Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 142 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
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
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Clause, by leave, withdrawn.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
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
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
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
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
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
Welfare Reform
Today’s statement feels like a panicked political fix to an indefensible attempt to cut benefits from the most sick and from disabled people, but it lacks competence and compassion. Given that the Secretary of State talks about social justice, how can she justify people who might need that support in the future not receiving the support that disabled and sick people rightly receive today? Would the right thing to do not be to shelve these proposals so she can allow time to do what she has promised to do and to genuinely co-produce and consult with disabled people on the right way forward?
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Amendment 46 would remove the requirement for the service not to have an adverse effect on local services. Bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the impossibility of commercial viability for some rural services or non-radial routes in cities, is it correct that the amendment would allow commercial entities to come in and take away part of the market, even where a local transport authority had built up the potentially profitable part of a wider, well-planned public network? The requirement as it stands is intended to prevent commercial companies from parasitising on a market that has been built up with public money. The Minister is not proposing that it should be easier for commercial entities to come in and develop new markets where there is potentially pent-up demand in rural areas.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
I just want to give an example in which “may” is more appropriate. Proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) talk about a local service that is provided. If a local transport authority is building out a planned network and, in the very near future, a service will be introduced in an area, it may want to prevent disruption of the benefits of an integrated local service there by such an application. I believe it is very appropriate that “may” remains in the clause.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
The shadow Minister was looking at me while making those points, and I agree that our parties have very different philosophies on this issue. The circumstances that he has just described as “cosy” relationships that are improper, are ones that I characterised earlier as public money being invested in building up a market that should not be parasitised. Those are, very clearly, different points of view, and I want to make sure that is on the record at the right time.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 13, page 8, line 5, after “operators” insert— “or local government bus companies”. <em>This amendment, along with Amendments 35, 36 and 37, would mean that franchising authorities may directly award public services contracts to local government bus companies.</em>
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond. I am delighted to present a number of amendments to clause 13. The clause should be in the Bill; I can clearly see why we would want to directly award a contract to an incumbent to keep an existing contract going. This seems to me to be the ideal place to insert the opportunity to make a direct award to a local government bus company, the new type of body set out in clause 22—I believe that would be a really good move. I have tabled several amendments to add the words “or a local government bus company” in order to make the whole thing make sense. Amendment 34 would add “local government bus companies” to the title of the proposed new regulation in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023; amendment 35 would add the choice of a “local government bus company” to the direct award options; amendment 36 would add the name of the local government bus company to the information required; and amendment 37 would add reference to the definition of a local government bus company as set out in clause 22.<span id="81" class="column-number" data-column-number="81"></span> We need these changes to help make integrated local transport planning simpler and less bureaucratic. There are many examples of hugely successful publicly owned bus companies across the UK, including Lothian Buses and Reading Buses. The publicly owned Nottingham City Transport bus service is consistently ranked one of the best in the country. Councils operate very differently from the wider market. They have strict budgetary restrictions and costly rules of commissioning. That means that, without explicitly making it easier for local authorities to take advantage of the new powers in the Bill, we might just be going through the motions. These changes are necessary in order to really incentivise local authorities to get involved in providing transport, not just in planning for it. To have real weight, the Bill must make it easier for local councils to make direct awards. That would mean that they could transform local services more efficiently for the passengers who need them, which would be of real public benefit. The tools for local authorities to do this actually already exist in secondary legislation. Regulation 13 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations states: “(1) A competent local authority or a group of authorities providing integrated public passenger transport services may— …(b) award a public service contract directly to an internal operator.” If we made these amendments to the Bill, I believe that the wording in the regulations would automatically change to include the terminology “a local government bus company”. I would really like the Government to consider making the amendments, or to take up the point in some other way. In order to plan and deliver local public transport, councils and local transport authorities must be able to act in this way. We should not simply rely on the existing regulations; we should state the powers explicitly in the Bill. Amendment 72 is not in my name, but I note that it covers much the same ground.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
To clarify, amendment 72 is not my amendment.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
For clarity, the intention behind my amendments is not to allow for incumbent operators that are local government bus companies to be added to the Bill; it is to ensure, completely separately, that any local bus company at any time, or an incumbent operator, can be given a direct award.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
I very much appreciate that my amendments would do different things from clause 13, and I also appreciate that the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 provide the ability to make a direct award to an internal operator at other times. However, I worry that if we do not make sure that we have that ability in primary legislation—I cannot find it elsewhere in the Bill—there is a risk that private companies will issue legal challenges against direct awards. That is the key thing that I would like the Government to address, potentially in a different clause.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
I do not; I just hope that the Government realise what I was trying to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment</em><em>, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> Clause 14 Socially necessary local services
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 14, page 9, line 32, after “activities,” insert— “(iv) health care services, or (v) schools and other educational institutes,”. <em>This amendment would include services which enable people to access health or educational services in the definition of ‘socially necessary local services’.</em>
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
I am pleased to move an amendment that both I and Liberal Democrat colleagues had the idea of. The Liberal Democrats have withdrawn their version of the amendment, but we are essentially aiming at the same thing: to be specific in proposed new section 138A of the 2000 Act by specifically naming healthcare services, schools and other educational institutions as activities that we as a Parliament consider to be essential. I believe that that would really help transport planners to focus their efforts on those particularly essential services. It would strengthen the clause considerably. In the past, I have worked with many young people who value bus services and feel undervalued when those services are not helping them to get back and forth to school. When they are not able to take part in after-school activities in the same way as their peers at the school whose parents can drive them back and forth, there is a social justice issue that deserves its own bullet point, as part of the clause. I do not need to tell Members about the importance of public transport access to hospitals and other healthcare services. Later, we will discuss amendments pressing for the timing of older and disabled people’s bus passes to be extended so that they can access healthcare services with their free cards. The actual provision of the services is the absolute bottom line here, and they should be named. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose my amendment. Amendment 38 was originally proposed by my Green party colleague, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, in the other place. It aims to include clearly in the definition services that have been cancelled. If this aspect of the Bill is to work effectively, it is essential that it works to undo the damage caused by cuts made in bus services, particularly local authority-supported ones since the start of the enormous austerity squeeze on local councils.<span id="90" class="column-number" data-column-number="90"></span> The proposed time period of 15 years in amendment 38 is no accident—it goes back to the start of austerity. Many figures show the loss of bus services around the country since the beginning of that period. For example, a Campaign for Better Transport figure shows that from 2012 to the second year of the pandemic, 2021, more than a quarter of all bus services across England, measured in vehicle kilometres, were lost. For the number of regulated services, which is a different measure of service capacity, the loss was 29%. It will come as no surprise to my colleagues from the east of England that one of the regions with the biggest losses was the eastern region, alongside the north-west of England. The services lost were socially necessary, and they ought to be able to be defined as currently socially necessary, even if they do not exist. I commend both amendments to the Committee.
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
On a point of clarification, clause 14 adds proposed new subsection (15)(b) to section 138A of the Transport Act. The measure is quite specific that a current service is envisaged—it refers to a service “if cancelled”. Amendment 38 would respond to that by making sure that recently cancelled services were covered. Such services might have been taken away because operators anticipated the risk that they would be defined as “socially necessary”. Can the Minister reassure us on that point?
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Oh, apologies.