Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful, although I am not sure whether that was an intervention on jeering or cheering and the difference between them. I will go so far as to say that I am not in a position to make economic spending commitments at the Dispatch Box. Although we are supportive of the principle, that is why we will not vote for something that writes a blank cheque for the future, because at least the Conservatives are trying to be economically responsible. Without amendment, the Bill is a missed opportunity in relation to bus stop design and disability access. It is a missed opportunity in relation to antisocial behaviour on buses and bringing that in line with the protections already enjoyed by rail passengers. It is also a missed opportunity not to focus on passengers as the primary object of all actions undertaken as a result of the Bill, particularly in relation to rural areas. The Bill is not just a missed opportunity; it is also, in its current drafting, damaging for the future prospects of the provision of bus services, because it risks exposing local transport authorities to potential bankruptcy without support from the Secretary of State. That is, in the first instance, in terms of oversight of plans for franchising—particularly for small local transport authorities—and giving them the all-clear. Secondly, if franchise systems are set up and then they fail to provide over a prolonged period, the Secretary of State must surely be able to step in and provide those services—if we are interested in the experience of passengers as opposed to the organisation. I have raised those two issues consistently throughout Committee and earlier on today. They are significant, genuine concerns that prevent the Opposition from supporting the Bill in its current form.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  We have had an interesting debate with around 25 to 30 speakers, and some themes have developed from it. A number of speakers mentioned disability access, particularly issues with floating and shared-border bus stops for those who are visually impaired or blind. Other speeches focused on concessionary travel during rush hour and concessionary companion passes. We also heard a number of descriptions of local bus needs in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, particularly focusing on rural needs. I want to pick out two or three speeches for commendation, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke in support of amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34. He highlighted a concerning failure by his Liberal Democrat county council, so if we want to improve bus services, we know where the Liberal Democrats can start. I commend the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who put his name to and championed new clause 47, which aims for companion passes to form part of the concessionary travel scheme. I would like to mention the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), because he had a tiny pop at the Conservatives, particularly about new clause 10 relating to antisocial behaviour. I think this requires a bit of explanation. It was right of him to highlight that the position of His Majesty’s Opposition has changed on this measure, and I will explain why. When we discussed new clause 10 in Committee, the hon. Member will recall—if he does not, he can always refer to Hansard —that I was very sympathetic to the objective of his new clause, but, as I now accept, I took a rather narrow objection to its drafting. The new clause adds a description to a non-exhaustive list and is therefore technically not required, because the definition was already employed. The definition is one of nuisance, and audible antisocial behaviour is, by definition, nuisance. It was the lawyer in me coming out, and I was being slightly otiose.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is quite right, of course. I am not suggesting that bus services should be only for profit. He will know that Essex county council has an enhanced partnership agreement; it has a relationship with for-profit providers, but has negotiated that it will pay extra for social journeys. He will also note that Essex has had more growth in its passenger numbers than any of the franchise operations. In particular, it has had more passenger growth than the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the organisation that the Bill largely seeks to replicate. The Bill has a deep suspicion of the profit motive and focuses on process, ignoring what the real purpose of the legislation should be. The House of Lords identified this lacuna in the drafting, and rectified it with a purpose clause, which was clause 1 when the Bill was considered in Committee. It said that the Act should “improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.” That is not a particularly high bar, or particularly onerous, because the Secretary of State merely had to have regard to those objectives. I would not have thought that was particularly challenging for the Government. However, it was too much for them, and they removed that purpose clause in Committee. New clause 34, which is in my name and that of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), seeks to reinstate that very reasonable clause. It would ensure that when we discuss the improvement of bus services, at the front and centre of our minds are the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services, so that we put the passenger first. This Bill, despite the explanations given by the Minister a moment ago, remains weak on protections for the disabled, the partially sighted and the blind. That was a huge concern in Committee. There has been a lot of concern about this in the disabled community—concern particularly focused on floating bus stops, and bus stops with shared use borders. I note that the Minister said that he is looking at having guidance notes on design, and that there should be a campaign to remind cyclists in particular of the highway code. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think a design tweak could be made to a floating bus stop that would provide partially sighted and blind users with the security that they richly deserve when using bus services. An educational campaign to remind cyclists of their duties under the highway code would not do any harm, and I suggest that the Government do it, but it would not be the solution in its own right. We have had warm words from the Minister, both in Committee and today, but we need action. New clause 28 would give the Government six months to prepare proposals to prohibit the creation of new floating bus stops. The Government appear to be deaf to the blind, and not prepared to take effective action on this point. The Government are also being weak on protections for bus passengers more generally. We want legislation that puts bus users first, both as regards accessibility, which I have mentioned, and protection against antisocial behaviour. We are not asking much—we are just asking that the legislation afford bus users the same protections that rail passengers benefit from. The Government have an opportunity to support those objectives, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that that is the direction that they should take.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is entirely right. I refer the House to Norfolk county council—another Conservative council, and the one in which my constituency is based—which has an enhanced partnership with bus companies. That partnership has been more effective in driving bus ridership than the franchised process has been in Manchester—at least as enacted by the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham. I will now deal with franchising more fully. This bizarre draft legislation appears to have taken a good idea in principle and made it worse in practice. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) is quite right that the Conservative Government recognised in 2016 the potential for region-based transport integration. In principle, mayoral combined authorities had the scale, resources and financial sophistication to take on the responsibility of creating a franchised scheme, and would thereby have more control over the design of public transport in their area. That was a Conservative innovation, and I support it. Under the 2017 legislation, other local transport authorities also had the ability to apply for franchise status, if I may loosely call it that. However, there was concern that smaller local authorities would not have as many resources—be they financial or top-tier management resources—to deal with and design such operations, so a critical safeguard was inserted in that legislation requiring such authorities, should they wish to go down the franchise route, to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for their plans. It is a sense-check—a needed safeguard—because franchising exposes local transport authorities to huge commercial risk. They are not just letting contracts and, as with an enhanced partnership, adding a bit extra on, after negotiation with commercial operators; they also become responsible for the design of the full bus map and timetable, and have the resulting commercial liability of providing all the buses and drivers. Authorities can either pay a bus company to operate for a fee, and so take no commercial risk—the company just turns up and does what it is told—or expose themselves further by creating a municipal bus company and doing everything themselves. If that goes wrong, it can bankrupt a local authority.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right. There is some good in the amendments. I come to amendment 58, which would reinsert the Secretary of State’s safeguard. That would not prohibit small unitaries from applying or developing a franchise model; it is about the Secretary of State having the ability to sense-check the commercial ability of an organisation to take the very significant commercial risks that franchising brings with it. There is another massive lacuna in the current drafting of the Bill. Having expanded franchising to any local authority, no matter how small and whether district, county or unitary, the Secretary of State would withdraw from any power to intervene if things go wrong. We recognise that there is increased commercial risk and that we will ask potentially small local authorities to undertake wholly novel activities of which they have no experience at all, but the Secretary of State is saying, “We wash our hands of this. We do not want to have any power to intervene, even when there is a prolonged failure of services to the public.”

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I have been told that we are speculating today, so I do not know whether I have to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. However, in an abundance of caution, I declare that I am a homeowner and I also have properties for rent. The kids in Downing Street—whether in No. 11 or No. 10—think it is clever to fly kites about tax rises. We had it last year, from 4 July onwards, with briefings to the press saying there would be tax rises because of a wholly fabricated £22 billion black hole in the economy. That was fabricated as a fig leaf for tax rises that were not in the manifesto. From July to October, those stories dripped in one after the other—and what was the impact? It has been the collapse in business confidence to pandemic levels, the collapse in consumer confidence as a result, and unemployment beginning its inexorable rise month after month for every single month that this Government have been in office. Now the Government are at it again. They have not realised their past terrible mistake, and they are doing it once more. Despite raising taxes by £40 billion last October and increasing borrowing by another £32 billion, they have created a genuine black hole, which the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests means that about £51 billion is required in higher taxes or lower spending. The briefings have started again—a property levy on mansions, the replacement of stamp duty with a national property tax, national insurance contributions on rental income and capital gains tax on primary residences with a value of more than £1.5 million. Even Which? magazine has said there may be changes to the in-life gifting regime to reduce inheritance tax.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He mentions the hospitality sector. Does he recognise the Government’s cruel decision to reduce the business rates discount for the hospitality sector from 75% to 40%? It does not sound too bad, but it is actually a tax increase of 140% on the struggling hospitality sector. What impact does he think that has on future investment plans?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member and a number of his colleagues have referred to the reduction in interest rates as the sign of a growing economy. If he even googled it, he would realise that the first explanation for the Bank of England reducing interest rates is that it is worried about a weakening economy. Does he not realise that?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Do the Government not recognise that posturing from the Government Benches does not come for free? Construction activity has had a bigger fall recently than in the last five years due to the leaks from No. 10 and No. 11. The commercial property sector is in recession. There are hiring freezes and staff are being laid off. People are losing their jobs because of the Government’s kite flying. Residential property prices had a surprise fall last year. We are asked to believe that growth is the No. 1 priority of this Government. They say they are going to build 1.5 million houses during this Parliament. Merely saying that does not make it true, when their policies serve to do exactly the opposite. If Members do not believe me, look at the markets—they are not politicians. Look at the 30-year gilts that the Government are paying today. Government debt is now running at 5.73%. That is the highest rate this century. The markets think that further tax increases will damage growth. That means they will damage the fiscal environment in the future. We will have less tax in the future because of the tax-raising decisions the Government are apparently going to take in November. Labour is planning, literally, to rob Peter to pay Paul. This is no way to run an economy. As someone much more famous than me once said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. Stop now. Stop before it is too late to avoid a vicious debt spiral. I fear—I genuinely fear this—that the Government will be forced to cut spending. They have two options: they can be forced to do so by the markets in a chaotic fiscal event, or they can take the responsibility of government seriously and take the difficult but necessary decisions on spending that the country needs them to take as a responsible Government. Otherwise, they will be swept away by their own incompetence.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot speculate on individual tax measures, but will he deny that the No. 11 machine has been leaking these stories to the national press over the summer?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Victims of Terrorism: State Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Ms Harris. As other hon Members have done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate. The timing of it is perfect. I commend other hon. Members who have spoken for their thoughtful, powerful and persuasive arguments. So often in this Chamber and the other one, we have political ding-dong. Sometimes that is effective, and sometimes heat does create light, but this debate has been totally different; it has been from the heart and from experience, and it has brought real compassion and humanity to this very important issue. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), made a good job of précising some of the arguments. I will try not to repeat what he said, but I want to highlight some of them. I will kick off with the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen. He made eight requests of the Minister, and I take this opportunity to amplify them in so far as I am able. I particularly focus on the three primary requests with which the hon. Gentleman finished: to publish the 63 recommendations of the Home Office review; to put forward a national day for victims of terrorism; and to get a date—hopefully an early date—for the opening of the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub. I repeat those requests for the Minister to respond to. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made an incredibly thoughtful speech, in which he recalled the right hon. Lord Tebbit—he died just a couple of days ago—who was badly injured in the Brighton bomb, and his wife even more so. I bring my own very limited experience of this; both of my parents were blown up in that bomb, so it is real for me as well. The hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) told the story of Christian. He was 13 when he was covered in trauma; I was 14. His scarring and injury have been so much worse than my own. The hon. Member highlighted the need for support in the first hour—the golden hour—but also the long-term support that is required, and he quite rightly said that this is a cross-party issue. I will be quite brief, but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) showed how raw the impact of terrorism is, even 55 years later. He lives it today just as much as he lived it then. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) highlighted the Manchester Arena bombing. He focused on the survivors’ charter, criminal injuries compensation scheme—I will return to that in a minute—and the need for legal support for victims dealing with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I could not agree more. Two careers ago, I was a barrister and represented applicants in front of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I know the scheme is out of date, but the approach to compensation was one of penny-pinching and seeking to avoid paying compensation for victims of crime, rather than lessening their burden. There is definite work to be done. The hon. Member also highlighted the need to publish the 63 recommendations from the Home Office review. This debate addresses our fundamental duty as a state: how we care for those who have suffered the most grievous of harms—the physical and emotional harms that have stemmed from the wish to terrorise, divide and coerce our citizens and way of life. I want to take this opportunity, as others have done before me, to pay tribute to every victim, survivor, witness and family member whose life has been irrevocably altered by terrorism. Actions and events that play out over a fraction of a second leave lasting traumas, as we have heard—and, indeed, demonstrated—throughout the course of this debate. As one survivor of the Manchester Arena terrorist attack said: “It has been on my mind every single day since it happened…It is going to have a lasting effect.” How right that is. Successive Conservative Governments have committed to supporting victims of terrorism. We have always protected counter-terrorism budgets; these are meaningless numbers, but £2.5 billion was allocated to our intelligence services. Following the series of terrorist attacks in 2017, we created the victims of terrorism unit, establishing co-ordinated support for the first time. Theresa May, as Home Secretary, strengthened the legislative power of the state with the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Her successor, Amber Rudd, established the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), during her time as Home Secretary, proscribed five extreme right-wing terrorist groups. By 2024, the Government were delivering £1 billion annually in counter-terrorism funding. Coming back to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, in 2020, it was announced that there would be a review, with proposals for a standalone scheme for victims of domestic and overseas terrorism designed for the unique trauma involved. Yet it feels as though that has essentially been shelved. I do not want to make a political point—that is not the tone of this debate—but I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why it has been shelved, when, on the face of it, the review supported having a standalone scheme. The impact of terrorism on victims is different from the impact of harms caused by crime. I welcome the recent tender announcement for the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub, but it is funded, as I understand it, by a grant of £2.5 million covering 3.5 years. I stand to be corrected by the Minister; if he has a different figure, I would be grateful to hear it when he responds. By my rough account, it is about £700,000 of support a year, so we will ask this hub to do an awful lot. It will have a wide and important remit. How will around £700,000 a year be sufficient to answer the real need that this organisation is designed to address? Since 2020, the Home Office has funded a number of organisations to help victims of trauma. Victim Support provides a 24/7 contact centre and initial needs assessments. The South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust, which has not been mentioned so far in the debate, delivers specialist clinical mental health support. The Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation facilitates peer-to-peer support networks, which are very important, while Cruse Bereavement Care offers specialist bereavement support. Although I welcome the tender process for the hub, the wording currently suggests that a new provider will be selected competitively. I wonder whether we risk creating a hollow hub. There are concerns that if it does not take advantage of the expertise that the existing organisations have built up, creating a wholly new, standalone body may lead to duplication and a loss of institutional memory and expertise. There is a solution to that, but I want to hear the Minister recognise that as a potential problem and tell us whether the Department is alive to it as a concern. Next, we come to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which is often impersonal and defensive. A Survivors Against Terror survey of 130 victims found that only 7% felt that the CICA was sympathetic, while 72% felt it was unsympathetic. Whatever the outcome of the process, that demonstrates that it is failing—there is clearly something profoundly wrong. Additionally, 68% found the process unfair and unreasonable, and fewer than half could speak to someone for help. As Brendan Cox, the husband of our murdered colleague Jo Cox, stated: “CICA is broken…An organisation that is supposed to be helping survivors recover and rebuild is instead consistently doing them harm.” However, in May, the Government announced that it would not reform the CICA’s scope, the time limits associated with application or its rules. That feels like a significant error, so I ask the Minister: why do the Government appear to be prioritising existing CICA practices over the experiences and concerns of applicants through that process over many years, and particularly those who have experienced terrorism? Under our current system, victims can wait years. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth, has mentioned the French system. It has a guarantee fund for victims of terrorist acts and other offences, which proactively contacts victims within days and provides emergency monetary advances within the first month. However, here in the UK, as a Manchester bombing survivor stated five years after that terrible night: “I am still waiting for CICA to settle my claim.” The ultimate support we can offer victims is to ensure there are no more of them, which brings me to the crucial matter of prevention. The Shawcross review found that the Prevent programme had suffered from mission creep and cultural timidity in tackling Islamist extremism, which remains responsible for 75% of the work of counter-terrorism investigations. We must recognise that head-on and not shy away from it. I would therefore welcome it if the Minister could provide concrete data demonstrating Prevent’s fundamental rebalancing since the Government accepted all 34 of the Shawcross recommendations. In summary, I seek a response on four key areas. First, I would be grateful if the Minister set out his thinking on how the relatively limited funding for the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub will fulfil the hopes and ambitions we all have for that new organisation. Secondly, on integration, can he guarantee that the trusted and experienced organisations I referred to—the South London and Maudsley NHS trust, the Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation and Cruse Bereavement Support—will be mandated as part of the new hub or that it will call on their expertise? Whatever the mechanism, can he guarantee that their expertise and service will not be lost as a result? Thirdly, on compensation, what is the rationale for not progressing the CICA reform, despite what I think is overwhelming evidence that it should be reformed? Fourthly, on prevention, what evidence demonstrates that the Shawcross recommendations are being implemented? Our duty to support victims is a moral obligation. Victims do not need another layer of barriers; they need immediate, compassionate and properly funded support. They need a dedicated terrorism compensation scheme—like the one the previous Government proposed—that would, importantly, put an end to the failing bureaucracy of the CICA. Those targeted by terror have faced humanity’s worst; they deserve society’s best in return.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The jobs tax has decimated business confidence and has seen unemployment rise, and now—along with the Budget blow to Scotch whisky, the attack on family farms and the undermining of the oil and gas industry—the Scottish Hospitality Group has slated the spending review, saying it “does absolutely nothing to support the hospitality sector”. Will the Secretary of State work with the Chancellor to undo the damage her Budget and her spending review have inflicted on family farms, Scotch whisky, the oil and gas industry, hospitality, entertainment and business confidence in Scotland?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the spending review 2025 on economic growth in Scotland.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to speak again on the Bill. It is a short Bill—it replaces just two words—but one with substantial implications. The meat of the Bill, if I can call it that, is to replace “may” with “must”. I will briefly refer to some of the excellent contributions. I am relieved to have heard many fewer revolting puns than in previous debates on this subject; nevertheless, a couple slipped through. I start with the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), who set out the commercial need for the change to the Act. He made the sensible point that Government policy is easier to change than statute. If we were not sure of that before this week, one should just ask the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that it is easier to change policy than it is to change legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for space, which makes him eminently well-qualified to speak in this debate. I was pondering my own qualifications, and the best I could come up with was that I played rugby for a team called the Space Cadets when I was at university. That is about as close as I could get to the space industry. My hon. Friend rightly made the case for a role for the City of London. He mentioned developing opportunities for Lloyds of London, listings, bond issuance and subsequent legal support. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) highlighted the role of Portsmouth and the wider Hampshire space cluster. She said that it was just four words that needed to be changed—in that sentence, she doubled the size of the Bill. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) reflected on space developments in the context of defence, and on commercial opportunities being held back because of regulatory uncertainty. He was right to highlight that regulatory certainty matters. Finally, the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) said he was the grandson of the father of British space science, which presumably makes him the son of British space science. We cannot complain about inadequate consideration of the Bill. The first attempt to enact the change was introduced by the former Member for Woking, Jonathan Lord, and we had a Second Reading of a very similarly worded Bill on 23 February 2024. Unfortunately, that Bill was lost in the parliamentary wash-up session, as a result of the general election being called later that year. I am pleased that the incoming Government have, through their inspirational Back Benchers, been able to introduce a private Member’s Bill in very similar terms. Second Reading was quite a long time ago—back on 7 March this year—but since then, the Bill has been through Committee and undergone robust line-by-line consideration. I am pleased to report to the House that the word “must” has not been altered in Committee. I wonder whether “definitely should” or “really ought” was posited by Members, but, in the end, we have the same wording as on Second Reading. We now come to the remaining stages, no doubt to an enormous sigh of relief from the industry, and perhaps a little bit of frustration about why it has taken so long to change just two words in an Act that received Royal Assent back in 2018. As a personal observation, I question whether the private Member’s Bill route is appropriate for legislation that has such significant commercial impact. The industry has been waiting. We have heard from speaker after speaker about the commercial importance of changing “may” to “must”, and yet it has taken seven years from identifying the original problem to effecting a solution. We need to really think about that, because this Bill is important and delay has had a cost. The UK space industry generates £18.9 billion for our economy. There are at least 1,800 businesses involved in it, some 52,000 jobs are directly employed by the space industry and, with the supply chain, that number increases to 130,000. No doubt, those figures are out of date as it is a growing industry. We have strong demand for UK commercial spaceflight that led to the original regulatory benefit, arising out of our Brexit freedoms, to have a dynamic regulatory environment. It has given us a genuine economic commercial advantage over our European friends and neighbours, because we have been able to have a more dynamic approach to regulation. However, that has been put at risk because of the difficulties in calculating potential liabilities. Others have already gone through the legal niceties of the Space Industry Act 2018, so I do not propose to go through those line by line as I would normally. Suffice it to say, the legal duty of a space operator is to provide insurance for their operations, and that is required under the Act. That brings a corollary obligation to make a calculation to potential exposure. If someone is making an actuarial calculation of the risk to which a client is exposing an insurer, they need to undertake a calculation of the scale—the quantum—of that risk. This is where the regulatory uncertainty has played its part. Although it has been repeated in this Chamber and elsewhere that it is, and remains, Government policy to have an indemnity beyond a certain level of liability, the uncertainty is that the legislation does not require the Government to do that. Section 12(2) gives the Civil Aviation Authority—the regulatory authority in this case—power to set an upper limit to provide clarity. This Bill turns that power into an obligation, which is quite right. We have had a fun debate and I am very pleased that the legislation is nearing the end of its legislative journey, but we collectively need to stop and think. This is an uncontroversial change, with cross-party support, supporting a growth industry, and yet it has taken five months to progress from Second Reading to the remaining stages. That is simply not good enough. We collectively need to think of a way in which we can get this kind of legislation accelerated. Launches into space are never straightforward, and this Bill is no exception. It had an initial flare-out on its launchpad before the last general election, and since then it has had an excruciatingly slow reconstruction and review. But it is finally ready for launch, and I wish it well. I hope it releases many further launches across the United Kingdom.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was just coming to that. The hon. Lady is quite right, but I am talking about the up-front capital cost. The lifetime running cost may well be cheaper for an electric bus, but the creator has to finance their capital cost on day one, whereas the lifetime operating costs are spread over the effective lifetime of the asset, which, for an electric bus, is an interesting question, actually. The lifetime of the structure of the bus may be 15 or 20 years, but we are not yet sure what the effective lifetime of the battery component of the bus is, and whether or not it needs to be replaced after about 10 years. The data is not particularly robust on that. If it means that we have to change out enormous battery banks during the operating process, that would be a significant additional secondary capex cost. The Department for Transport figures for March 2024 say that there are 29,400 buses used by local bus companies. If we are going to replace all of those, that would be an £8 billion investment. That is very significant, and it is not considered in the impact assessment. There are some long-term savings, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion quite rightly pointed out. It is not just the differential in costs between electric and diesel; there are reduced maintenance costs as well. There are many fewer moving parts with an electric vehicle as well as the lower fuel cost, but the capex costs are front-loaded, and we cannot ignore that. Have the Government considered the financing consequences of imposing large, increased, front-loaded capex costs on bus companies? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. The second issue here is that through the current drafting, the Government are inevitably picking a winner in terms of technology for low-carbon vehicles, because it focuses on tailpipe emissions and ignores whole-life carbon assessments. That is important; again, we must have a balance of approach here. There is a significant benefit in zero tailpipe emissions, which is primarily about air quality as opposed to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. There are very significant emissions during the construction of large-scale battery-operated buses, and there are alternatives under development. In the life cycle of the vehicle, if we take into account its construction, operation and disassembly, it is likely that new technologies, particularly ones using synthetic fuels, could be lower in carbon terms, albeit emitting Euro VI equivalent particulates at the tailpipe. The Bill denies an opportunity for that market to develop. There are currently artificially-produced fuels made using renewable energy that have no net CO 2 emissions over their life cycle. If they are interested, I can explain the basic process to Members: it uses carbon capture plus hydrogen from renewable electricity, synthesised via processes such as the Fischer-Tropsch or methanol synthesis, to create e-diesel, e-kerosene, e-methanol or e-gasoline. The key benefit is that it works with existing engines and fuel infrastructure, and avoids the enormous carbon emissions from wasting existing built infrastructure and machinery. We need to understand that we have “spent” an enormous amount of carbon and greenhouse gases in constructing the 29,400 vehicles—buses—already out there, many of which have a natural life that could be extended significantly. We do not even need to convert them: we could just pour a synthetic fuel into the same bus, saving all the carbon associated with the manufacturing of new, large-scale hydrogen or electricity buses. At the very least, that would be a significant transitional material to extend the use of existing, or pre-manufactured, vehicles. We try to reduce, reuse and recycle, and that would be an absolutely classic case of a good thing, and yet the clause, I am afraid to say, prohibits the development of that market. I suspect that that is not the intention of the Department or the Minister, but that is what will happen.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the intervention. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. Moving on, new clause 53 would require a review of the minimum level of bus services required for communities, within a quite ambitious six months. I leave it to the Minister to respond to that.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s comments fail to address the need for a final backstop, so I will press the new clause to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I accept that currently synthetic fuels are expensive, because they are at the development stage, but I do not believe that the Government’s intention is for the clause to write them out. I recognise that the Minister is unlikely to tear up his clause on my say-so, but I would be grateful if he discussed the issue further with his Department. I will leave it to the Minister to consider amendments 32 and 33, and the same can be said for amendments 78 and 58, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Finally, therefore, amendment 63 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to produce a report assessing the adequacy of funding for the replacement of emitting buses with zero emission versions. The amendment is right to focus once again on the central issue of funding, because that is totally absent from the existing drafting of the clause, but—a fatal “but” from my perspective—the amendment focuses on the LTAs. In fact, however, in the vast majority of cases, the cost lies with private operators and not with the local transport authority. The amendment makes no mention of what should be done for them, and that lets the Government off the hook, frankly, of addressing the real problem, which is the bus companies and the impact on them, as opposed to the local transport authorities. That is probably an inadvertent oversight, but I just point it out.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The new clause would introduce the simple but crucial requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula within six months of the Bill’s passage, alongside an explanation of its rationale, an assessment of its distributional impacts, and any alternative models considered but not adopted. We all recognise that bus services are a lifeline for many of our constituents, connecting people to work, education, healthcare and social functions, and yet we come back to Banquo’s ghost: funding. There are cheques being written by local authorities that opt for franchising, but where that funding will come from is absent from the Bill—it is totally opaque. The new clause would resolve that. It would not dictate what the funding formula should be. Instead, it would ensure that when a funding formula is proposed, it is done on an evidence basis, as described in subsection (2)(b), and transparently. Such transparency is essential to maintain trust in the system, especially after the vast overspends in Greater Manchester. The new clause is proportionate and constructive, and aims to fix the significant concerns around the lack of funding detail in the Bill overall. It would help to ensure that the significant investments we make in bus services deliver the greatest possible benefits, particularly for communities that rely on them most. I will press it to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to strongly support clause 39, which was the inspiration of Lord Hampton, the Cross Bencher who tabled it in the other place. It would require the Secretary of State to collaborate with industry stakeholders to implement a vision zero programme for buses, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries during bus operations and improving overall safety in the sector. It is very hard to argue against that as an objective for the Bill. The Minister expressed support for the concept and direction of travel. His primary argument against the clause was that it would somehow get in the way of a multimodal approach to the reduction of injuries on transport, but there is no reason why it need do so. It could co-ordinate with a multimodal transport response. Nothing in the clause prevents it from being part of a wider piece of work. I accept that the legislative requirement would be limited to the bus sector, but a non-legislative multimodal approach would be perfectly permissible, and it is a ministerial sleight of hand to suggest otherwise. The Minister is using some other review as an excuse not to keep this very good clause. The reason why it is a good clause is that personal injury to passengers on buses caused by sharp braking is a significant issue. A 2019 study for Transport for London showed that three quarters of bus passenger injuries in London were due to non-collision incidents, such as sharp braking or harsh manoeuvres. This disproportionately affects older females and standing passengers, whether they are standing for the journey or standing on their approach to a stopping place. The challenge with the current statistics is that they are binary—they report either collision injuries or non-collision injuries—and are not broken down further into, for example, sharp braking or avoiding manoeuvres. The clause would help to get to the bottom of where risk lies, expose the data and lead to an effective focus on remediation efforts. I strongly support it.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I seek clarification on the import of the hon. Lady’s amendment. On Transport for London, she said that no newly purchased bus would be outside this consideration. Proposed new section 151A(1), for which she seeks to bring the date forward, states: “The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3)”. Her amendment would therefore mean that no existing bus that was not zero emission at the tailpipe could be used from 2027 onwards. Is that really her intention?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with all the Minister’s comments, particularly those regarding the officials and everyone who has made this Committee work over the last few weeks. I am very grateful to hear the Minister’s nice words about how he was listening carefully to what we said. If that were the case, I wonder why he did not accept any of our amendments, but it may just be a question of time—he may reflect further on them. It is great that we have managed to finish a day early, at the time that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Halifax, had in her mind. I also thank her for the way in which she has managed the operation of this Committee behind the scenes.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As has become my custom, I will start with the clause and then look at the amendments. I will be relatively brief, but it is worth highlighting that clause 37 deals with the use of zero emission vehicles for local services in England. It is intended to prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses in local bus services in England, but inevitably there a number of qualifications to the proposed ban. Under proposed new section 151A(2)(a), the ban will be limited to local bus services or London local services, the rationale behind which is presumably that long-distance buses do not currently have the technology to reliably use electric batteries, as opposed to other forms of lower-carbon technology. That raises questions about rural services that are classified as “local” but are, in fact, long distance. The county of Norfolk is a big old place, and there are long journeys that are classified as “local”. I raise a flag at the way in which the Government have sought to vary the classification by taking out long-distance journeys, and assuming that bus battery technology is therefore capable of dealing with all other local services. That is not necessarily the case where long rural routes, which are classified as “local”, still face the same disadvantage in battery technology, as it is currently developed. I am raising that issue with the Minister so that he can go away and think about it. The date of registration is 1 January 2030. The consequence of the clause is that it bans tailpipe emissions, and there is a separate, but slightly more philosophical, point. I have a challenge to the Government’s policy direction: it looks like the Government are picking winners—in fact, they definitely are—in relation to low-carbon technology. The tailpipe emissions include CO 2 , carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide and particulates, which is all set out in subsection (3)(c). Currently, only hydrogen and electric buses would qualify, so there is a huge implication to this clause. This is a blanket ban for new registrations, which undoubtedly has some positives but also some negatives of which we collectively ought to be aware. The positives of these vehicles are their quietness and, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion pointed out, air quality. That is a significant positive. I was born and went to school in my early years in London, and the difference in air quality in this city between then and now is enormous. It is a totally different experience from back in the 1970s, when vehicle fumes just enveloped us. That has made a huge difference. If we agree to the amendment, however, we would be legislating enormous cost increases for the creators of fleets. We need to be careful: the cost of a standard Euro VI compliant bus, which has the most efficient engine, is about £180,000. An electric equivalent is about half a million pounds. These are hugely different orders of cost.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is very hard to add anything to that. I fully support the comments of the hon. Member, and of the hon. Member for North Norfolk. Clause 38 is excellent. It is a great addition—it was introduced by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in the other place—because it requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of, essentially, the impact of the Bill within two years of its passing. The meat of the clause is in subsection (2), which states that the review must assess “the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,” and “the number of villages in England not served by bus services”, as well as the “demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of business services available”, and finally, “the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.” It is the review of, “What have we achieved today?” That report will be useful, because it will kick-start discussion of solutions to rural transport. The hon. Member for North Norfolk has already referred to Sanders, which is a family-owned regional bus company—I think it has grown such that I can properly call it regional. We also have First Bus in Norfolk. We have a radial approach. We know the impact of the £2 bus fare on ridership in our county: it was very useful, including by enabling residents of Fakenham, in my constituency, to get down to Norwich—that is a bus journey of three quarters of an hour for £2. It has been an effective policy to increase ridership. We will see what impact the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will have on ridership and provision in the country as a whole, especially in rural areas. I suspect that the answer is that it will have absolutely no impact. A review would expose the Bill for what it is: virtue signalling without any funding at all to support the supposed ambitions of local transport authorities. If the Government vote against clause 38 standing part of the Bill, that will clearly demonstrate their concern that the Bill is performative, that it will not actually make services better, and that it has in fact been a monumental waste of time, without funding. Time and again, throughout consideration of the Bill, I have said that the Conservative party is not against franchising; in fact, it is a Conservative policy development. In the right circumstances, it is a good solution—it is progress—but we have to accept that it is expensive. The Government are pretending that they are facilitating a whole load of local transport authorities to franchise, but are not giving them any money to do it, so we are left with a meaningless shell. The review mandated by clause 38 would hold the Government to account. If I were proven wrong by the report, and it lists a huge number of additional services that have been supplied as a result of the Bill, I would happily come back here and eat my hat.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is rather unedifying to see the Government hiding behind arguments about article 8. If they seriously thought that article 8 was a practical consideration that prevented the adoption of the clause, why did they not seek to amend the clause? They were perfectly capable of tabling a clarifying amendment to make the clause compliant with article 8, if they really had genuine concerns about such compliance. They could have done it, but they have chosen not to. It does not befit the Minister to hide behind that as a defence for the Government’s inaction. The clause deals with the recording and sharing of data about assaults. It was proposed by the noble Lord Woodley in the other place. The Government should be aware of that, because it was after all drafted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I am sure the Government are good union supporters and, in other situations, I would have expected them to be highly supportive of union recommendations, although I seem to recall—I think I am right—that the RMT is not officially affiliated to the Labour party. Perhaps that explains why the clause is about to be removed from the Bill. The clause imposes a duty to record all data about assaults and violent behaviour, and a duty to consult any relevant trade unions about issues of staff safety arising from that data, which is eminently sensible. Before I go into more detail, I want to clarify that most bus journeys are in fact very safe. Data from Transport for London for 2024 suggests that only 9.6 crimes are committed per million journeys in London. I do not have the data in front of me, but I think that the equivalent data for rural Norfolk might show it is even safer. It is an increasing trend in London, however, as 4,167 crimes on London buses were reported as violence against the person in 2018-19, which was an increase of 2.5% on the previous year. In the west midlands, another hotspot, violent crime on buses increased 7% year on year in the latest statistics. Bus driver assaults is an important subsection of such crime, and in London between 2011 and 2013, on average four bus drivers every single day were assaulted or verbally abused. According to a Unite the union survey in 2024, 83% of UK bus drivers experienced abuse, with 79% saying that there had been an increase over the previous year and many reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults. That is the important bit: if bus drivers are reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults, why is requiring the proper recording of data associated with assaults such a bad thing? Surely the first step to change would be to understand the full nature of the problem. The clause would lead to better data, and therefore better support for bus drivers and passengers faced with violent crime.