expediency as possible. It is hugely regrettable that the unworkable Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 did not deliver that, not least because of its failure to comply with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. It is important to recognise that the result of that has been enormous uncertainty, stress and loss of trust felt across all communities affected by the troubles, and it is vital to now apply the necessary rigour to avoid further mistakes. During the past months, I have had the privilege of meeting many serving and veteran members of the armed forces—including UK special forces and those who served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner—to listen to their views and concerns about the Government’s proposals to repeal and replace the legacy Act. I have heard how strongly my constituents believe in accountability and the rule of law, and the pride that they have always taken in conducting themselves with the utmost professionalism. It has also come across loud and clear just how many have lost trust in the handling of legacy processes. My constituents have said: “Veterans feel badly let down by successive governments; many are still caught up in legacy processes, facing additional years of uncertainty and stress after decades of the same…veterans have lost trust in attempts to achieve reconciliation; the anger, frustration and embitterment at their treatment will need to be addressed if they are to be persuaded to take part in future reviews and investigations.” That is all deeply regrettable. After I wrote to both the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Defence to outline my constituents’ concerns several months ago, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland responded, commending the bravery of the Northern Ireland veterans who did so much to keep people safe during the troubles, recognising the extreme circumstances under which they were operating. He also stated that with the passage of time, the likelihood of further prosecutions is increasingly unlikely. He gave an assurance that “there will be no rewriting of history” and that he will engage fully with the veteran community as the Government move forward with their plans to repeal and replace the legacy Act. I welcome that commitment to engagement. The Government have announced that they will bring forward primary legislation “when parliamentary time allows”, but for the communities left in limbo by the legacy Act and the subsequent legal challenges, that is a vague commitment with no clear timeframe, which does not reflect the anxiety and uncertainty currently felt. Will the Government therefore provide greater clarity about the timetable of plans and commit to bringing forward primary legislation in this Parliament? Ending the uncertainty and finding a workable resolution to legacy issues is imperative. It is therefore critical that the Government get this right. Can the Secretary of State respond to the concerns that have been raised about the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, especially in relation to independence, powers and accountability? Given the Secretary of State’s assurance that he will engage fully <span id="29WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="29WH"></span>with communities, will he commit to visiting North Herefordshire to meet my constituents and hear their concerns directly? I would like to end on this point: throughout my meetings with constituents and veterans over the past few months, they emphasised the meticulous planning, preparation and professionalism that goes into armed forces operations. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that the same level of rigour will be applied by the Government as they move forward in repealing and replacing the legacy legislation?

   Hansard source
4. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Building Social and Affordable Homes

   Will the Deputy Prime Minister please explain why her Government will not set a target for the provision of social housing? While I welcome the investment in the social and affordable homes programme that she set out, the reality is that it will meet only 10% of the total number of new homes anticipated and only 10% of the current demand for social housing. If she believes that setting national targets like the 1.5 million homes target is important to drive change, why will she not set a target for social housing?

   Hansard source
5. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

   State of Climate and Nature

   Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

   Hansard source
6. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

   UK-France Migration: Co-operation

   Will the Secretary of State explain to us what happens if one in, one out works? If the goal is to stop small boat crossings and it is successful, the outside of the equation drops to zero, which means the inside of the equation also needs to drop to zero and the UK will have got rid of the small sliver of a safe and regulated route scheme that it has just created. Does the Secretary of State not think that, if we did that, it would be more likely to push people back to the small boats and people smugglers?

   Hansard source
7. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

   UK-France Migration: Co-operation

   <em>indicated </em><em>assent</em><em>.</em>

   Hansard source
8. 14 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

   State of Climate and Nature

   I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, including what he said about the importance of Britain showing leadership and rebuilding cross-party consensus. Even if we have not quite got cross-party consensus on the need for a transition to a green economy, does he agree that the fact that we have seen hundreds of deaths in London alone in the second heatwave of the year, that our farmers are facing the driest start to a year in my lifetime, and that people around the country have suffered from floods in recent years means that our need for resilience in the face of a changing climate cannot be a political football? If so, would he support a sixth Government mission—a mission to protect the British public from changes in the climate?

   Hansard source
9. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

   Disabled Bus Passes

   I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on such an important topic; he is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that this is of particular importance in rural areas because bus services are sparse and travel distances are long? I have been approached by campaigners from Mencap Herefordshire who have ran an amazing campaign on this topic. Does he agree that the postcode lottery between different authorities means that there is a great unfairness for disabled people and that the best way to deal with this is through national, not local, change?

   Hansard source
10. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Disabled Bus Passes

    It makes sense for bus services to reflect local needs, but whether someone has a disability and needs to use a bus is not a locally determined thing. There should be fair access to these services wherever someone lives in the country. Currently we have a postcode lottery regarding the ability to use bus passes <span id="1234" class="column-number" data-column-number="1234"></span>24 hours a day. The point of the debate is to ask that it is organised nationally, so that there is fair access and every disabled person’s bus pass can be used at any time of day, and there are not some parts of the country where it works and others where it does not.

    Hansard source
11. 10 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Disabled Bus Passes

    On that point, will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
12. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I beg to move amendment 39, page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert— “(4) The relevant uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30 is 4.8%.” <em>This amendment would apply the full standard allowance uplift percentage currently specified in clause 1 of the Bill for 2029-30 to all preceding years 2026-27 to 2028-29 as well.</em>

    Hansard source
13. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    When one in five people receiving universal credit and disability benefits has used a food bank in the last month, and when Scope has found that the disability price tag is £1,095 per month, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper has terrified so many of our constituents, and when the basic rate of universal credit cannot cover the basic essentials, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the ultra-rich are orders of magnitude away from the tough choices disabled people face, and when we have such a deeply unequal society, and a wealth tax would break no manifesto commitments, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. From the Green Paper to where we are now, the Government’s behaviour has been an insult to disabled people, and I think they should be ashamed and should apologise. My constituents who receive benefits, and the people who love and care for them, have been subjected to chaos, confusion and indignity. Instead of making improvements, with careful consideration, to a <span id="979" class="column-number" data-column-number="979"></span>complex and treacherous benefits system, the Government have rushed to fit the imperatives of the Budget timetable, bypassing evidence gathering and line-by-line scrutiny in a Committee of this House, and further limiting the power of the other place by making this a money Bill. Yes, a tremendous effort of people power and bravery from Labour Members has won last-minute concessions for current claimants, but the Government should still scrap this unfair and harmful legislation, due to the harm that it will do to people who find themselves in need of support in future. This Bill is not a tough decision; it is the wrong decision. Here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.

    Hansard source
14. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for giving those examples of the vital things that additional payments are used for. They are so necessary, and it is so necessary not to cut them. My amendment 39 affects clause 1, the only at all positive clause in the Bill as it stands. The clause uplifts the rate of increase in the standard allowance of universal credit beyond inflation—by 2.3% in the year starting April 2026, rising to 4.8% for 2029. My amendment simply sets the uplift percentage at 4.8% for the whole period. This sustained rise in the basic rate of universal credit is much needed. Setting out the case for an essentials guarantee, the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation state: “The basic rate of Universal Credit should at least cover the cost of essentials like food, household bills and travel, but it is not currently set according to any objective assessment of what people need.” Amendment 39 goes some way towards ensuring that, and the joint briefing to MPs from 20 charities, service providers and disabled people’s groups highlights this need in its recommendations. I realise that the question on many people’s minds is, “How can the country pay for this boost to universal credit and the removal of cuts to the personal independence payment?” The answer lies with the Chancellor and something that my Green colleagues and I have called for many times, especially on this issue, ever since the Secretary of State introduced the Green Paper. On that day, 18 March, I asked “why impoverishing” disabled people “to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax.”<span id="vol764_col181" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="181" data-volume-number="764" data-external-id="4F47F763-226B-4324-8292-C87332580F40">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 181.]</span> The hon. Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) also spoke up for such a tax on the same day. Many hon. Members have asked the same question in the House, and it is not just MPs making this suggestion. It is not just charities such as Oxfam and the Equality Trust, not just campaigners such as Tax Justice UK and Green New Deal Rising, <span id="980" class="column-number" data-column-number="980"></span>and not just Patriotic Millionaires UK, which says that its polling shows that 85% of people who have more than £10 million would happily pay 2% of their wealth to support a better society and public services. Two former leaders of the Labour party are also now talking about it as a serious option. There are, I should say, other ways to tax unearned wealth, as part of a wider package, than the way set out in this simple proposal, which is making unlikely allies of Greens, millionaires and Labour leaders. I think the view of this House is clear: when fairer taxes on assets, which absolutely can work and should work for the nation, are finally put into the Budget, first to go should be the cuts target set out in the Department for Work and Pensions spreadsheet, and the two-child benefit cap. It is through such a tax that we should pay for the improvements needed to the Bill.

    Hansard source
15. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for that question. I refer him to Patriotic Millionaires UK. It has done considerable work on this issue, with its considerable resources, and set out proposals for a 2% wealth tax on people who have more than £10 million in wealth. It polled the general public on that, and found that 75% of them hugely supported the measure, not just as an alternative to cuts to welfare, but as a general principle. Clause 1 would be made into a genuinely good policy by amendment 39, but that change alone will not make this a Bill that the House should pass. Removing clause 5, as Government amendment 4 proposes, will not be enough, either, to make this a Bill that this House should pass. Clause 2, even once amended by the Government, would cut in half the health element of universal credit for nine in 10 new claimants. I will speak later about the severe conditions criteria and fluctuating conditions. Without amendment 2(a), tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), clause 2 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 3 would freeze the health elements of universal credit for the rest of this Parliament, so clause 3 should also be removed from the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 4 would freeze legacy benefits for disabled people, so they should be removed from the Bill, as my amendment 40 proposes. A Bill that just consists of a much-improved clause 1 and possibly a much-improved clause 2 would almost be a Bill that this House could, in conscience, pass. We have the choice to craft such a Bill today. As well as those changes, amendments such as amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), are needed, and there are some new clauses that would help make the Bill even more fit for purpose. The vital principle we must stand up for today is that any policy changes relating to disabled people must be led by disabled people. On the day the Green Paper was published, I raised the matter of co-production with the Secretary of State. That word has been much talked about by many others with experience of co-producing policy, and by the Government, thanks to strong campaigners and pressure from MPs.

    Hansard source
16. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I thank the hon. Member greatly for that intervention. When I have gathered together young people in my constituency, I have found that the issues that they face are unique, and their voices absolutely must be heard. The Government have said that they are committed to co-producing the Timms review with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, but organisations such as Disability Rights UK have told us that those promises are hard to trust. They fear a tick-box exercise, co-production in name only, and that the Government’s original plans will be the inevitable result. That is why I have signed up to new clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). If clause 2 and its schedule remain, the severe conditions criteria simply cannot stand as written. It appears that the Government either meant to exclude people with fluctuating lifelong conditions such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis from the higher rate of the universal credit health element, or that Ministers completely overlooked that community when rushing all this through. Criteria that withdraw support from people with fluctuating conditions are unacceptable, and that is why I signed amendment 38 tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and amendment 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). The severe conditions criteria also say that any diagnosis must be made in the NHS. Again, that is either careless drafting or a deliberate restriction, so I have also signed amendment 33 from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). I am trying to bring to this House the voices of disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation who are closely watching what we do today. So many of our constituents remain scared by the Bill. Right from the day of the sudden and careless release of the Green Paper, which contained terrifying policy details that were not in the Labour manifesto, they have been forced into a cruel limbo. It is shameful that the Government have chosen this path. This Labour Government are showing themselves far more willing to punish disabled people than ask the most wealthy to shoulder the burden of fair public spending on real social security. I am so proud of the people power that has been brought to bear on the Bill. Action by disabled people and their allies has forced MPs to listen and take action, and forced the Government to withdraw the most brutal cuts, but still the Bill remains unacceptable without the serious amendments that I have outlined. I look forward to hearing much sense, including what the United Nations has told us, from the many hon. Members in this debate who share my values. My Green colleagues and I are ready to do all in our power to minimise the consequences of the Bill; to make it do good, not harm; and ultimately, <span id="982" class="column-number" data-column-number="982"></span>if that does not happen, to see it fall. I hope the Government will truly learn from the cruel mess that this has become.

    Hansard source
17. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Engagements

    <Question HRSContentId="{E4D3515F-04BB-4FED-A5B3-5FE7921C77BC}">Q6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{74C9D748-860C-43E1-843F-6B5BE4D2448D}"></QuestionText>Growing numbers of people are joining the call for a wealth tax on the super-rich, including former Labour leader Lord Kinnock. Today, a former First Minister of Wales has done so, and so, it transpires, did the Chancellor when she was in opposition. Will the Prime Minister stand by his promise that those with the broadest shoulders will carry the largest burden? Will he clarify that that means the ultra-wealthy, not disabled people, the poorest and children with special educational needs?</Question>

    Hansard source
18. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Engagements

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed in response to my question that the Green party had made unfunded spending commitments in our general election manifesto. He also said that to me at last week’s Prime Minister’s questions. That is clearly untrue; our manifesto was fully costed, including through proposals for the wealth tax that I was calling for. Will you outline, Mr Speaker, how I might correct the record? Should I send a copy of our manifesto to the Prime Minister?

    Hansard source
19. 8 Jul 2025·Parliament·Adrian Ramsay

    Government Resilience Action Plan

    Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that climate-related emergencies are a core part of this resilience strategy? Climate breakdown has the potential to threaten our core infrastructure and poses risks to our core support systems, such as food and water, and the Climate Change Committee says that we are woefully ill-prepared for climate-related changes, so does he agree that the issue should be not a political football? Instead, it should be central to the Government’s resilience plans for protecting our citizens.

    Hansard source
20. 7 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

    I appreciate the work that has gone into the shadow Minister’s speech, but when he will address the petition’s point about advertising? It seems to me that most of the speech so far has been merely an advert for the fossil fuel industry.

    Hansard source
21. 7 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

    Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

    Before the Minister winds up, I want to ensure that he tackles the question of sponsorship, which is a key part of the petition. I think that focusing only on advertising ignores the lack of choice that people have if their much-loved sports team, the gallery they want to visit or the theatre company that they support is sponsored by a fossil fuel company. The Minister needs to reflect on why so many people signed the petition, having been put in an invidious position by these sponsorship deals.

    Hansard source
22. 7 Jul 2025·Parliament·Carla Denyer

    Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, I think for the first time. The petition’s demands are simple, clear and extremely compelling. In the UK, we forbid tobacco advertising because tobacco kills us, and that ban has worked to reduce the number of people dying from it. The air pollution caused directly by fossil fuels and the extreme weather caused by climate change are already killing at least as many people as smoking was before the ad ban, and they are likely to kill many more, so why the hell are we allowing fossil fuel companies to take up space in public places and on our screens to sell us products that kill us? I find that argument so compelling that I have dedicated a significant amount of my life in the past few years to trying to make a ban happen. I thank Chris Packham for initiating the petition and doing so much work to get more than 110,000 signatories, and I thank everyone who signed it.<span id="231WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="231WH"></span> This campaign has been running for many years, and I want to highlight the groundwork done on it by grassroots organising group Adblock Bristol, of which I am a member. Adblock Bristol exists because its members think a lot of things are fundamentally wrong with advertising. Advertising often works by telling us that we are not good enough without a product or by engendering a positive emotion about a product or service that we did not previously have. It often worsens inequality. The billboards are not in the posh parts of town, and they overwhelmingly advertise products that are bad for our health, the environment or society. That is not to mention the direct environmental, social and road safety impacts of the adverts themselves. After a few years of successfully opposing applications for individual billboards in our community, Adblock Bristol set up a national organisation called Adfree Cities, where I worked for a little bit. It campaigns nationally alongside Platform, Badvertising and others to support people in their local communities all over the country to oppose the pernicious impact of advertising. In fact, the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) listed some of the communities that I supported in doing that. Many local councils have already adopted policies of not hosting adverts for high-carbon products and services, or other harmful products such as junk food, payday loans, alcohol and gambling, on billboards on council-owned land and bus stops. That is a start, but most billboards are privately owned and councils have no jurisdiction over them and no ability to control the myriad other ways that advertising intervenes, often subconsciously, in our lives. Regulation of advertising in this country is, in general, extremely light touch and, frankly, outgunned by the capacity of the companies that pay for the advertising. That is where the petition comes in. It is time for the national Government to step up where local councils do not have the power to do so. This kind of social and regulatory change often creates uproar when it is first proposed, only for it to be accepted as extremely obvious, and for the previous status quo to seem appalling, not long afterwards. We have only to look at compulsory seatbelts in cars, the indoor smoking ban and tobacco advertising. “Freedom of speech, freedom of the market, freedom of choice,” they say, yet we pretty much all agree now that advertising products that cause us serious harm should not be allowed. Let us remember that we are not talking about banning the product; we are just saying that communications that are specifically designed to increase the use of fossil fuels, through misleading claims and by crafting social norms and a social licence for their use and expansion, directly undermining the Government’s evidence-based policy, which is essential to keep us safe from the climate crisis, should not be allowed. That should be a no brainer. Does the Minister want the history books, and perhaps his children, to look back in 10 years and see that he played the modern-day version of the role of those who opposed seatbelts in cars or the smoking ban? I guess not, in which case now is the time to be brave. He will be glad he did it.<span id="232WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="232WH"></span>

    Hansard source
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 3 Jul 2025·Parliament·Siân Berry

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

    Will the Minister give way?

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

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

    It is on a point of clarification.

    Hansard source
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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