Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This is an important new clause that deals with poor performance franchising. Subsection (1) would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement on when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services were persistently failing because of poor operational or financial management. Subsection (2) says that the statement must set out the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service and how those are to be identified, and that it must clarify the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service. As Members will be aware, under the Bill, franchising provides local authorities with significant powers to shape, manage and procure bus services in their areas. With those powers should come an equally important responsibility: the duty to ensure that services are delivered efficiently, sustainably and to the high standards that the public rightly expect. The new clause addresses that important gap in the legislation. It requires the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to lay before Parliament a clear statement outlining their intentions and mechanisms for intervention in circumstances where franchising arrangements persistently fail due to poor operational or financial management. I will cut to the chase: we have franchising on the railways. The Government are getting themselves into a very odd position. They are saying, “We are all for devolution. We don’t want to get involved. We are removing the requirement to gain the consent of the Secretary of State to enter into franchising agreements and we have no mechanism to intervene if local transport authorities get themselves into a mess and oversee persistent underperformance.” On rail, however, they take the opposite position and their version of franchising is to nationalise. What would the Government do to remedy the situation if the transport network in a local transport authority persistently underperformed? At the moment, they are expressing no opinion at all on that. The new clause gives them the power to set out their views. It seeks to ensure that where franchising authorities or franchisees fail to deliver contracted services, there is a backstop of national intervention to guarantee continuity and standards. Buses should not be the poor relation of rail. The new clause brings the franchised bus networks in line with the franchised rail network and introduces further certainty and confidence into the franchising system for operators, passengers and local authorities alike. Everyone will know that where persistent failure occurs, there will be a robust safety net to prevent communities being left with persistently poor franchised bus services.

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

  More

  The Minister refers to the cost of concessions. Has he made an assessment, or is he aware of what the assessed cost would be, of removing the time restriction, as proposed in new clause 48?

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

  More

  If hon. Members cast their minds back to earlier, they will know my exact views on amendment 75, so I will not repeat them. I will not speak on amendment 69, because my remarks would be similar to those on amendment 75. I will, however, speak briefly on clause 35. Clause 35 will introduce measures on disability training. There is currently a requirement in article 16 of EU regulation 181/2011 for mandatory training on disability awareness and disability assistance to be undertaken by particular categories of staff of carriers and terminal managing bodies, with different categories of staff required to do different elements of the training. The Government are totally right to realise that that is an unnecessary complication, and that there needs to be a tidying up exercise so that all staff dealing with passengers in the transport sector receive similar training. Clause 35 streamlines the requirement so that all categories of local bus service staff referenced in article 16 of the EU regulation should undertake both disability assistance and disability awareness training, and stay current every five years. It enables bus drivers and staff who deal directly with the travelling public or issues related to them, including those who provide direct assistance to passengers, to be informed of the needs and experiences of disabled people—quite right too. That is a good clarification. Clause 36 deals with training about disability and contains further provisions. Its intentions are as decent as those of clause 35, and they are undeniably important. Namely, it seeks to ensure the effective implementation of disability awareness training requirements. However, we need to be aware of the potential issues with regulatory overreach and the administration burden. Measures under subsection (1) of the clause empower the Secretary of State to require operators to keep, publish and provide compliance records. I am repeating myself slightly, but this is an important point: we are dealing with primary legislation that covers the entire sector. It affects not just big organisations but SMEs; we have to remember that not all operators are large organisations. For SMEs with a small workforce or a small fleet, increases to the administrative burden can be disproportionate to the benefit that such requirements to maintain data can bring to others. I wonder whether that burden is justified in terms of its outcome, and not just theoretical tidiness. Theoretically, I understand the provision and it makes sense. We are saying, “We want operators to do these things, therefore we want records that are updated and published regularly.” In reality, that comes with a time and labour cost. How will services be improved in practical terms as a result of the additional requirement? Has the Minister already conducted an impact assessment of the additional financial and administrative burdens that the measure will place on smaller local authorities and bus operators? Government amendment 20 ensures that references in the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 to the “enforcement authority” cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A. Again, I will leave it to the Minister to address the amendment. I hope Committee members are applauding my changed approach to the pace at which I am going through some of these provisions—it is against my better judgment. As a former lawyer, I love going into the subsections, but I am trying to canter on. There is a concern with amendment 20 that we are loading a whole load of additional obligations on to traffic commissioners, these previously unknown—certainly in my case—servants of the state. A question arises about capacity and the funding necessary to increase it. Traffic commissioners already oversee a vast amount of regulatory functions for operating licensing, vehicle standards and general compliance across the bus and coach sectors. The Bill, particularly clause 36, adds significant additional enforcement duties, and that obviously comes at a cost in both manpower and legal fees. If a commissioner takes enforcement action, they have to be prepared to defend their decisions in court, and that is expensive, particularly if they lose. We can all agree that there are significant costs associated with the clause, should it be enacted, but the Bill is silent on funding for traffic commissioners—there is no mention of it all. What is the assessed cost to traffic commissioners of the proposed changes, in aggregate? What changes will be made to traffic commissioner budgets to allow for this burden? Will the Minister conduct an assessment of the current work of traffic commissioners and whether they have the resources and time to fulfil this additional duty? Those are minor but important points; we have to think about the practicalities of what we are asking. This is not guidance but primary legislation, so we need to be cognisant of its consequences and prepare for them. Government amendment 21 follows amendment 20, and I have no comment on it. The same goes for Government amendment 22, which is another procedural tidying-up exercise that I have no objection to. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Kate Dearden.)

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

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s considered response to all the amendments. I spoke in favour of a number of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is not a member of the Committee. The mathematics of the Committee are pretty obvious, so I will treat the majority of them as probing amendments. Some of them have done their work, and I hope that those that the Minister batted away will be quietly reconsidered when he is back in the comfort of his ministerial office. I consider amendment 40 to be one such probing amendment, so I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert— “(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if— (a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and (b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure. (6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”— (Jerome Mayhew.) This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I challenge the Minister’s rationale on clause 30. I understood him to be saying that making a duty mandatory might force the Government to issue guidance before consultation is undertaken, but there is nothing in the clause that suggests that. If he wishes to propose that as an argument against amendment 40, he needs to set out what it is in said amendment that would require the issuing of guidance prior to any consultation or standard operating procedures. I cannot see anything like that.

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

  More

  I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s greater knowledge of training in this area. I am substantially persuaded by the information that he put forward in his intervention. Amendment 52, which is in my name, seeks to ensure that any training or requirements established under this clause do not include guidance that would advise, encourage, direct or imply that individuals, in this instance bus drivers, should put themselves in danger at any stage. I am grateful for the Minister’s non-verbal indication during my earlier comments that I was right in assuming that that was not the Government’s intention, but my amendment would make express what the Minister has implied. Although it is entirely right that drivers and frontline staff receive training to identify, respond to and, where safe, prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour, we must be clear that their personal safety is also essential. The amendment ensures that no training delivered under these provisions would ever advise to the contrary. It preserves the purpose of clause 34 by ensuring staff that are trained to recognise and respond appropriately to crime and antisocial behaviour while guaranteeing that such training will never instruct them to act beyond what is reasonable and safe. I will leave it the Minister to address amendment 73. Amendment 75, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant senior managers to undertake regular training on disability awareness and accessibility. I appreciate its intention, but I have two concerns. First, it would inevitably place an additional regulatory burden on operators and local transport authorities, where there is currently no clear evidence of an existing gap that needs to be filled. We have to remind ourselves that we are not running the buses in this Committee; we are creating legislation that requires other people to run the buses in a certain way. As legislators, it is always tempting to think, “Oh, that’s a good idea. Let’s put that in the Bill.” However, we sometimes forget that we are dealing with primary legislation, which requires an Act of Parliament to change. We need to be very careful that we do not create an administrative overload, and this provision would be an additional regulatory burden without clear evidence. We also need to be cognisant of the fact that, although some of the potentially affected organisations will be local transport authorities or large municipal bus companies—at least in the future—many of the affected businesses will be small and medium-sized enterprises, some of which will be very small local bus operators that need to be protected from over-regulation. Secondly, there is a danger of duplication and confusion when there are other statutory duties and guidance being created in the Bill, particularly those in clause 30 that deal with the safety and accessibility of stopping places. We need to ensure clarity, not an overlapping jurisdiction of training mandates, which may cause regulator confusion. Those are my concerns about amendment 75.