debates/debates2025-09-10e conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-09-10)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-09-10e conversation_21

Rupa Huq:I am sure that the Prime Minister recalls visiting the Ukrainian community in Acton with me soon after Putin’s illegal invasion. They still remember it fondly. They want me to ask him whether, next week at Trump’s state visit, he will harness to the max his unique role—with influence in the US and the coalition of the willing in Europe—and redouble all efforts to find a just  peace, with security guarantees for them and war crimes punished, so that we can end this war, which has gone on far too long? \p Keir Starmer: I do recall that visit—it was extremely good and very welcoming. Our support for Ukraine remains unwavering. The attack last night in Poland shows that Putin’s belief is that he can somehow act with impunity. That is why we are working so hard with the coalition of the willing to ensure that there are security guarantees as we go forward. We have made real progress in recent weeks; we must continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin. \p Sarah Bool: Today is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day. Given that the Prime Minister has been so keen on resets in recent weeks, will he reset his relationship with our farmers and reverse the family farm tax? \p Keir Starmer: Let me tell the House what we are doing. We are working with the former President of the National Farmers Union, Baroness Minette Batters, to review farm profitability—that is the key issue. We are delivering the 25-year farming road map, and we  have struck a deal with the EU, which is of great benefit to farmers, and which of course the Conservatives say they will reverse. That is on top of the £5 billion that we put into farming in our last Budget. \p Liz Twist: Today is World Suicide Prevention Day. It can be scary to talk about suicide, but we need to. So many of our constituents will know or love someone who has taken their own life, or they may have suicidal thoughts themselves. But suicide is not inevitable; it is preventable, and everyone has a role to play in saving lives. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to preventing deaths by suicide and say how they are tackling this vital issue? \p Keir Starmer: May I start by thanking and paying tribute to my hon. Friend for her work as my Parliamentary Private Secretary for the past 14 months? She has worked tirelessly and with huge commitment and respect across the whole of this House.

I think that suicide prevention matters to everybody in this House. I will reaffirm our commitment and I will work across the House with all Members to deal with suicide prevention. \p Calum Miller: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement on the implications of Israel’s strike in Qatar for peace and stability in the middle east and for UK foreign policy. \p Hamish Falconer: The UK Government are deeply concerned by Israel’s strike in Doha yesterday. As the House heard a few minutes ago from the Prime Minister, he and the Foreign Secretary have condemned these flagrant violations of Qatar’s sovereignty, which will set back the cause for peace and risk further escalation in the region. The Prime Minister has spoken to the Emir of Qatar to express the UK’s solidarity and support and to reaffirm our shared commitment to regional stability. The Prime Minister also gave his condolences for the death of a Qatari security officer killed in the attack. Sadly, Qatar’s Ministry of Interior has overnight confirmed the death of a second person.

Qatar is playing a critical role in mediating the conflict, driving efforts to secure a ceasefire and to facilitate vital humanitarian access to Gaza. That must remain the priority. This Government continue to support it in its efforts to push for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages cruelly detained by Hamas, the protection of civilians and the unrestricted flow of aid into Gaza as the vital first steps towards long-term peace and stability. That is the only way to achieve lasting peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis alike. That is why we are working with partners to develop a framework for peace that addresses governance, security, humanitarian access and political reform. Negotiation, not more violence, is the way to achieve that. We are actively working together with our international partners, including the G7 and the UN Security Council, to co-ordinate efforts aimed at de-escalation and to reiterate our full support for the sovereignty of Qatar.

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister met President Abbas to discuss the intolerable situation in Gaza, the need for an urgent solution to end horrific suffering and famine, and the Palestinian Authority’s reform agenda, which is vital for a two-state solution. Today the Prime Minister will meet President Herzog of Israel and reiterate the UK’s grave concern following yesterday’s strikes, and reiterate that man-made famine in Gaza must end and the renewed offensive in Gaza must not happen. We will continue to push for a political resolution to end this conflict and strive towards a lasting peace. \p Calum Miller: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting my application for an urgent question. I am grateful to the Minister for his statement.

Last night’s Israeli strikes against Hamas officials in Qatar heralded a new and grave escalation in this terrible conflict. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s willingness to strike Doha will undermine efforts to secure the release of the hostages still held in Hamas captivity and set back the path to a desperately needed ceasefire. Liberal Democrats have called for more diplomatic pressure to be placed on Hamas by the Qataris, including the threat to exile  the leadership of Hamas from Doha unless we see the immediate and unconditional release of the remaining hostages. That is the kind of diplomatic pressure that must be brought to bear. Instead, the Israeli Government have chosen a path that even President Trump, Netanyahu’s biggest cheerleader, appears appalled by.

Let me be clear. Liberal Democrats support the right of the state of Israel to exist and its right to defend itself, like all nations, but Israel has obligations under international law and duties to its allies, both of which it has breached. Can the Minister confirm whether any UK entity, including the joint command at the Al Udeid airbase, was informed by Israel of the attack in advance? Will he confirm that, in addition to what he has already said, the Prime Minister, in his meeting with President Herzog today, will condemn yesterday’s attack in the strongest possible terms and make it clear that the UK views it as a flagrant breach of international law?

Last night’s strikes are inseparable from the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. They have further eroded our collective hope for an end to the suffering of both Gazans and the hostages, so it is time for meaningful action by this Government. Will the Minister confirm that the UK will take the steps necessary today to end the export of F-35 parts to Israel, and in the light of the further egregious breaches of international law directed by Netanyahu overnight, that President Netanyahu will be sanctioned? \p Hamish Falconer: Mr Speaker, as you would expect and as is our usual practice, I will not be commenting on sanctions from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister has set out to this House his intentions for his meeting with President Herzog later. I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary met President Herzog this morning and raised these points among a range of others, including the urgent need both to ensure that aid gets into Gaza and that there is further Israeli support for British efforts to medically evacuate injured children and to provide fully funded scholarships to the UK. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call Dame Emily Thornberry, Chair of the Select Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: What happened overnight illustrates a huge problem that the new Foreign Secretary will need to deal with; I am pleased that the Minister will be ably helping her. The problem is this: there is an emboldened, far-right Israeli Government who believe that they can do whatever they like and there will be no consequences, while on the other hand the country of Qatar is genuinely working towards peace. I know the Minister has met the Qatari Ministers; I have met them too. They could not be more sincere in the efforts they are making, yet they get bombed for their efforts. The question for the new Foreign Secretary is how we can make sure that we are not just bystanders but play an active role in dealing with this issue. How will the Prime Minister be able to convey such a message to President Herzog this afternoon? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my right hon. Friend for the question. It is vital that at such serious moments that the UN Security Council plays its full part, so I can confirm to her that the UK is supporting calls for an emergency session of the UN Security Council this evening. The Foreign Secretary will be joining calls with  her E3 counterparts this afternoon, and we will be discussing this matter, as my right hon. Friend would expect, with a range of G7 allies, including the United States. \p Lindsay Hoyle: We come now to shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: This is clearly a very, very serious moment for the middle east. No one in this House wants to see a spiral of escalation of hostilities. Both Israel and Qatar are important and valued strategic partners for the United Kingdom, and we value and recognise the extensive efforts by the Qatari Government to secure the release of hostages and work towards securing a ceasefire. It is tragic, as the Minister has highlighted, that security guards were killed in this attack, but there are some fundamental issues here, and many of these points have been made from the Dispatch Box time and again.

This is a moment for our country. Britain must contribute and provide the British expertise necessary for conflict resolution and support strong regional initiatives, including backing Qatar and the Qataris on releasing the hostages and achieving a ceasefire.

On top of that, of course, we must work with our allies in the United States, and next week’s visit from President Trump is a crucial moment. There can be no more equivocation, as this issue continues to afflict the region day after day after day.

It is also true that we certainly should not be mourning the Hamas leaders who have been killed. Hamas have held innocent hostages in terrorist captivity for over 700 days, and they were responsible for the atrocities of 7 October 2023, which also killed British nationals.

In recent months, Israel has been removing terrorist actors across the middle east—the leadership of the Houthis, Hezbollah and malign individuals in the Iranian regime too. That means that our Government must play a strong role and stand firm on degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities and that malign influence in the region. In recognising the sensitivity of the situation in the Gulf, will the Minister confirm what actions he and the FCDO will take to stabilise efforts to secure the release of the hostages; what proactive steps are being taken to degrade Hamas and their capabilities; and, of course, how we can work constructively with our partners in the region to drive the right outcomes, including achieving a ceasefire? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the right hon. Lady for those important questions. The British Government are fully committed, with our Gulf and G7 partners, to efforts to ensure that the current negotiations come to the conclusions that we wish to see. Those include conclusions in the short term—we have long repudiated Hamas’s hostage taking, so the hostages need to be released immediately, and humanitarian aid must get into Gaza. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), there are also other questions about governance and security, and about the long-term prospects for Gaza, for the west bank, and for a state of Palestine and a state of Israel living side by side. We are fully engaged in that diplomacy, as the right hon. Lady would expect.

On the right hon. Lady’s wider question about fragility in the region, she will be familiar with the decisions we have taken on snapback. I imagine that we will return to discuss Iran in greater detail at some point in the future, as I am conscious that there were developments over recess. We have triggered snapback and we will continue to return to the House to discuss the threat of Iran’s nuclear programme. \p Abtisam Mohamed: The longer that Israel is allowed to act like a rogue state, bombing sovereign countries with impunity and expanding its war in the middle east, the weaker our words look—Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Syria, Tunisian soil and now Qatar. Why are we meeting Israel’s President Herzog today, when his own words and those of Netanyahu show a complete disregard for international humanitarian law? \p Hamish Falconer: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on a whole range of questions, including current efforts to try to ensure the successful evacuation of vulnerable people from Gaza. It is important that we raise our concerns directly to the Israeli Government, both to contribute to the diplomatic process and to try to secure the practical and tangible help required to get people out of Gaza. The British Foreign Office on its own cannot secure the speedy departures that we wish to see. \p Andrew Mitchell: Do not the events of yesterday underline the critical need to secure a ceasefire and, above all, to move into a political process? Will the Minister—we are all pleased to see him continuing in his role following the reshuffle—commit to building on the important work done by Egypt, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to effect that peace process? All of them have underlined the fact that there is no place for Hamas in Gaza or anywhere else in government following the events that have taken place. \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful for the kind words from the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed for those I heard from the Labour Back Benches. I am continuing in my role and look forward to appearing before the House in the usual way. He is right to emphasise not just the important statements from the UK and our western allies, but the important commitments that have been made—particularly in July but since then as well—by Qatar, Egypt, Turkey and a range of other states, which have a real role to play in mediating the immediate pressures and in trying to end up in, as he says, the more permanent ceasefire that we want to see. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for outlining the strongest condemnation of the attacks and the blatant disregard for Qatar’s sovereignty. I refer the House to my registered interests, as I visited Qatar last year and spoke to Ministers there. I saw how diligently they are working, day in and day out, to secure the ceasefire and the hostages, and to get that urgent aid in. Does the Minister share my view that Qatar’s role in mediating this conflict will be blown into jeopardy by the recent attack, and will he ensure that the Prime Minister continues to condemn this attack when he meets the Israeli President later this week? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is quite right; Qatar has played a vital role in this conflict. I work closely with my Qatari counterparts, and not just on the urgent issues of the middle east but across a whole range of difficult conflicts. They play a vital role and are committed—as the Emir of Qatar told the Prime Minister this morning—to continuing to play that mediation role. I cannot see how such strikes help Qataris perform that role, but they are committed none the less to continuing it, and they have our full support. \p Kit Malthouse: The events of yesterday come as no surprise to those of us in the Chamber who have raised the issue of the Israeli Government’s crimes, committed with an air of complete impunity. It should now be crystal clear to the Minister, as it is to so many across the world, that the Israeli Government are not interested in the slightest in peace, or indeed in the fate of their hostages. In that light, I have two questions. First, what military and intelligence assistance will we provide to the Qataris to allow them to defend themselves against further attacks? Secondly, will the UK add its voice to the growing calls across the world for the formation of an international protection force to enter Gaza and enforce a peace? \p Hamish Falconer: On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, we are committed to Qatar’s security and defence—we have a close relationship with the Qataris on both, and we are of course in constant discussions with them about the importance of that collaboration. On his second point about a protective force—and here I will take advantage of the question asked by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), who was Secretary of State for International Development when I was posted in South Sudan with a chapter VII UN peacekeeping force, which at that time had the most far-reaching mandate to protect civilians—we in this Chamber cannot pretend that UN peacekeeping forces are able to impose peace where there is none. There must be a ceasefire negotiation. In Juba I saw, as did the world, the horrifying ethnic cleansing that followed the inability of the UN mission to protect people. We must have a ceasefire. It is easy to get distracted with other alternatives, but the truth is that only a ceasefire will protect civilians in Gaza. \p John Slinger: Given that, under article 51 of the UN charter, any pre-emptive strike is normally regarded as justified only when a threat is imminent; that article 2(4) states that

“all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”;

and that article 51 states that

“measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council”,

does my hon. Friend agree that international law and the preservation and strengthening of the rules-based system is vital to the peoples of the region, the wider world, our ally Qatar and the UK? Will he make it clear to Israel that we expect it to obey international law? \p Hamish Falconer: We expect Israel, alongside all of our allies, and indeed every state, to abide by international law. My hon. Friend sets out the relevant tests of  self-defence and imminence. As I have said, the UK is supporting a motion for an urgent session of the Security Council this afternoon on this question. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: Members have already outlined how Israel has violated international law by attacking Qatar. Will the UK Government lay therefore down a motion at the UN to condemn the actions of Israel? \p Hamish Falconer: As I have said, the UK is supporting a motion for a session of the UN Security Council this afternoon. If that motion is granted, the session is expected to take place this evening—our time. \p Richard Burgon: Israel is a rogue state that blatantly disregards international law. This bombing was a blatant attempt to scupper peace negotiations. Pleading with Israel will do no good, so how many more war crimes or violations of international law are necessary before the Government impose the tough sanctions on Israel that are needed to force it to stop this? \p Hamish Falconer: I think I covered the point about sanctions earlier. \p Bob Blackman: I was surprised and disappointed that there was no word from the Secretary of State in relation to the terrorist attack in Jerusalem on Monday, where terrorists opened fire on a bus, killing rabbis and women. The reality is that Hamas’s leadership not only condoned the attack, but praised it. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that we get to the point of having a ceasefire that allows for the release of all the hostages without conditions, and for Hamas to surrender their weapons and agree to demilitarise Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the attack in Jerusalem, which I condemn utterly and outright. It was barbaric and, as he says, women and rabbis were killed. The UK has no truck with it and we condemn it outright, just as we condemn all such activities by Hamas, including the taking of hostages, the events of 7 October and the long litany of terrorist attacks that they are responsible for and glorify. \p Mohammad Yasin: Benjamin Netanyahu’s extrajudicial killings against a sovereign western ally expose his rejection of peace and deliberate escalation of atrocities in a clear violation of international law and diplomacy. He has destroyed the peace talks and acts with impunity. The UK Government have rightly condemned these actions, but when will they uphold international law, call out the Israeli Prime Minister as a warmonger and perpetrator of genocide, end arms sales to Israel and impose the severe sanctions that his conduct demands? \p Hamish Falconer: The Prime Minister set out some of what our Government have done in relation to the suspension of arms sales and sanctions on extremist figures in the Israeli Government, so I will not belabour those points here. On peace talks, the Emir of Qatar is clear that the Qataris will continue in their mediation role. We should not count out peace talks while the Qataris rightly continue to try to push them forwards. \p Brendan O'Hara: Israel’s bombing of Doha was the action of a state that knows it can act with complete impunity. Once again, the Netanyahu regime has shown that international law simply does not apply to it, and as long as this Government ignore the overwhelming evidence of the genocide in Gaza, so that they can profit from the sales of weapons to Israel, that situation will continue. Will Minister tell us—unless this is just another example of the performative condemnation that we have seen so often from this Government—what exactly the consequences will be for Israel for this egregious attack on Qatar? \p Hamish Falconer: I have set out some of the steps that we are taking in relation to this strike, including supporting an emergency session of the UN Security Council and having discussions with our allies, including the E3, which the Foreign Secretary will undertake shortly. I would not wish to be drawn further as we discuss this very important incident with our allies. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. The conflict in Gaza is not a question that relates primarily to UK arms. We are a tiny supplier of residual arms. We have suspended the sale of all of those arms that could be used in Gaza. There are other states with much fuller arms relationships—[Interruption.] \p Brendan O'Hara: The figure is 15%. \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman says “15%”, when in fact he means 15% of components of the total F-35 supply. The truth about the total supply to Israel is that it is less than 1%. \p Stella Creasy: The Minister is absolutely right to call for a session at the United Nations—nobody can think that attacking the people trying to broker peace is going to lead to a ceasefire—but ahead of that, this country must have made some assessment of the case for the session and the motion. Will the Minister tell us what assessment his officials have made about the civilian casualties and whether this strike is proportionate under the boundaries of the laws of armed conflict, as set out in international law? If we go to the UN, what case will we be making? \p Hamish Falconer: I would not want to be drawn on a casualty tally from the UK. As I set out in my response, Qatar has been clear about its own assessments and these things tend to develop in the immediate aftermath of a strike, so I will not be drawn on casualties or the number of people struck. Qatar, quite rightly, will release that information when it is available. My hon. Friend asks about the international law tests against which this strike must be judged. Those tests are self-defence and imminence, and in any session of the UN Security Council those are the tests that we would expect Israel to be able to satisfy. \p Julian Smith: It is not only on this issue, but on many other issues that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other middle east nations have developed a real niche and leadership in mediation and conflict resolution. Will the Minister look at our own conflict resolution unit and its resources and spend, and double down on how we are working with the Qataris on all their mediation efforts? \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question. The strength of our relationship with Qatar on conflict mediation and our own capabilities are an important area of work. I understand deeply how important that is because I was a negotiator in the Foreign Office, as was our National Security Adviser. I have been due a further discussion with my Qatari ministerial counterpart. Regrettably, it has been continually delayed by events in the region, but we hope to have it soon. \p Afzal Khan: Qatar is an ally, and a key negotiator and mediator in Gaza ceasefire talks. Through committing atrocities in Gaza, illegal settlements in the west bank, marching into Syria, and attacking Lebanon, Iran, Yemen and now Qatar, this Israeli Government have proven themselves to be a rogue ally to us and a dangerous neighbour. At what point does the UK draw a line in the sand and call out this Israeli Government for what they are—a danger to peace in the middle east? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his long commitment to these issues. He has heard my condemnation, as well as that of the previous Foreign Secretary, the current Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, of many of the Israeli Government’s actions in relation to Gaza, the west bank and elsewhere. Where we disagree with the Israeli Government, we are clear and forceful in saying so. \p Charlie Maynard: Given that Israel continues to act with impunity, what new levers will our Government use to take actions that are within its powers, such as restrictions on travel and trade, air and sea delivery of aid—given that land delivery is so appalling—and in relation to the F-35? We are breaching international humanitarian laws; can we please stop doing so? \p Hamish Falconer: I do not like to get ahead of the courts on the question of the F-35. There was extensive legal argumentation in the Al-Haq case, which did not find in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Turning to the question of air and sea access to Gaza, both methods have been tried. The UK supported airdrops alongside our Jordanian partners over the summer, such was our desperation to get aid into the strip. However, we cannot escape the fact that airdrops are a pinprick at best, given the overall scale of need. There is an aid operation that works and has a track record, which is the United Nations operation. \p Charlie Maynard: And sea? \p Hamish Falconer: Sea was also tried, particularly during the late period of President Biden, but was not found to be an effective mechanism for getting aid in. Where we can get aid in—even in small amounts—we will do so, but I cannot pretend from this Dispatch Box that any methods other than the land routes and UN support can reach the scale that is required to meet the need. \p Clive Betts: I am pleased to see the Minister back at the Dispatch Box, although I am not sure whether he is equally pleased to come back to the Chamber once again to answer questions about the illegal actions of the Israeli Government. We  have a situation in which one of our allies has unlawfully attacked another of our allies. Given that we are rightly standing with the Qataris, is it not time we recognised that because of their actions in Doha and their continuous starvation and murder of innocent civilians in Gaza, this right-wing Israeli Government and this extreme right-wing Israeli Prime Minister are no longer allies of ours? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about my reappointment. I recognise the force of what he has said about Israeli politics; it is not appropriate for one Foreign Minister to comment on the internal politics of another country, but from the sanctions I announced from this Dispatch Box in June, the House can see the strength of this Government’s feeling about—for example—the rhetoric of Mr Smotrich and that of Mr Ben-Gvir. It has been deeply disheartening to see that rhetoric repeated over the course of the summer, but where we can, we demonstrate in the strongest possible way the strength of our feeling on these questions. \p Simon Hoare: The events that took place earlier this week in Jerusalem, and yesterday, prove that the two extremes in this conflict have no interest in peace. Hamas benefits from the violence, and the right wing of the Israeli Government also profits as it seeks to expand Israel’s territory and subject the Palestinian people. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and amplify the points that he made.

Following yesterday’s events, Trump and the American Administration appear to be as annoyed with Israel as the rest of the world are, so is it now time to call Israel’s bluff through the United Nations? Is it not time to seek the engagement of blue helmets or some similar force, to enable us to say, “We, as an international community, have people on the ground. Don’t you dare fire into that area. Let us now trigger peace talks.” Without that catalyst, those two extremes will just continue, along with the performative merry-go-round of “Here we go again”, condemnation, and another statement or urgent question. I fear that in three or four years’ time, there will be rubble in Gaza, the Israeli Government will be even more of a rogue Government, and we will be no further forward. \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the risks in Gaza—we have seen that rubble grow. The British Government would support international forces going into Gaza with the agreement of the parties. In response to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I spoke about my own experience of the limitations on peacekeeping forces where there is no peace to enforce. We are depressingly clear-eyed about the continuing intent on both sides to continue conducting violence, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman has described. \p Steve Witherden: In the past month alone, Israel has bombed Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen. Yesterday, for the first time, it bombed Qatar. What is the Government’s legal assessment of the strikes on Qatar, and do they consider them to be a violation of international law? \p Hamish Falconer: We utterly condemn the violation of Qatar’s sovereignty, as the House heard from the Prime Minister this morning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) set out, the international legal tests are to do with imminence and self-defence. There will be a session of the UN Security Council, and it will be for Israel to demonstrate how its actions are consistent with those tests. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Today of all days, after an illegal attack on peace brokers Qatar, it is shocking to see the UK roll out the red carpet for President Herzog, who has dehumanised suffering Palestinians and incited violence against civilians. The Minister’s Government are being seen to pander to politicians who flout international law. He rightly calls for a ceasefire; when will he call what is happening in Gaza a genocide? \p Hamish Falconer: President Herzog is in the UK on a private visit, so I would not characterise the visit as one for which the red carpet has been rolled out. I reiterate that so many colleagues on the Government Benches, and I am sure colleagues on the Opposition Benches as well, are rightly very conscious of the urgency of helping people out of Gaza, ensuring that aid gets in, and ensuring that there is a ceasefire. President Herzog is the Head of State; he is not a functional part of the Government. He is an important conduit for raising those concerns. This morning, among other things, the Foreign Secretary sought to ensure greater support from the Israeli Government for getting children with injuries, and students, out of Gaza. These are difficult, practical matters on which we are focused. I understand that some Opposition Members would perhaps prefer that we did not conduct such talks, but the Government and I are focused on the practical problems of helping people in Gaza, and the Foreign Secretary has already raised them with the President this morning. \p Kim Johnson: This morning on Radio 4, an Israeli politician, Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, offered no apology for the Israeli attacks on Qatar and could not explain what makes Israel exempt from international law and able to act with impunity. How does the Minister justify the genocidal comments of President Herzog? These individuals must be held accountable. What we are seeing is not diplomacy—it is shameful complicity. Does the Minister agree that today’s meeting with Herzog should never have taken place? \p Hamish Falconer: I set out the position in relation to President Herzog’s visit just a minute ago. I am not familiar with the Israeli politician in question, but I can say that the UK considers international law to be binding on all states. \p Julian Lewis: Despite the atrocious terrorist attack in Jerusalem, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she says that blowing up the enemy’s negotiators does not exactly suggest an interest in a negotiated solution. However, I would like clarification on the Government’s position on recognition of a Palestinian state. On 1 September, the then Foreign Secretary said that he proposed to recognise a Palestinian state, but that Hamas would not benefit from it, because they would have to be disarmed. Does that mean that Hamas  must be disarmed before recognition, or will recognition go ahead, as seems to be the case, whether Hamas are disarmed or not? \p Hamish Falconer: The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary then and now have been clear that the Prime Minister will make a determination in advance of the UN General Assembly high-level week, in accordance with the language set out in the statement of July. The right hon. Member makes important points about what the previous Foreign Secretary said about Hamas. We must remember that Hamas are not in favour of two states; they are in favour of one state from the river to the sea, and that is not the position of the British Government, and nor is it should we take the decisions outlined in July. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: We all want to see peace, the hostages returned and an end to the man-made famine in Gaza, but this attack on a sovereign nation so closely tied to the peace talks undermines all that. It is as awful as it is counterproductive, so what can we do to ensure that the pursuit of peace is more than just lip service for the Netanyahu Government? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has been a persistent advocate on these questions, and I look forward to continuing to answer his questions from the Dispatch Box. He should not, though, be more pessimistic about the prospects of continued mediation and the Qataris themselves, particularly given that they are very much on the closest edge to this issue. We will continue to support them in their efforts. They are vital and, for all the reasons we have discussed this afternoon, the only way through. \p Ellie Chowns: We keep talking about a ceasefire, but how can one be achieved if one side is intent on killing the negotiators from the other? Attacking peace negotiators is simply reprehensible and undermines any possibility of the only thing—dialogue—that has any chance of bringing a resolution to the horrors in Gaza. It is not the action of a state seeking peace; it is the action of a rogue state operating with impunity completely outside international law, crossing red line after red line. I ask the Minister again: given that repeated crossing of new red lines, what action will he match his condemnation with? Will he stop all arms sales, all military co-operation, all intelligence-sharing and all defence deals, current and future, with Israel? Will he sanction Netanyahu and all officials complicit in the war crimes and genocide in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: I have set out already in this session our condemnation of the strikes, the sanctions taken against extremist figures in the Israeli Government and the other measures we have taken. In relation to action that follows from the strike on Doha, the Foreign Secretary will shortly be in touch with her E3 colleagues, and we hope that there will be a Security Council session this evening. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the Minister for his statement. I do pray that one day he will come to the Dispatch Box with good news for us, to  be frank. In my surgery at Oxgangs library on Saturday, a UK-Palestinian woman came to see me. She brought date cookies, which had been freshly made by her mother. I had hoped to save one for you, Mr Speaker, but it proved not to be possible. She spoke passionately, and she was really concerned about the visit of the Israeli President to the UK. I spoke about what the Government have been doing and actions that I have supported that I believe have saved lives. But with what we have seen in Qatar, I think Netanyahu has made a fool of us, and I fear that he will continue to make a fool of us. Is it time to change direction to avoid this happening again—to avoid us taking a stand, demanding a ceasefire and Netanyahu just laughing at us? \p Hamish Falconer: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend’s constituent did not reserve a cookie for me, but I am grateful for the important question that she asks. For the reasons I set out before, it is important that we continue to engage directly with the Israeli Government, particularly on questions such as the evacuation of vulnerable people from Gaza, on which Israel’s co-operation is essential for any further progress. \p Andrew Murrison: Several of our partners in the region—in north Africa and the middle east—have expended a great deal of political capital in trying to achieve a rapprochement with Israel in recent years. The Minister will be aware, for example, of Morocco and its work and leadership in achieving the Abraham accords. What does he think this attack has done to them, and what confidence can they have that Israel is now truly embarked on a quest for peace in the region? \p Hamish Falconer: Even in advance of the events yesterday, nations in the region that had taken the step of signing the Abraham accords were signalling disquiet, most obviously and signally the United Arab Emirates, which released an important statement on this question. I will not seek to speak for our Arab allies, but I am sure that they will be looking at the events yesterday with great concern, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the number of statements that have issued from the region over the last 24 hours. \p Peter Swallow: A man-made famine in Gaza, increased settler violence in the west bank, and now this attack on sovereign Qatar: I fear that these are not the actions of an Israeli Government committed to peace. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend urge the Foreign Secretary to speak to our friends and allies and find out what more we can do to pile concrete pressure on the Israeli Government to get round the table and seek that ceasefire that we so badly need? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues, and I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary is, practically as we speak, in consultations with friends and allies about what further steps we might take. \p Adam Dance: I have said this before, but so many constituents from Yeovil—some as young as 11—have told me that they are so frustrated that Britain is not doing more. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the Government are doing all they can  to make sure that these strikes do not break down the peace process completely and that enough aid gets into Gaza now? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman’s young constituents are absolutely right, and I can reassure them that we are doing everything we can to try to ensure that the mediation continues, that progress towards a ceasefire is made and, of course, that aid gets into Gaza. \p Paul Waugh: Blessed are the peacemakers, or so we are told—so it seems particularly wicked that Israel can deliberately target the country that is doing more to promote peace than any other in the region. Is the tragedy of the middle east not that the Palestinians in Gaza and the Israelis in Israel are governed by deeply unpopular extremists who have no interest in peace, on either side? After this week’s appalling murder at a bus stop in Jerusalem, the Israeli Government imposed collective punishment on the villages where those terrorists came from, removing hundreds of work permits and proceeding to start demolishing many homes. Does Netanyahu’s decision to bomb Qatar not prove beyond doubt that he does not care about the hostages, that they are collateral damage as much as any Palestinian child, and that Israel is now a rogue state? Must not the UK put in place severe sanctions against this rogue state to prove our word? \p Hamish Falconer: I am glad to be answering questions from my hon. Friend again, as he has been a persistent advocate on these matters. There is deep concern about events. The attack in Jerusalem was horrific, as I said to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). The developments in the west bank, both over the summer and before, are deeply concerning, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising them. We will continue to keep all measures under review, as he would expect. We have taken far-reaching actions, with three waves of sanctions targeted in particular on violent settlers. We will continue to keep such options under review as developments proceed. \p Sammy Wilson: Let us look at the facts behind Israel’s strike. We have a bunch of terrorists who have been sitting in the safety of Qatar for years, organising and financing acts of terror, including the mass murder of civilians in Israel this week, and boasting about their involvement in it. Is it not an advance that those people are eliminated and it is made clear to them that they will face the consequences of the terror that they organise? Is showing them that they will be pursued and punished, and that they will not win, not more likely to drive them to the peace table than to continue their acts of terror? \p Hamish Falconer: We have condemned the strike, and I do so again. It violates Qatar’s sovereignty. Obviously, the question of the facts of the strike will now be contested, and, as I said earlier, the Qatari Government are releasing those facts as they conduct a full investigation. Regardless of anybody else, there were Qatari officials killed in the strike, and it was a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty. For that reason alone, it is worth condemning. \p Jeremy Corbyn: What security information is now shared with Israel? Is the information collected by the more than 600 Royal Air Force flights over Gaza being used to guide the Israeli bombardment  of buildings in Gaza City and other places? Are we still continuing security co-operation with a country that has bombed almost every neighbouring state over the past year? \p Hamish Falconer: For reasons the House will understand, I will not give a lengthy commentary on security and intelligence matters, but I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not provide any information to aid in targeting strikes in Gaza in the way that he described. \p John Cooper: As a seasoned diplomat, does the Minister recognise that there is a danger that we are holding Israel to a different standard? When the Americans reached out into Pakistan to snuff out Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11, we were taking them to the bar; when Israel reaches out with a precision decapitation strike on the leadership of Hamas, we want to take it to the bar of the international court. \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman does make me feel rather seasoned, as I was in Pakistan at that time. As I said earlier, the tests in international law are self-defence and imminence. Not every state agrees on the thresholds for those tests, but it is the expectation of the British Government with all our partners and allies—indeed, with every state—that they demonstrate how they are complying with international law regardless of who they are. \p Christine Jardine: I am pleased to have the Minister’s confirmation that, despite yesterday’s egregious actions by Israel, Qatar will continue its commitment to pursue the peace that we all long for in the middle east. To that end, the Government have said that they would commit to recognising a state of Palestine before the United Nations General Assembly if Israel failed to meet certain conditions. Has Israel failed to meet those conditions, and will the Government recognise Palestine as a matter of urgency? \p Hamish Falconer: The Prime Minister will make a determination on the question in advance of the high-level week of the General Assembly. That is not long now. The whole House can see the development of events in the region and, indeed, the language we set out in July. I do not wish to get ahead of the Prime Minister before he makes that determination. \p Clive Jones: My Lib Dem colleagues and I have repeatedly called on the Government to introduce further sanctions on Israel; we called for sanctions on Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and now we call for sanctions on Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Cabinet. Does the Minister agree that those are the people who are responsible for creating a famine in Gaza and continuing the killing of innocent civilians? \p Hamish Falconer: As we discussed last week, the circumstances of the famine in Gaza are horrifying and it is absolutely obvious that the restrictions on aid into Gaza, for which the Israeli Government are responsible, are contributing very significantly indeed to those circumstances. The Israeli Government have raised methodological concerns with the IPC judgments. Those concerns arise from the  fact that there is not free access into Gaza. We stand by the IPC and the judgments it has made. It is clear that the restrictions of the Israeli Government, on which I have been clear at the Dispatch Box innumerable times and have seen for myself at the border, are responsible for those circumstances. \p Ayoub Khan: We have had a number of ceasefires historically. Each one was violated by the Israeli Government. The recent attack in Qatar is a clear example that the Israeli Government are not interested in a ceasefire; they are interested in a genocide, taking over the whole of the Gaza strip and west bank—we see that in their reactions and in what they say in the public arena. None of the levers that we have spoken about in this House seems to have had any impact. It is like a toothless tiger: we say we are going to apply this pressure and that pressure, and nothing seems to be done. This blatant, unlawful attack on Qatar requires punishment. Does the Minister not think that the immediate, unconditional recognition of a state of Palestine is a form of punishment and would go further to a ceasefire than what we are talking about? \p Hamish Falconer: I set out in response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) the process by which we will make the determination on the recognition points that we set out in July. That point is very soon; the high-level week of the UN General Assembly is just weeks away. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, I am sure, to question me and other members of the Government after the Prime Minister has made his determination.

I do not think it is right that we should think of recognition as a punishment. If that is indeed the determination that we make, it will be a reflection of our long-standing commitment to a two-state solution. It is unlikely in and of itself to ameliorate the horrifying famine and the many other sources of agony that flow to the Palestinian people at the moment. That does not mean that, if the Prime Minister makes that determination, it may not be the right thing to do, but the House should not think that it will necessarily bring any immediate improvement in the humanitarian situation in Gaza. \p Richard Foord: Qatar has used its good offices for diplomatic negotiations for many years. Taliban representatives secretly arrived in Qatar 15 years ago and subsequently attended peace conferences in Japan, Germany and France. If the UK and our allies let these strikes by the Netanyahu-led Government go, they could be a precedent for strikes on other intermediaries. How are the Government encouraging our allies to introduce sanctions on members of the far-right Israeli Government? \p Hamish Falconer: I have set out the consultations with our partners that will be happening today and, I am sure, over coming days. The hon. Gentleman is right about the role of Qatar over the years, including in the Taliban talks that took place there for some time, and we have discussed already the questions under international law about states striking other states. \p Andrew George: In respect of sanctions, the Minister will be aware that I asked the then Foreign Secretary last week whether he would make sure that the UK has no involvement in the proposed Elbit contract, either commercial or governmental, that there is absolutely no use of the Akrotiri air base in Cyprus to the advantage of the Israeli military, and that there is absolutely no trade with the illegal settlements in the west bank. Can the Minister confirm that the position remains the same following the change of guard, and that he will make sure it is followed through? \p Hamish Falconer: I can confirm that the British Government’s position remains as set out by the then Foreign Secretary last week. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I join the House in its condemnation of the attacks against civilians in Jerusalem this week.

The impunity and military support afforded to the state of Israel over the past 77 years, and as it carries out the ongoing genocide in Gaza and wider Palestine, has emboldened its leaders to launch assaults in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Tunisia and now Qatar, killing thousands and forcing millions to flee their homes across the region. Is the Minister not concerned that the British Government’s continued support for a rogue state perpetrating repeated violations of international law will lead to Israel invading other countries, and undermine the UK’s security and credibility on the world stage? Does he agree that Qatar has a right to defend itself against this unprovoked illegal attack? \p Hamish Falconer: I have set out our position in relation to a whole range of Israeli Government actions with which we disagree, so I am not sure I would characterise our position in the way that the hon. Gentleman did. I have already set out our position on the relevant questions of international law as far as I am able. \p Alison Bennett: Can the Minister confirm whether the Attorney General will publish any advice that he or the Government have received on whether there have been breaches of international law during the conflict in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: That is more properly a question for the Attorney General. I think there has been some correspondence between him and his shadow, but I will revert to the Attorney General’s latest position on that question. \p Shockat Adam: We have witnessed the Israeli army massacre over 60,000 people in Gaza, 19,000 of whom were children. The blood-soaked tentacles of the Israeli army are now reaching closer to home, especially in my case. Yesterday afternoon in Doha, my niece and her daughter were having a lovely time together in a library when the Israeli army, which this Government fail to condemn for committing genocide, dropped a bomb two or three streets away from where they were. The building shook, and there was smoke everywhere. My niece’s baby is still asking, “Will it happen again?”, so I ask the Minister: will it happen again, and what will this Government do, beyond saying empty words? When will we completely stop every single arms sale to Israel, impose economic, political and social sanctions, and use all our power to get desperately needed aid into Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: I think I have answered questions on arms and sanctions already in this session. I want to be clear: we have condemned these strikes, and we do not want to see them again. We are discussing these matters with our allies, including, we hope, at the UN Security Council this evening. We will no doubt keep the House updated on how those discussions go. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his very confident replies to the questions, and wish him well in his role. These things are never easy, but the Minister has done quite well.

The loss of life is, of course, regrettable in all situations. This House must also condemn the callous murder of six innocent Israelis, including two rabbis and women, on the day before the attack in Doha. Does the Minister acknowledge that the UK must share pertinent intelligence with Israel to ensure that targeted attacks take place, so that Israel can cut the head off the Hamas snake? Then, and only then, can there be peace for Israel and Gaza, the Hamas threat having been targeted and eradicated effectively. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I have set out clearly our absolute opposition to Hamas on a whole range of questions, but I have also set out our understanding of international law, why we condemn these strikes, and why we do not want to see them repeated. \p James Cartlidge: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the violation of Poland’s airspace by Russian drones. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Welcome to your new job, Minister. \p Alistair Carns: This is my first UQ in the House, and this is a very serious topic to be discussing. Last night, as we know, Poland shot down multiple Russian drones that had entered its airspace. Poland stated that the drones were part of a co-ordinated Russian attack on targets across the border in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are subject to a barbaric attack every evening, but this is an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace; indeed, it went deep enough for Warsaw airport to be closed. I thank the Polish and NATO air defence forces for responding rapidly and effectively to protect the alliance. The areas affected were regions on the border of Belarus and Ukraine. Poland temporarily closed its airspace and some airports, and emergency alarms were issued for the regions affected, but airspace and most airports have now reopened.

Russia’s actions are absolutely and utterly reckless, unprecedented and dangerous. This serves to remind us of President Putin’s blatant disregard for peace, and of the constant bombardment that innocent Ukrainians face every day. In response, Poland’s Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland will invoke NATO article 4, which allows any ally to consult others when it believes that its territorial integrity, political independence or security are threatened. The Prime Minister has been in contact with Prime Minister Tusk to make absolutely crystal clear the UK’s support for Poland, and that we will stand firm in our support for Ukraine. The Defence Secretary is meeting E5 counterparts today, and will discuss what additional support we can provide, including to reinforce Ukraine and strengthen NATO. We stand in full solidarity with our ally Poland.

We condemn this action. We say to Russia: “Your aggression only strengthens the unity of NATO nations. It only strengthens our solidarity in standing with and beside Ukraine. It reminds us that a secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine.” With our allies and partners, and through UK leadership of the coalition of the willing, we will continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin until there is a just and lasting peace. \p James Cartlidge: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by expressing our total solidarity with the people of Poland? The Opposition stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in support of our strong NATO ally. Poland is a great nation, and a great friend of Britain. Our thoughts are with its people, and we fully support all efforts to rally our NATO allies and ensure that Poland’s invocation of article 4 is responded to as swiftly as possible. This is an unprecedented violation of Polish and NATO airspace that must be met with total condemnation and a robust response. So must the latest bombings of Ukraine, as Russia continues to target civilians and conduct an unprovoked war of aggression, without any regard for human life.

What, if any, judgment have the Government been able to form of the precise motivation for this drone incursion? If this was designed to test NATO’s resolve, will Putin not have already seen how strong the resolve is to stand united against this aggression? We understand that Dutch F-35s were directly involved in supporting the Polish military response, and that fighters from other NATO nations may have been scrambled. Is it not sobering that the F-35s from the Netherlands followed us in rotating air support for Poland, so if this incursion had occurred just weeks ago, RAF Typhoons could have been directly involved?

On the specifics of our joint NATO response, can the Minister say more about what invoking article 4 means in practical terms for the UK and our allies, and what the next steps are? Importantly, what discussions have the UK Government had with our US counterparts on these developments? Above all, given that this incident involved the use of lethal Russian drones against a fellow NATO member, what further steps are the Government now considering in order to constrain Russia’s ability to threaten our closest allies, and to provide further support to Poland? Finally, in the light of the Norway deal, the Minister will be aware that one of the largest ever defence export deals concluded under the previous Government was the sale of ground-based air defence to Poland. In the week of DSEI, does that not show why such industrial collaboration with our allies is important, not just economically, but when it comes to defending our close allies?

There are those who may question the nature of the Russian threat or the need to significantly increase defence spending, but these events should leave nobody in any doubt that the threat extends beyond Ukraine, and that we must therefore continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, Poland and all our NATO allies. \p Alistair Carns: I thank the hon. Member for his response, and his bipartisan support on this really serious issue. What is NATO article 4? For clarity, article 4 is a consultation mechanism. If an ally perceives that its territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened, it can invoke article 4. That is what Poland has done. Discussions will then take place in the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s senior political body, in which the UK will, of course, be involved.

I mentioned the status of the attacks. Poland stated that the drones were part of a co-ordinated Russian attack on targets across the border in Ukraine, but that does not in any way, shape or form excuse those attacks. They are an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace on an unprecedented scale.

I agree that our industrial collaboration with our allies and partners is essential, as we and NATO move forward, and as our partners and allies’ relationships move forward, to making sure that we are prepared in every way for an escalation, or an existential crisis, should it come.

In our response to Ukraine, we are doing a huge amount to lead our allies and partners. As we speak, the Secretary of State for Defence is with the E5, talking about the coalition of the willing, and he has talked to Polish representatives already. We are leading the way in  that coalition—on its formation, structure and how it will deploy, should it need to, if peace ever comes to Ukraine. \p Derek Twigg: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Is this not another example that what Russia really believes in is the complete annihilation of Ukraine? It does not care what collateral damage it does elsewhere. I believe that sending drones across into Poland was a deliberate move by the Russians. I welcome the response from Poland and NATO, but do we not need to talk about ramping up industrial co-operation for Ukraine, so that it gets more and better munitions and equipment more quickly, and ramping up sanctions? With the Budget coming up, we need to consider how we ramp up defence expenditure, and further increase it beyond the recent targets set. \p Alistair Carns: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his support for defence. I completely agree that the Ukrainians are undergoing a serious violation of international law by a barbaric and reckless leader in Russia. They are experiencing bombing, drone attacks, ballistic missile attacks, which cannot be heard, subterfuge, sabotage, hostage taking, and the huge, large-scale kidnapping of children. Air raids go off every night in Ukraine, in a way that is reminiscent of world war two. The wailing of those sirens alone will have a psychological impact that will last long after any war finishes.

Why is this happening today? It is because of Putin’s barbaric, unprovoked and illegal invasion of a sovereign state. We must continue to do the maximum to support Ukraine and encourage its allies and partners. We have done a significant amount. The House may recall that at the last Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, we launched a 50-day drive to deliver more for Ukraine. Fifty days on, we have 5 million rounds of munitions; 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles; 2,500 uncrewed systems; 30 vehicles; and 200 electronic warfare and defence systems. On top of that, we had a £70 million plan to provide 350 air defence missiles, and, finally, £150 million to provide air defence and artillery. We are at the leading edge, and have been for a long time, in supporting Ukraine, and we will continue to be, long into the future. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Maguire: Overnight, Poland faced down an unprecedented violation of NATO and Polish airspace—the latest act of belligerence by a Russian dictator hell-bent on recreating the Russian empire. This is a stark reminder that history cannot repeat itself. The drones were part of Russia’s latest large-scale assault on Ukraine, an assault in which 450 drones were launched. We thank the Polish air force for protecting the NATO alliance, and we stand with our allies. No matter what President Trump believes, it is clear that Putin is not stopping. He is not considering peace; he is testing NATO’s limits. A line has been crossed, and we must collectively stand up to this aggression.

The Government must take tangible action. Will the Minister take forward the Liberal Democrat proposals to end the import of products using Russian oil that have been processed in third countries; stop UK companies  shipping or insuring Russian liquefied natural gas; and push for a further cut to the oil price cap? As Tusk said this morning,

“Actions speak louder than words.”

The strongest action we could take would be to seize the frozen Russian assets across the UK. Will the Minister commit to doing that today? \p Alistair Carns: I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and for her support for defence. She brought up a really valuable point: those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. This was an unprecedented attack, and an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace. We are working exceptionally hard with the Polish to ensure that they, and indeed our broader NATO alliance, have everything they need. We already have significant sanctions on Russia. There is work going on between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office looking at how we can move those forward. We will update the House in due course. \p Jonathan Brash: The appalling attack on Ukraine and the violation of Polish airspace yesterday simply highlight the increasing and devastating use of drones in modern warfare. I have been contacted by Hartlepool constituents today, expressing their anxiety and fear about what this might mean for our shores. Will the Minister share the Government’s plans to ensure that the UK’s drone and air defence capabilities meet the challenge of the changes we are seeing in modern warfare? \p Alistair Carns: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He will know that I am passionate about the need for us to increase our uncrewed systems portfolio. We have already committed, in the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review, to create an uncrewed centre of excellence. That will help us to rewrite our doctrine and concept, but also to integrate drones back into the military and ensure we have a high-low mix of fifth and sixth generation capability, massed with low-end uncrewed systems. Every night, night on night, we have seen an increase in drone attacks on Kyiv and other cities, from Dnipro to Zaporizhzhia and Kherson and back again. They are increasing on an unprecedented scale. Some could argue that Putin has been emboldened recently, but we are seeing an increase and we must do everything we possibly can to support the Ukrainians. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I commend the hon. Gentleman’s statement on our support for Poland. Of course we have to support Poland; it is quite right that we should do so.

May I return the hon. Gentleman to the main issue here, which is Russia’s intense bombing attacks on Ukraine? I recently came back from Ukraine. Every night in Kyiv, Lviv and other towns, people are being killed by this brute. This is just an example of what is going on across the border on a greater scale. This question remains for us. Have the Government really made overtures to the US President to say that the time is over for constant statements that say that we may do something, we will do something and we will have sanctions? Surely, we now have to get the US to massively up the level of sanctions. That is what Russia fears. Also, European nations must be told that they cannot  buy any more oil or gas that has been run through India or wherever. That has to stop. We have to make that work. And we have to make sure that, at the end of it all, Russia pays a penalty right now and understands that. Will the British Government please take the opportunity, when the US President comes over, to say, “Enough is enough. Please act and get this thing done”? \p Alistair Carns: I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for his stalwart support on both defence and foreign affairs. Our sanctions programme has been pretty impressive to date. I can almost guarantee that when the US President comes over, there will be discussions on a whole range of topics and that Ukraine will probably be central, alongside other issues within the UK.

Imposing a penalty on Russia is exactly what we have done in a bipartisan way. When the previous Government were in office, we led the way on equipment going into Ukraine. We are continuing to do that. We have seen a huge uplift in the amount of resources going to Ukraine, financially and in terms of weapons, but also, importantly, in industrial build across Europe. That is not just in the UK, but across all our European nations. Industry is required to maintain the pace and scale of the conflict, which I think has caught people out in the past. \p Clive Betts: Following on from the question by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the reality is that Putin has become emboldened since he met President Trump. No longer is there pressure for an immediate ceasefire, only that we get to a long-term, distant peace arrangement that, as we all know, will never happen. The threat of further sanctions from the US, which Putin was really frightened about, has now apparently been taken off the table. When President Trump comes over here, will my hon. Friend engage with our colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to try to put pressure on President Trump to say we should recognise that the one thing that can be done to get President Putin to back off and properly look at a ceasefire is further sanctions from the US, to marry those put on by ourselves and our European colleagues? \p Alistair Carns: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is the third person to speak about sanctions; it absolutely has sunk in, and we will discuss it with our cross-Government colleagues in due course. I would not underestimate the ability of the Americans to act—it is down to the American people and the American Government to decide, but I would not underestimate that ability over the short, medium or long term. One of the key points of having a US visit of such a level is that it will give us the opportunity to discuss these issues in person and to really highlight what is important to us. It speaks to the importance of being in the tent to have those discussions for us as a Government, and for everybody and every party in this wonderful place. \p Mark Pritchard: Let us be clear: this is no accidental violation of Poland’s—or NATO’s—airspace. As NATO members, one could argue that it is actually a violation of our own airspace. Is it not clear that Russia is testing NATO’s resolve, and that Putin will ruthlessly exploit any real or perceived diplomatic, military or political weakness? I get the Minister’s point  on calibration and proportionality, but what does a robust response mean? Following on from an earlier question from the Labour Benches, given that there are many Russian ships in the English channel and around these isles from which drones could easily be deployed, what about UK air defences? \p Alistair Carns: The intelligence agencies will be able to provide the best analysis of this attack, so I will not jump to conclusions on the intentions behind it. It has, however, been clear for several years now that there has been consistent testing of NATO as a whole, whether that is 20,000 cyber-attacks from hostile states in the past two years or the use of chemical or radiological weapons on UK soil, to name just two of the litany of incidents. I fully support the Ukrainian strategy of fight and talk to keep the pressure on the Russians to ensure that they come to the table. I fully support a US-led peace process, but the Ukrainians’ view must be central, and they must lead it from their perspective. \p Oliver Ryan: I am glad to hear the Minister’s resolve and, indeed, the whole House’s united condemnation and shock at these outrageous attacks. The UK must stand firm with NATO, with Poland and with Europe, and we must increase our support for Ukraine and its neighbours including Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania and elsewhere. Following on from the previous question, what steps has the Minister taken to review our defences in the light of recent events? \p Alistair Carns: First, we are fully in support of our NATO allies and, of course, our Baltic allies. The last time article 4 was invoked was 2022, when it was invoked by many of our Baltic allies on the invasion of Ukraine. It has been invoked eight times, with the most recent instance, obviously, being this morning. I am not going to give the details of our air defence operational capabilities here, but we do have a suite of capabilities. If Members read the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy, they will see that there is a large proportion on industrial rebuild here in the UK and supporting our allies with joint ventures and partnerships to re-establish the military industrial base of Europe in these unprecedented times, and central to that will be air defence. \p Steve Darling: I understand that Ukraine holds approximately €190 billion in frozen Russian assets. Press reports today suggest that there is a level of flexibility in the stance on releasing them, as long as there are some legal guarantees from the European Union around the risks that may be faced. Are the Government supporting the European Union to unlock this opportunity, which could help to support efforts in Ukraine? \p Alistair Carns: We support the ability to get resources into Ukraine in any way, shape or form. I will raise that specific matter with the Home Office and our cross-Government colleagues and get back to the hon. Gentleman on the answer. \p Stella Creasy: Our constituents with links to Poland will understandably be terrified by last night’s development, but they will  also be reassured that the Polish people, like the Ukrainian people, do not stand alone. NATO’s supreme headquarters confirmed that last night’s mission involved not just Polish air defence, but Dutch F-35s, German Patriot batteries and Italian early warning aircraft. The EU High Representative has talked about increasing its involvement in the East Shield project, which we are already part of. Will the Minister update this House on his conversations with our European counterparts about last night and on what more we will do to stand with the Polish and Ukrainian people? \p Alistair Carns: First, I would like to thank both Polish and NATO air defence forces for disrupting the attack that took place yesterday. As Members will know, the Defence Secretary is with the E5 at the moment, and they have discussed this specific issue. Looking forward, we are working towards a bilateral defence and security treaty with the Polish. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I recently visited the Royal Air Force in Poland during its recent deployment in NATO’s enhanced air policing mission during Op Chessman, where I saw at first hand RAF Typhoons scrambled to intercept a Russian signals intelligence Coot-A—Poland feels the threat from Russia much more keenly than I think we appreciate in this House. In the drones debate last week, I raised with the Minister that we have a paucity of counter-UAS capability. While we obviously do not face the risk that Poland does or have plans such as the East Shield, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that our own territory, critical infrastructure and military bases—both here and overseas—possess an organic capability that can be brought to bear? \p Alistair Carns: We absolutely need to have an integrated air defence system with our European and NATO allies, and we must look after our critical national infrastructure; that is why the SDR and the defence industrial strategy really have a focus on industrial rebuild, part of which is air defence. We are also working with our Ukrainian allies to learn best practice from them and pull that back to the UK. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not only is the shocking escalation of hostilities by Russia a deliberately provocative act, but it threatens all NATO states, and an iron-clad response is now required. Will the Ministry, with our NATO partners, be unequivocal in reminding Russian and Belarusian counterparts of NATO article 5, and that an attack on Poland is an attack on all NATO partners, including the United Kingdom? \p Alistair Carns: We will absolutely do that. It is worth noting that articles 4 and 5 are not linked; nevertheless, we will be going all out to remind all our allies and partners of the severity of the situation and, of course, the continuing barbaric nature of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. \p Charlie Maynard: Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to highlight and explain to the citizens of our country what our obligations are to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and all our NATO allies under article 5, and the role played by the joint expeditionary force, with the Baltic three, the Nordic five, the Netherlands and the UK? \p Alistair Carns: The hon. Member raises a really important point. One of the biggest impacts on the cost of living across this country is the war between Ukraine and Russia—it is having a second and third-order effect that is affecting everyone in the country. It is really worthwhile reminding our citizens of that, and that if article 5 is invoked, we will have an obligation to defend. That is so important when we look at our foreign policy and where we need to prioritise our resource. \p John Slinger: The UK and Poland have a very close defence and security relationship; Poland is, of course, one of our most important European allies. What plans does the Minister have to strengthen this relationship and those with our other allies? Does he agree that we need to do all we can to calmly make clear to our population that the defence of the free world is being tested, and that we need collectively to be resolute in our response? \p Alistair Carns: In 24 years in the military, I have never seen it as fractious or fragile as it is, particularly today. It is on all of us to make sure that the population understands the risk to the geopolitical environment that surrounds us and gives us the standard of living we have in the UK. We are working towards a bilateral defence and security treaty with Poland, which will deepen ties, and an industrial partnership. \p Stuart Anderson: I believe that this was a deliberate attack by Putin to test the resolve and resources of NATO and that we will see more in the coming weeks, months and years. Russia was very quick to put out disinformation by pumping the airwaves in the cyber-space. Can we ensure that we are providing all resources to counter disinformation, which is a battlespace on its own, and that we are ramping up against the current threat that Russia is pushing out across NATO countries? \p Alistair Carns: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his contribution and support for defence affairs. Some can be quite disparaging about it, but it is worth reminding ourselves that NATO is the most effective military alliance ever seen in history. Its numbers and capacity far outweigh some of our adversaries. One area it has fantastic command capability in is information operations, and as Members of Parliament we can all play our part in that by taking away the messages we have heard today and making sure that our nation and constituents understand the second and third-order effects of potential escalation. \p Sean Woodcock: For many years Banbury has been home to thousands of Polish citizens, who will understandably be very concerned at events over the past 24 hours. Can the Minister reassure them not only that our relationship with Poland is steadfast but that this Government are taking steps to strengthen it in spite of Putin? \p Alistair Carns: Putin’s actions pull NATO together and forge alliances and partnerships, and they focus us in on the barbaric nature of Russia’s aggression. I have worked with the Polish in the past, and we have a great relationship with them. They are increasing defence spending, and there are industrial opportunities there. We also have great cultural ties with Poland. The Polish served in the  Air Force in the second world war and all the way through to the latter years. We are fully behind Poland, our allies and partners. \p Dave Doogan: I congratulate and salute the brave aircrew who intercepted this flagrant breach not just of Poland’s airspace but of the international rules-based order. I do not believe for one second that this was some inadvertent mistake. This is classic Russian playbook. Russia was probing NATO in that attack and will continue to probe until it comes up against the resistance that it deems worthy of a change in policy. Russia responds in two ways: one is strength and the other is weakness, and if it sees weakness it will continue. Can the Minister help the House understand what the robust response to this flagrant attack will look like? \p Alistair Carns: As I mentioned earlier, when these incidents take place, it forges and focuses the alliance and takes away any friction, because we create unity of effort, so it is a mismove by Putin to think that it does not make NATO stronger. If we are looking at deterrence, whether by punishment or denial, we see that Ukraine is holding back one of the biggest militaries in the world and that there have been a million casualties, and that the denial is greater NATO unity and focus on the aggressor that is Putin. \p Graeme Downie: This attack by Vladimir Putin on a NATO member that has been a leader in resisting Russian aggression and supplying Ukraine is a clear escalation and an attempt, as others have said, to probe NATO defences and intimidate the alliance. Can the Minister assure me that the UK and NATO will not be intimidated and that the Government are considering robust military options to stand up to this bully in Moscow? Closer to home, can he assure me that the attacks will confirm the urgency to escalate and accelerate our development of the Type 83 destroyer and the future air defence system so that our country is fully protected in the future? \p Alistair Carns: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to defence. He is a stalwart champion of Ukraine and defence as a whole. I have never been intimidated in my life. We as a country will not be intimidated, and neither will NATO. I reiterate that our defence industrial strategy is absolutely critical. Giving weapons to Ukraine is one thing, but building industrial capacity to generate mass is how countries win wars should they be caught up in one. That is why the strategic defence review’s first 70 pages are all about industry. \p Oliver Dowden: In the Minister’s excellent response, he talked about the geopolitical situation. During my time in office, I saw more and more co-operation between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. He talked about the emboldening of Putin. Does he share my concern that the recent show of unity at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit in China may well have emboldened Putin? That should be a wake-up call for all western democracies to stand together in defence of their mutual values? \p Alistair Carns: I absolutely agree that we must stand together for those mutual values, whether that is the right to independence, to self-determination, to collective security and so on. Yes, Putin may feel emboldened, but  I would argue that his actions today have strengthened and galvanised the alliance. I can guarantee that the discussions with the E5 and NATO that take place will be absolutely focused on Russia, and that drives economic growth and spending on defence, so I would argue that it is not just a shot across the border but a shot in the foot from Putin. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Mr Naish, you seem to have bounced around every seat on the Back Bench. Are you finally comfortable and ready to ask a question? \p James Naish: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for moving around. Poland is one of our closest European allies, with a long, shared history. In my region of the east midlands, that is embodied in our large British Polish community, whose roots go back over 80 years. In the light of last night’s attack, what are the Government’s plans to strengthen our deterrence on NATO’s north-eastern flank? \p Alistair Carns: Poland is one of our strongest allies and, interestingly, is building one of the biggest land forces in Europe. Its recapitalisation programme is of a significant scale, because it has a large land border. From my perspective, working with Poland towards a bilateral defence and security treaty is absolutely essential due to the industrial and bilateral benefits it will bring. We stand side by side with the Polish—no questions, no doubts—and we stand absolutely at the centre of NATO defence policy. \p Manuela Perteghella: My constituency also has a large Polish community, who have been alarmed to see Russian drones violating Polish airspace. We all know that if Ukraine were to fall to Putin’s aggression, Poland would be next in his sights. How are the Government intending to support Poland in defending its sovereignty, and what steps are the Government taking to strengthen our own security? \p Alistair Carns: I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I thank the Polish members of her constituency for supporting Poland during these times. We have a multitude of different capabilities in Poland that have rotated through. For example, as mentioned by the Opposition, our NATO enhanced joint air policing stopped just a couple of months ago and was rotated. We also have a light cavalry squadron there working with the Polish and the US. Poland is also a central pillar of the coalition of the willing as we move forward. Everything is done by, with and alongside our Polish allies. \p Jacob Collier: I join the Minister in his condemnation of this clear escalation against our Polish allies. He will know that my constituency has a large Polish diaspora, who are extremely concerned about their country and fearful of further Russian attacks. What assurances can he give the Polish community in my constituency and across the country, and what work will he do across Government to support the Polish community at this difficult time? \p Alistair Carns: The assurance we can give is that NATO is the most effective military alliance of all time, and Poland, the UK and our allies sit central to that. The centrality of the alliance is the best form of deterrence and, therefore, the best form of assurance to both my hon. Friend’s constituents and people across the whole NATO alliance, and it is central to our defence policy as we move forward. \p Andrew Murrison: President Zelensky has been consistent in his argument that the invasion of his country is just the beginning and that we are all in the crosshairs. He made that argument forcefully—and famously—in the Oval Office. Does the Minister not agree that what has happened with this violation of Polish and NATO airspace completely vindicates President Zelensky? \p Alistair Carns: I have met President Zelensky several times, and I am a keen observer of the conflict as it has moved forward—a million Russian casualties and a 40 km dead zone on the frontline that would reflect any battlefront or frontline from the first world war to the second world war. What is happening there is absolutely atrocious. I am always really clear: deterrence, yes and peace, yes, but appeasement? No. \p Kevin Bonavia: Like the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), I was part of the excellent armed forces parliamentary scheme visit to Operation Chessman in Poland earlier this year. I also saw the scrambling of our RAF Typhoon jet and it going up in the sky to check out suspicious Russian air activity. That was a surprise to me, but from speaking to our RAF personnel, I found that it was quite common at the time. From speaking later on to our Polish counterparts, I know that that is what they are facing in Poland; the public there are well aware of the Russian threat. Here in this country, I am not so sure that the British public get quite how serious the threat is. In Poland, they are on the physical frontline, and people in Ukraine are paying the horrible price of Putin’s aggression. Will the Minister reassure the House and the public that the Government are doing all they can to deal with the Russian threat of cyber-attacks and grey warfare on Europe and, indeed, this country? \p Alistair Carns: My hon. Friend brings us to a really important point. We must not alarm the nation and we must not scare the nation, but we must be honest with the nation as to the risks and threats posed towards our defence and, indeed, the citizens of this country. We need to be clear about that. That is why in the strategic defence review we see talk of military intelligence and the review that is going on, because if we are to explain to the population why we are spending more on defence, we must ensure that it is related to those threats. We will explain it clearly—the SDR has stated it—and then we will double down on investment in the defence industry to ensure that we can provide the assurance that we can contribute to NATO in an absolutely above-and-beyond meaningful way. \p Gavin Robinson: In November 2022, the hon. Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and I were in Ukraine with the Defence  Committee when there was an onslaught of rockets fired into that country, one of which errantly fell into Poland and killed two Polish nationals. On that day, Poland considered triggering article 4, and today it has clearly done so. In the intervening period of almost three years, there has been a growing reluctance to equip Ukraine to defend its skies and, importantly, to do so from the skies, so while this article 4 meeting of member states will consider how we protect the skies of NATO, will the Minister confirm that he is willing to extend that conversation to how we appropriately and effectively defend the skies of Ukraine? \p Alistair Carns: That is a great question from the right hon. Member, who I know is a stalwart supporter of defence. As we move forward with the strategic defence review and defence industrial strategy, we must ensure that we revitalise our defence industry so that we produce that important mix of high-end systems—high-end air defence—and low-end systems that can be used in an economic mismatch between cheap and high-end systems. Getting that mix right is complicated, but in the defence industrial strategy and the SDR we are intent on ensuring that our British military is equipped with that high and low-end mix of fifth and sixth-generation and mass-produced hardware in due course. \p Julian Lewis: I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, but the reason for that is that, until recently, the commitment of the United States to NATO was never in question. It is in question now because of the nature of the incumbent of the White House. President Putin either has some sort of hold over Donald Trump, about which we do not know, or he successfully flatters him. When President Trump is in the country, can we point out to him in the strongest possible terms that this response by Russia a couple of weeks after rolling out the red carpet for the killer in the Kremlin shows nothing but disrespect to the White House and its occupant? \p Alistair Carns: I thank the right hon. Member for his continued support for defence. The United States has been really clear that it would like European nations to spend more on defence. It obviously has a multitude of different threats that it has to deal with. When the US President comes to the UK—we are in the tent—we are going to sit down with him and discuss these issues in detail. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: I put on record my respect for the bravery of the Ukrainian children Vladyslav, Valeriia and Roman who came to Parliament last night to share their stories as survivors of Putin’s war of aggression. Putin’s action over Polish airspace last night was a deliberate move to test NATO’s reaction, and the response must match the moment. Will the Minister please push for a cohesive plan to seize frozen Russian assets and funnel them to the humanitarian mission to support Ukraine’s incredible and inspiring future generation? \p Alistair Carns: My heart goes out to those children and to everyone in Ukraine who is going through this—they have been going through this for several years. I guarantee the hon. Member that discussions are ongoing now about how we can push the system more to pressure Russia into coming towards the peace table. \p Sarah Bool: The Minister agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that industrial collaboration between the UK and Poland is an important part of our relationship. A key part of that is primarily focused on ground-based air defence, and these events surely underline why that is critical to us and our allies. Will he tell us what progress there has been on the joint UK-Poland future common missile programme to create longer-range ground-based air defence for both nations? \p Alistair Carns: I do not have the detail on that industrial partnership; I can write back to the hon. Member in due course. Air defence is critical, as is making sure that we can secure our oceans, subsurface and, of course, land. \p Jim Allister: It is good that there is universal recognition across the House that last night was an attack not just on Polish airspace but on NATO airspace. In terms of the response, may I bring the Minister back to sanctions? We have sanctions on Russian crude oil, although sadly there is at least one NATO country that does not implement them. With regard to refined oil, are we in this country not importing considerable quantities of Russian crude oil that has been refined down? In the recent trade deal with India, was there any attempt to put any restraint on that? \p Alistair Carns: On the latter point, I will engage with my colleagues across Government and look into the detail. Putting pressure on Russia is absolutely our priority to bring it to the peace table in due course, and we are working exceptionally hard to deliver that. \p James MacCleary: The Minister was quite right to describe this violation of Polish airspace as unprecedented, but I am sure he would agree that it is not isolated; in fact, it represents the latest escalation in Russia’s campaign of attacks on central and eastern European NATO allies. Just last year, shopping centres in Vilnius and Warsaw were set on fire, and the leaders of those countries pointed the finger firmly at Russian military intelligence. Just last week, a jet carrying the President of the European Commission suffered a cyber-attack that was initiated by Russia. Russia is clearly not deterred by the current measures in place. Will the Minister outline what we can do as a leading military power in Europe and in NATO to enhance and reinforce the capabilities of our NATO allies who are on the frontline of the confrontation with Russia? \p Alistair Carns: We are doing that right now. The defence industrial strategy, the strategic defence review and the industrial rebuild will ensure that we have the right arms—and enough of them—to reinforce the deterrence and, if called to, to fight and win. \p Clive Jones: Russian drones over Poland suggest that Putin is testing NATO’s resolve to support its members. Will the Minister push the Prime Minister to urge President Trump and the members of the G7 to produce a cohesive plan to seize the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets held in their countries and funnel that money to the frontline in Ukraine? That money would transform Zelensky’s efforts to repel Putin’s illegal war machine. Will the Government commit to doing that? \p Alistair Carns: The United States is one of our most critical allies, and when the President of the United States visits the UK there will be a multitude of discussions, particularly focused on Ukraine, European security and, of course, NATO. \p Adam Dance: Does the Minister agree that we need to take stronger steps to deter Putin? That starts with seizing billions in frozen Russian assets across the UK and using them to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, because Putin has shown that if we give him an inch, he will take a mile. \p Alistair Carns: As mentioned previously, we have to continue to push and pressure Putin to bring him to the peace table, through a whole suite of different capabilities, from providing arms to Ukraine all the way through to sanctions. We will continue to do that. \p Richard Foord: The Russian drones over Poland were tracked by Polish aircraft but also by Dutch aircraft stationed in Poland. That reminds us that four years ago Putin sought a roll-back in NATO deployments from central and eastern Europe. In 2021 Russia outrageously demanded that NATO allies deploy no forces in countries that joined the alliance after 1997. Does the Minister agree that had the US acceded to those demands, we might be seeing devastating consequences in Poland today? \p Alistair Carns: It is so interesting when we talk about deterrence. There are huge multinational NATO exercises that take place every year. I was the chief of staff of the carrier strike group in 2021, on the date the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That was called Cold Response, which was  the biggest naval exercise to the High North in several years. We demonstrate to Russia on multiple different occasions how effective the NATO alliance is and, if called to, how it will fight and win. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: May I give my thanks to the Polish and Dutch air crews who were involved in the defence of Poland’s airspace last night? The seats in their jets may have been manufactured and tested in my constituency, at Chalgrove airfield, but that airfield could be demolished thanks to proposals by Homes England to build a new town there. Will the Minister meet me to urgently address that threat to UK national security? \p Alistair Carns: Yes. \p Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Minister on his elevation, which is well deserved, an on the comment he made about not be intimidated. He speaks for us all in that regard—indeed, I almost feel a poster campaign coming, about standing firm. The incursion of Russian drones into a NATO member nation is a slap in the face for the very idea of NATO and must be dealt with effectively and immediately. What collective discussions will be held within NATO to determine a robust response to the testing of our borders and the resolution to stand fast against Russia? \p Alistair Carns: I thank the hon. Member for his question and his support for defence. Discussions in the E5 are ongoing as we speak, and the NAC has sat and will continue to discuss this issue. I can guarantee him that the UK will be at the very centre of those discussions and no one will intimidate this great isle at all. \p Gregory Stafford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that I believe constitutes a breach of the ministerial duty to respond to Members’ correspondence in a timely manner. On 28 November last year, I wrote to the now former Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to raise concerns about the absence of legislation requiring service providers to give residents notice before installing large cables on their properties. I have since followed up with the Department on 22 January, 20 March, 28 April, 13 June and 24 July. I have now been waiting for nine months without receiving a substantive reply. I understand that the new Secretary of State is new in her job and I congratulate her for that, but this considerably hinders my ability to represent my constituents and I seek your guidance on how we can get a response. \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point of order and for giving advance notice of it. Ministerial correspondence is not a matter for the Chair. However, all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government—I see Members on the Treasury Bench nodding in agreement and am sure that they will ensure that the appropriate Minister is made aware and responds to the hon. Member’s request as soon as possible. \p Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House yesterday, during the debate on the Chagos islands Bill. In column 816 of Hansard, I discussed the role of Olivier Bancoult in the relationship with David Snoxell, a previous high commissioner to Mauritius. I said:

“The latter’s pressure on David Snoxell was enormous; he once went to the extent of locking him in his office until they had a proper meeting.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 816.]

I have now checked that with Mr Snoxell and I made a mistake. The background facts are that in early November 2000, David Snoxell asked Olivier Bancoult and his committee to come and see him so that he could discuss with them the High Court judgment allowing them to return to the outer islands. That was a perfectly friendly meeting. Mr Snoxell goes on to say:

“I had several meetings over the next 4 years with him and his committee members. Although Olivier regarded me as not on his side and occasionally denounced me in the press, he never locked me in my office.”

I wanted to correct the record so that all can be satisfied that the truth has been told. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I also thank him for correcting the record in so much detail at the earliest opportunity. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Yvette Cooper, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darren Jones, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Emma Reynolds and Secretary Heidi Alexander, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the implementation by the United Kingdom of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 302). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

2.26 pm \p Adam Dance: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about screening for neurodivergence in children at primary school; to make provision about teacher training relating to neurodivergence; and for connected purposes.

I thank hon. Members across the House for their support, and I thank the right hon. former Member for West Suffolk for bringing forward similar Bills in the past.

School was hard for me, and that is putting it lightly. Dyslexia meant that reading and writing was challenging. Words seemed to float all over the page—in fact, they are doing so right now, so I ask hon. Members to please bear with me through this speech as I am likely to make some mistakes. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder meant that concentrating was a nightmare, with the slightest thing pulling my attention away. I believed that school was not for me, I fell behind, I was bullied and I certainly acted out.

I am not alone in that. Since I started campaigning, I have heard from so many people who struggle, from constituents to celebrities such as Jamie Oliver, who is a great advocate in this area. I wish I could share them all today, but we would be here for many days.

Around one in seven people in the UK have what we might call neurodivergence. It is a non-medical umbrella term describing the ways people’s brains may develop or work differently from the norm. In some ways, we are all neurodivergent to a greater or lesser extent. Neurodivergence is not a weakness, a condition or a flaw—I want to make that crystal clear. In other ways, it is a superpower and you can do anything you want with the right support—I definitely have with what I have done today. We are problem solvers, critical thinkers and fantastic creators, but with those strengths come challenges such as reading, writing, social skills or maths. That does not mean there is anything wrong with us; it just means that we learn and understand things differently, and we might need to be supported in different ways from others.

I was lucky at school, because I was identified and got the support I needed. That is why I am standing here today. That support gave me the confidence to fight for what I believe in. Getting into politics and into this place was certainly not on my agenda at school, but I feel that I have to do all I can to make sure that everyone in communities such as Yeovil and beyond get the help that I had in school, or better.

Despite all the progress that our country has made in recognising and empowering neurodiverse people, and despite our amazing educators working their socks off—believe me, they do—things seem to have got worse in places such as Somerset since I was at school. Our schools are under-resourced, under-supported and local authorities are totally underfunded. We have the phonics screener, but this test does not cover all the areas that neurodiverse people may struggle and need support with, such as attention control or working memory. Evidence also suggests that neurodiverse children can  just memorise the words for the test, meaning that their actual needs may be overlooked. That is one of their superpowers! Even when a child’s needs are identified, there is no proper dedicated special educational needs and disabilities training in initial teacher training or continuous professional development programmes. Nor is it there for teaching assistants. Our overworked teaching staff are pretty much just left to get on with it themselves, and that is not good enough.

Some schools manage fantastically, particularly when they are properly funded, but others are struggling. In some ways, this is another of those postcode lotteries we hear so much about. Our children, their families and our teachers deserve better. That is why I am introducing this Bill today. Members will be pleased to know that it is not complicated. In fact, the idea behind it is fairly simple. It is about getting the Government to use their resources and knowledge to bring everyone together to act, so that we can create a system to better identify neurodivergence and support children early on.

What I am proposing can be broken down into three parts. First, we need to define what we are introducing: universal screening, and teaching training on this. Before the legislation can come into effect, the Secretary of State must lay a report before the House that defines neurodivergence. Secondly, we need a programme of universal screening for neurodivergence in primary school age children. This would preferably be a light-touch, teacher-led process. As I have said, we all sit on the spectrum of neurodivergence in some way—no matter what others say—so the screening should not be about labels but about creating a profile of strengths and weaknesses. This will help teachers to identify where all their pupils sit on the spectrum of neurodivergence and the level of support they need, from in-classroom adjustments to more formal referrals.

Finally, we need proper teacher training. The Secretary of State must produce statutory guidance on training for teachers on neurodivergence in initial teacher training and in continuous professional development. This should be for all teaching staff. This training should provide teaching staff with: a clear understanding of neurodivergence, knowledge of how it presents differently in different people, and the tools and resources to support their pupils.

I do not want this Bill to be about forcing labels on young people. That will not help. Again, it is about helping teachers to identify all their pupils’ strengths and weaknesses. The Government will be pleased to know that it is not about forcing costly screeners on schools either. While I have not set out a preference, the Universal Classroom has worked with teachers to create a universal screener that will be free, so this will not break the bank.

Most importantly, this is not about putting more burdens on to our fantastic teachers. I personally believe that teachers do far too much for far too little pay, support or thanks. I urge the Government to look at the National Education Union’s list of 23 admin tasks that teachers should not be doing. This Bill is about empowering teachers to do what they signed up for and care deeply about—namely, educating and supporting all their pupils. To go back to the Universal Classroom screener, it only takes five to 10 minutes per pupil. With the profiles from a screener like that and with better training, all our teachers will have the confidence to make the right  adjustments for each child in their class. Even small things such as different paper, extra time or time-out cards can make life-changing differences. I know this only too well.

What I am proposing today is no silver bullet. It must go alongside other changes in education. If the Government would rather take on these measures in their upcoming White Paper or in some other legislation, fine, I do not really care. All that matters is that we get on with it. We have had enough debating and enough promising. Let’s bring everyone together, roll up our sleeves and take the next steps to making education inclusive and accessible for every child.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Adam Dance, Tessa Munt, Ed Davey, Munira Wilson, James MacCleary, Freddie van Mierlo, Ian Roome, Ann Davies, Clive Jones, Lewis Cocking, Juliet Campbell and Vikki Slade present the Bill.

Adam Dance accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed (Bill 303). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant document: Third Report of the Transport Committee, Buses connecting communities, HC 494] \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 is amended as follows.

(2) Before the italic heading preceding section 36 insert—

‘Zero-emission vehicles

35B Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services

(1) The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3) to provide the service in Scotland.

(2) A service falls within this subsection if it is a local service which has one or more stopping places in Scotland and which—

(a) is registered under section 6 of the 1985 Act, or

(b) is not required to be registered under that section because of section 13B(1)(a).

(3) A vehicle falls within this subsection if—

(a) it is constructed or adapted to carry both seated and standing passengers, with the number of seated passengers being more than 22 (determined in accordance with regulations made under section 26 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981),

(b) it is first registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 on or after a date specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, and

(c) the tailpipe emissions from it include any of the following—

(i) carbon dioxide,

(ii) carbon monoxide,

(iii) hydrocarbon,

(iv) nitrogen oxide,

(v) particulates.

(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—

(a) specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine for the purposes of this section what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle,

(b) specify descriptions of vehicle in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply, and

(c) specify local services or descriptions of local service in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply.

(5) The date specified under subsection (3)(b) may not be before 1 January 2030.’

(3) In section 39(1) (penalties)—

(a) omit the ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (c), and

(b) after paragraph (c) insert—

‘(ca) operated a local service in contravention of section 35B(1) of this Act, or’.

(4) In section 81(4) (regulations and orders), in paragraph (b), after ‘35A(1)’ insert ‘, 35B(3)(b)’.”—(Simon Lightwood.)

This new clause would require vehicles first registered after a date to be specified in regulations (which will not be before 1 January 2030) that are used to provide local services in Scotland to be zero-emission vehicles, subject to any exceptions made by regulations.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Simon Lightwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—£2 bus fare scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2.

(2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into a scheme established under this section.

(3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 23 of this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must review the terms of any scheme established under this section every three years.

(5) The Secretary of State may amend a scheme established under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument.

(6) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to cap bus fares at £2.

New clause 2—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—

“The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.

New clause 3—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—

“(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services within their areas.

(2) Any review must assess—

(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;

(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures;

(c) changes which may improve accessibility and increase patronage; and

(d) the potential benefits to bus patronage of the simplification of ticketing systems.

(3) A local transport authority must complete its first review under this section no later than six months after the passing of this Act, with subsequent reviews conducted at least once every three years.

(4) The results of any review conducted under this section must be made publicly available.

(5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, community representatives, and any other stakeholders the authority deems relevant.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services in their areas.

New clause 4—Duty to promote bus services—

“(1) It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.

(2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider—

(a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options;

(b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives;

(c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage;

(d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility;

(e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;

(f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion;

(g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services.

(3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including—

(a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable;

(b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage;

(c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and

(d) plans for future improvements in bus services.

(4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.”

This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas.

New clause 5—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—

“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.

(2) In this section, "relevant authority" includes—

(a) a county council in England;

(b) a district council in England;

(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;

(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.

(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

(4) The report must also include—

(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;

(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;

(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;

(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;

(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.

(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”

This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

New clause 6—Public sector equality duty—

“In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading “Transport” insert—

“A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation.””

This new clause would place bus companies under the public sector equality duty.

New clause 7—Young person’s discount scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a discount on bus fares for people aged between 19 and 25.

(2) Any scheme under this section must provide for a discount amounting to a third of the price of relevant fares.”

This new clause would introduce a discount scheme for young people, providing 19-to 25-year-olds a third off bus fares.

New clause 8—Review of impact of VAT changes on demand-responsive bus services—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of the VAT system on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) whether the current system of granting a zero-rated VAT exemption to public service vehicles with 10 seats or more while subjecting smaller vehicles to VAT on fares—

(i) influences the choice of vehicles used for demand-responsive bus services;

(ii) has any other impact on the provision or operation of demand-responsive bus services,

(b) the potential for VAT exemptions to facilitate the rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives from the intelligent mobility sector, local authorities, bus operators, and public transport users.

(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to support the growth of demand-responsive bus services across the UK.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of current VAT rules on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

New clause 9—Free bus travel for unpaid carers—

“The Secretary of State must work with local transport authorities and operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which—

(a) provides free bus travel to those in receipt of carers allowance, and

(b) supports local transport authorities to expand provision for other unpaid carers.”

This new clause would require the Government to introduce a scheme to provide free bus travel for those in receipt of carers allowance and improve bus provision for carers.

New clause 10—Review of capacity of Bus Centre of Excellence—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—

(a) the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities in establishing and operating franchising schemes under the Act, and

(b) additional resourcing required for this purpose.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of the current operational capacity, staffing levels, and expertise of the Bus Centre of Excellence;

(b) an evaluation of the effectiveness and reach of current training programmes and support services provided to local transport authorities on franchising, and their suitability for authorities able to franchise services under the Act;

(c) an identification of specific additional financial, human, and technological resources required by the Bus Centre of Excellence to adequately deliver comprehensive training and ongoing support for all local transport authorities considering or implementing franchising schemes under the Act;

(d) an analysis of the impact of current capacity limitations on the pace and quality of franchising scheme development and implementation by local transport authorities.

(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, representatives from the Bus Centre of Excellence, and bus operators.

(4) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any steps to ensure the Bus Centre of Excellence is adequately resourced for its role in supporting bus franchising.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities for bus franchising.

New clause 11—Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;

(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;

(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;

(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;

(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—

(a) local councils and local transport authorities;

(b) bus service operators;

(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;

(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and

(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.

(4) Any report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.

New clause 12—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme.

(2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in—

(a) rural areas;

(b) coastal communities; and

(c) suburban areas.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes.

New clause 13—Power to convene for bus service coordination—

“(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England may convene other agencies and public bodies that have transport functions and obligations for the purposes of coordinating bus services within, to, or from its area.

(2) The power under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, the power to convene NHS trusts and other health bodies for the purposes of coordinating bus services with non-emergency patient transport services.

(3) The purpose of convening under this section is to promote the efficient, integrated and accessible provision of bus services across different sectors and to ensure that bus services meet the needs of the communities they serve.

(4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the coordination of transport services with other public services.

(5) Local transport authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the exercise of functions under this section.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish—

(a) any guidance issued under subsection (5), and

(b) any variation or revocation of that guidance.”

This new clause would empower local authorities to convene other agencies for the purposes of coordinating bus services.

New clause 14—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the impact and feasibility of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes.

(2) A review under this section must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of current usage patterns of concessionary travel passes and the impact of existing time restrictions on passengers, particularly persons with disabilities and older people;

(b) an evaluation of the potential social, economic, and environmental benefits of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, including impacts on access to essential health services, goods and services, and social activities;

(c) an analysis of the financial implications for local transport authorities and bus operators of removing time restrictions, and potential funding mechanisms to mitigate any adverse impacts;

(d) investigation of passenger volume at different times and regional variation;

(e) recommendations for any legislative or policy changes required to implement the removal of time restrictions.

(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) local transport authorities;

(b) bus operators;

(c) bus users and organisations representing people with disabilities and elderly people; and

(d) any other persons or organisations whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the completion of the review.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes (such as “Freedom Passes”).

New clause 15—Rail bus links scheme: proposals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing local rail connections.

(2) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance accompanying the scheme on—

(a) the departmental funding which will be available for the purposes of the scheme;

(b) the qualifying criteria which will be used to assess eligibility for the scheme, which may include, but may not be limited to, insufficiencies in funding, vehicles and equipment, workforce or expertise.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing connections.

New clause 16—Bus pass scheme for persons in post-16 education—

“The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a half-price discount on bus fares for persons in post-16 education.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a discount on bus fares for people in post-16 education.

New clause 17—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—

(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;

(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.

(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.

New clause 21—Fare cap for school-only services—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, extend the £3 bus fare cap to school-only services.

(2) Where the £3 bus fare cap is subsequently increased or decreased, an equivalent change applies to the cap for school-only services.”

New clause 22—Minimum bus service standards: review—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.

(2) The review conducted under this section must—

(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,

(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”

New clause 23—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—

“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.

(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.

New clause 24—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops—

“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.

(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.

New clause 25—Franchising authorities: joint forum—

“(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions.

(2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.”

This new clause would require all local transport authorities that introduce franchising schemes to establish a joint forum with trade unions and operators.

New clause 26—Consultation of trade unions—

“In section 138F of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (6)(f) insert—

(fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,”.

This new clause of the Transport Act 2000 would require local transport authorities to consult trade unions when proposing to make an enhanced partnership plan.

New clause 27—National Bus Forum—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Bus Forum.

(2) The purpose of the National Bus Forum is to address issues affecting the provision of local bus services at industry-wide and strategic level.

(3) The membership of the National Bus Forum must include—

(a) HM Government,

(b) trades unions,

(c) bus service operators,

(d) local authorities in England, and

(e) any other body or persons as the Secretary of State deems necessary.”

This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Bus Forum whose membership includes unions, operators and local government, in line with a recommendation by the Transport Select Committee.

New clause 28—Review into floating bus stops—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.

(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a vote on the proposals.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the safety of existing floating bus stops and publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a vote debate on the proposals.

New clause 29—Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess—

(a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,

(b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services,

(c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and

(d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.”

New clause 30—Consultation: bus funding formula—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation.

(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula,

(b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and

(c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted.

New clause 31—Poor performance of franchising—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to take over the management of a service where, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there has been a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.

(2) A statement under subsection (1) must set out—

(a) the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service, and how these circumstances are to be identified;

(b) the actions which the Secretary of State may take to redress the failure to deliver the service;

(c) the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement of when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.

New clause 32—Requirement to consult and notify before service review discussions—

“(1) A local transport authority or bus operator must not enter into formal discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service unless—

(a) notice has been given to parish and district councils affected by the change or withdrawal, and

(b) a period of public consultation has been concluded.

(2) The authority or operator must publish, before giving notice and holding the public consultation—

(a) the date on which formal discussions regarding changes to the service are proposed to commence,

(b) a summary of the reasons why alteration or withdrawal is being considered, and

(c) information on participating in the public consultation or submitting representations on or alternatives to the proposed changes.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities and bus operators to notify relevant councils and initiate a public consultation before entering into discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service.

New clause 33—Duty to promote and increase bus usage—

“(1) A local transport authority must include in its local transport plan a strategy to promote and increase bus usage in its area.

(2) The strategy must—

(a) set out specific, measurable objectives for increasing bus ridership,

(b) establish 2015 as the year against which progress will be assessed,

(c) include measures to encourage modal shift from private vehicles to buses, and

(d) explain how the authority will monitor and report progress.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to include in their transport strategies a specific plan for increasing bus usage, including measurable objectives and assessment against 2015 as a baseline year.

New clause 34—Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services—

“(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility, and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality, and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

New clause 35—Enhanced partnerships: stakeholder forum—

“(1) Every local transport authority in England that has formed an enhanced partnership must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a stakeholder forum to monitor the delivery of the enhanced partnership.

(2) The forum established by subsection (1) must meet at least once every three months, and its membership must include trade unions representing bus workers, passenger groups, and local businesses.

(3) Where two or more local transport authorities are working together in an enhanced partnership scheme, a single forum should be established to meet the duty set out in subsection (1).”

New clause 36—Concessionary travel for 16 and 17 year olds in education or training—

“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 150 insert—

‘150A Free bus travel for 16–17 year olds in education or training

(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons aged 16 or 17 and who are—

(a) in full-time education, or

(b) undertaking training on a course or programme that has been approved by Skills England.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”

New clause 37—Secretary of State duty to ensure services for certain towns—

“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every town in England is served by bus services which—

(a) operate seven days a week, and

(b) serve specified locations.

(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the relevant local authorities for the areas to which the duty applies,

(b) the integrated care boards for the areas to which the duty applies, and

(c) residents, or organisations representing residents, of the areas to which the duty applies for the purposes of determining the specified locations which must be served.”

New clause 39—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Wales)—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—

(a) bus service operators, and

(b) bus passengers,

on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Wales.

(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Wales to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.

(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Welsh Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

New clause 40—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Scotland)—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—

(a) bus service operators, and

(b) bus passengers,

on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Scotland.

(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Scotland to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.

(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

New clause 41—Driver access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—

In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—

‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System for drivers of PSVs

(1) Local transport authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).

(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.’”

This new clause would ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).

New clause 42—Bus safety performance data—

“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—

‘144F Bus safety performance data

(1) Local transport authorities must—

(a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and

(b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy.

(2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor.

New clause 43—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—

“In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).

(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’”

This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers.

New clause 44—Concessionary travel for people under the age of 22—

“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 150 insert—

‘150A Free bus travel for people under the age of 22

(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons under the age of 22.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”

This new clause would require transport authorities to provide free bus travel for children and young people who are under the age of 22.

New clause 45—Minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services—

“(1) It is a requirement for local transport authorities to provide a minimum level of bus services for individuals reliant on off-peak and nighttime transport to local and regional employment centres.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, commission each local authority in England to undertake an audit of the minimum off-peak and nighttime bus services required by those working in key employment centres in their respective areas.

(3) For the purposes of the audit specified in subsection (2), local authorities must consult with bus companies, trade unions, employers and members of the public.

(4) Where more than one local authority is responsible for the delivery, or funding, of local transport services in their respective localities, the audit specified in subsection (2) must be undertaken as a partnership between the relevant local authorities.

(5) Within three months of being commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake the audit under subsection (2), each local authority, or partnership of local authorities, must publish—

(a) the findings of its audit, and

(b) proposals for delivering the off-peak and nighttime services identified by the audit as necessary to fulfil the requirements laid out by subsection (1).

(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) a key employment centre means a city, a town with either a population above 50,000 people or whose economic output represents more than 10 per cent of that local authority’s economic activity.”

This new clause establishes a legal duty for local authorities to ensure a minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services to local employment centres, require the Government to commission local authorities to undertake an audit of local service requirements and produce proposals on providing a minimum level of services.

New clause 46—Duty to consider funding for service enhancements—

“(1) A local transport authority in England must consider whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.

(2) In exercising the duty under this section, the authority must have regard to—

(a) the potential for increased ridership; and

(b) the overall sustainability of the network.

(3) Service improvements under subsection (1) may include—

(a) increasing the frequency of existing services;

(b) extending operating hours;

(c) improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; or

(d) extending the routes of local services.”

This new clause would place a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate public funds to improve existing bus services where this would grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network, and sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions.

New clause 47—English National Concessionary Travel Scheme: Companion Passes—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.

New clause 48—Free travel for uniformed police officers—

“(1) The holder of a PSV operator’s licence must permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local service which has one or more stopping places in England.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, make a statement on options for compensating operators of local services for any costs that arise or revenues lost fulfilling the duty under subsection (1).

(3) In this section—

‘local service’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985;

‘police officer’ means a member of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales or a special constable appointed for such an area; and

‘PSV operator’s licence’ has the same meaning as in section 82 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.”

This new clause would permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local bus service in England.

Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Government amendment 31.

Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).

(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’;

(A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert ‘, and

(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.

(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—

(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and

(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’

(A4) After subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’”

This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.

Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 6, line 33, at end insert—

“(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000.

(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead.

Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 6, line 38, after “2010)” insert “, or with special educational needs (within the meaning given by section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014),”.

This amendment would require local transport authorities wishing to proceed with a franchising scheme to consult bus users with special educational needs, or groups that represent them.

Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, after “fit;” insert—

“(db) relevant train operating companies and other public transport operators, for the purposes of ensuring coordination during peak travel times and tourist seasons;”.

This amendment would add other transport operators to the list of parties who are to be consulted when making or varying a franchising scheme.

Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, leave out line 10.

This amendment would retain the requirement for consultation when varying a franchising scheme.

Government amendments 32 and 33.

Amendment 66, in clause 14, page 10, line 5, after “services” insert “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.

Amendment 5, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert—

“(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must—

(a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities;

(b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities;

(c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models.

(4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting—

(a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area;

(b) users of local services;

(c) NHS providers;

(d) education providers;

(e) local employers and businesses;

(f) people with disabilities; and

(g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.”

This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services.

Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 10, line 20, leave out “and” and insert—

“(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, and

(v) schools and colleges.”

This amendment would ensure that primary health care services, schools and colleges are considered as “socially necessary local services”.

Amendment 60, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, after “activities.” insert—

“(16) A service which was abolished in the 15 years before the day on which the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 was passed may also be considered a socially necessary local service for the purposes of this section and section 138C.”

This amendment would mean that previous bus services could be considered as socially necessary local services.

Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where—

(a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and

(b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service.

(6) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme.

(7) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so.

Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable.

(6) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to—

(a) the scope and nature of the service;

(b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps;

(c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs;

(d) a timeline for the operation of the service;

(e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall.

(7) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (6)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered.

(8) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (7).

(9) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).”

This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established.

Amendment 8, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—

(a) the number of socially necessary local services in England;

(b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled;

(c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services;

(d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation;

(e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and

(f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.

(7) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues.

Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”

Amendment 27, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, after “comfort” insert “;—

(d) identify what, if any, provision is made to facilitate access to child and adolescent mental health services and other community-based mental health services not attached to hospitals.”

This amendment would require bus network accessibility plans to consider access to CAMHS and other community-based mental health services.

Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 17, line 3, at end insert—

“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded   to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.

(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.

(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”

This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.

Amendment 28, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“(6A) Guidance issued under subsection (6) must require local transport authorities, when making grants to operators, to take into account factors relevant to the provision of services in their area, including but not limited to—

(a) the rurality of the area or areas to be served;

(b) the age profile of persons in the area or areas to be served;

(c) measures of deprivation in the area or areas to be served; and

(d) the percentage of persons with disabilities in the area or areas to be served.”

This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the making of grants to bus operators to require authorities to consider factors relating to the demographics of the area or areas to be served when making grants.

Amendment 29, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“(6A) The guidance must include information on when and how local transport authorities and mayors may give grants for the purposes of replacing or otherwise providing for bus services in rural or isolated areas when a socially necessary local bus service has been withdrawn, including details of what Government support or funding will be available for such purposes.”

Amendment 61, in clause 23, page 19, line 3, after “environment,” insert—

“(ba) about the operation of concessionary fare schemes by the local transport authority,”.

This amendment would include information about concessionary fare schemes in the guidance about the making of grants by local transport authorities issued by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 9, in clause 23, page 19, line 13, at end insert—

“154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation

(1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it.

(2) In particular, local transport authorities may—

(a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services,

(b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and

(c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.

(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider—

(a) the size of the operator’s fleet,

(b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and

(c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.”

This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.

Government amendments 35 to 38.

Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”.

This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.

Amendment 59, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, at end insert—

“(2A) A local transport authority whose area is in England, or two or more authorities acting jointly, shall have the power to make byelaws prohibiting any person on the bus network from, to the annoyance of any person—

(a) singing; or

(b) using any instrument, article or equipment for the production or reproduction of sound.

(2B) Local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, make byelaws in accordance with the powers provided in subsection (2A).

(2C) Bus service operators, including those delivering services as part of a franchising, concessionary, or other scheme, must work with local police forces to ensure the effective enforcement of byelaws made under subsections (2A) and (2B).”

Government amendments 39 to 42.

Amendment 18, in clause 30, page 32, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places.

Amendment 64, in clause 30, page 32, line 22, at end insert—

“(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,”.

This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section to cover the provision of toilet facilities.

Amendment 11, in clause 30, page 32, line 29, at end insert—

“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.

This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.

Amendment 12, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take reasonable steps to implement”.

This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.

Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of  training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).

(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 19, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) The bodies listed in subsection (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 subsection (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.”

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.

Amendment 20, in clause 31, page 34, line 32, at end insert—

“(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.”

This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.

Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 34, line 39, at end insert—

“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.

(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”

This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.

Amendment 14, in clause 34, page 37, line 18, after “2003” insert—

“(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).”

This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.

Government amendment 43.

Amendment 15, in clause 34, page 38, line 16, at end insert—

“144H Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility

(1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility.

(2) The relevant parties are—

(a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence;

(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England

where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services.

(3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding—

(a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services;

(b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and

(c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation.

(5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed—

(a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five-year period thereafter;

(b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations.

(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.”

This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regularly undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.

Government amendments 44 and 45.

Amendment 62, in clause 37, page 41, line 26, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 27 and insert “1 January 2027,”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 63, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered after 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).

Amendment 1, in clause 37, page 41, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) A vehicle does not fall within subsection (3) if it previously had the tailpipe emissions listed in subsection (3)(c) but has since been converted to a zero-emission drive train.”

This amendment would qualify buses that have repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies to be considered as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of this Bill.

Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 42, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Amendment 30, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, leave out “2030” and insert—

“2028 in relation to vehicles to be used in areas containing all or part of a National Landscape, or 1 January 2030 in relation to all other vehicles, and the Secretary of State may by regulations provide any—

(a) financial remuneration, or

(b) specific guidance (or both)

that they deem necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the deadlines specified in this section.”

Amendment 16, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

“(6) The provisions of this section apply to any mayoral combined authority in England, where “mayoral combined authority” means an authority established under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.”

This amendment would clarify that the provisions of section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities.

Amendment 17, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

“(6) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing how adequately and easily local transport authorities have been, or will be able to, access funding to replace polluting buses with zero-emission buses for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section.

(7) A report under subsection (6) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of current funding mechanisms available for the transition to zero-emission buses, including grants, loans, and other financial incentives;

(b) an evaluation of the sufficiency of available funding to meet the projected costs and timelines for local transport authorities to achieve a zero-emission fleet by 2035;

(c) a review of the barriers and challenges faced by local transport authorities in accessing existing funding, including administrative burdens, eligibility criteria, and capacity constraints;

(d) recommendations for improving the adequacy and accessibility of funding to accelerate the replacement of polluting buses with zero-emission buses.

(8) In conducting the review under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, bus operators and manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles.

(9) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to ensure sufficient and accessible funding for the transition to zero-emission buses.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the adequacy and accessibility of funding available to local transport authorities to transition their bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The report must include an evaluation of current funding mechanisms, barriers to access, and recommendations for improvements.

Government amendments 46 to 50, 34 and 51 to 57. \p Simon Lightwood: I have the pleasure of opening today’s debate on Report. I look forward to a lively discussion on the Bill and thank Members of the House who are here to offer their views and speak to amendments that have been tabled. Before I move to the Government’s amendments, I will briefly recap why the Bill is before the House, speak to the Government’s wider reform of buses and provide an update on progress since Committee.

The Government are seeking to deliver better bus services. That means growing patronage and ensuring that more people can use the bus. It also means leaders having powers to shape the services in their communities and bus services that help to drive opportunities across  the country; and safer, reliable, affordable, inclusive and integrated bus services. The measures in the Bill work towards this vision, as do the wider reforms announced by the Government to bus funding, the recent spending review commitments and the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027. Together, these form an ambitious set of interventions designed to reverse long-term trends and improve bus services.

Consistent with this objective, and following engagement with my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the forthcoming update to the statutory franchising guidance will confirm expectations that franchising authorities consult representatives of prospective users and that the statutory guidance on stopping places will set out the Department’s expectations for how safer and more accessible stopping places can encourage an increase in bus ridership by providing facilities that people can and want to use.

In Committee, there was a wide-ranging and detailed debate across the Bill’s measures and bus policy more generally. I committed to provide an update on Report on how my Department is working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators to raise awareness of certain cyclists’ behaviours around floating bus stops. Active Travel England will share materials with councils to promote awareness of the requirement for people cycling to give way to bus passengers at crossing points. This is alongside existing guidance on how to engage communities and design safe and accessible walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure.

Transport for London is carrying out a campaign to raise awareness of the highway code, with a particular focus on the rules designed to protect people walking, cycling and motorcycling. The campaign highlights five key rules that protect at-risk road users and apply where there is poor compliance and understanding of the rules, including some of the rules that were updated in 2022. This includes materials designed to remind road users, particularly cyclists, to give way at crossings at bus stops. Active Travel England and the Department have been involved in this work with the intention of sharing materials with local authorities outside London in due course.

Furthermore, in Committee, I set out that my Department will ask local authorities to undertake an audit of existing sites, alongside setting out to them our expectation on a pause. Active Travel England’s additional research includes a national audit of floating bus stops. I advise authorities to work collaboratively with ATE, so we can gain an accurate picture of where and what type of floating bus stops are in use, and therefore ensure that future guidance is comprehensive.

The Department will publish statutory guidance on the design of floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent. That will be supported by additional research into the design of existing floating bus stops and how they can be improved to ensure they are accessible. Active Travel England has provided funding to councils and encouraged them to review existing designs against the upcoming guidance and, where required, implement remediation works. Both audits of bus stop bypasses and remediation works can be funded using the active travel funding as an essential maintenance activity.

I now move to the Government amendments. New clause 38 has been brought forward at the request of the Scottish Government. It reflects close collaboration between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It will help provide greater certainty of the future demand in Scotland. I am committed to ensuring that the Governments continue to work together as they move towards the full transition to zero emission buses. The measure effectively replicates the provision in clause 37. It will have the effect of restricting the use of new non-zero emission buses on relevant services in Scotland. Powers provided to Scottish Ministers under clause 38 are analogous to those given to the Secretary of State under clause 37. Amendments 45 to 50 are consequential amendments that are minor and technical in nature or related to making transitional or saving provisions. The measure requires legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and, if necessary, the Government will return with an update during ping-pong.

Amendment 53 is a technical amendment that provides a clarification on the franchising variation procedure in the Bill’s schedule. Specifically, it clarifies the variation procedure that applies when a franchising authority wishes to vary two minor aspects of a franchising scheme—namely the additional facilities, such as depots and ticketing facilities, to be provided in the franchising area, and the description of the authority’s plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness. That will help give franchising authorities clarity on the process and ensure that relevant parties are consulted on such changes.

Amendment 57 provides further detail on who should be consulted when a franchising authority varies plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness included in its scheme, including Welsh Ministers, other affected local authorities, relevant organisations and the Passengers’ Council. Amendments 31 to 34, 51, 52 and 54 to 56 are minor and technical amendments to remove unnecessary wording.

The final set of Government amendments are numbered 35 to 45. These are minor and technical amendments that remove data protection overrides previously inserted into the Bill. The overrides are no longer necessary as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, and these matters are now covered automatically by virtue of that legislation. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Jerome Mayhew: I am slightly surprised to be called so early, but I am delighted to speak in the debate. This will be an interesting debate. I am delighted that there is so much interest from Back Benchers. It is interesting to note that the Bill is primarily focused on process rather than passengers. I tried to work out why that was and came to the conclusion that it is, in fact, steeped in Labour’s political ideology—the ideology that the state is better at running things than private businesses—linked with the separate issue that it has a deep suspicion of the profit motive. In some of its clauses, which we will come on to in a moment, the Bill harks back to the 1960s and to municipal bus companies after the second world war. This feels like the happy place of the Labour party. \p Christopher Vince: I welcome the shadow Minister to his place. My question is on his comments on profitability. Part of the challenge we  have found in Essex is that routes that were considered not profitable were being cut, which meant that rural communities were feeling isolated. Does he recognise that if bus services are based purely on profitability, they could be lost, and that that is an issue? \p Jerome Mayhew: 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. \p Roz Savage: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the need to provide for disabled bus users. My amendment would require local authorities seeking a franchise to take people with special educational needs into account, and to consult them and the groups that represent them. Does he agree with that proposal? \p Jerome Mayhew: The hon. Lady will know, from reading the Hansard of Committee proceedings, what time and effort the official Opposition put into supporting the aspiration to have increased accessibility across disability and special educational needs, so I am very supportive in principle of her amendment’s aims.

I have addressed accessibility, but what about pricing and increasing bus usage? We know from our experience of operating bus services over the past decade that price is one of the biggest factors affecting patronage. In the previous Administration, the Conservatives put forward a £2 bus fare cap, and it was enormously successful. Apart from anything else, it was hugely popular, but it also aided the recovery from covid, and in getting people back out and about. It was particularly useful for younger passengers; it helped to build their confidence and get them back on the road to recovery. In the run-up to the last election, the continuation of the £2 bus fare cap for the duration of this Parliament was a Conservative manifesto commitment. What was Labour’s response to that? Its first act on coming into power was to put the price up by 50%, from £2 to £3. To accompany that, there was a perverse claim that that was actually a price cut. One does not need to be an economist at the Bank of England, or even from the accounts department, to work that one out. Experience of customer complaints would be enough to enable a person to see that a price rise from £2 to £3 is exactly that: a rise, not a cut. \p Marie Tidball: I’ll tell you what kind of cut is unacceptable— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. \p Marie Tidball: In my constituency— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Please be seated. I should have to say “Order” only once. You just said the word “you”, so let’s restart that intervention, which should be short. \p Marie Tidball: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only unacceptable cuts were those made to buses by the Conservative Government? In my constituency, 53% of buses were cut. \p Jerome Mayhew: That does not take away from the overarching point that Labour has increased bus fares by 50% and described it as a price cut, which was disingenuous in the extreme.

We need to understand the impact of Labour’s price rise on ridership, and in particular on social accessibility. That understanding will inform behaviour, and should inform good policy for the future, but the Government have their head in the sand. Amendment 23, also in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services. That proposal was initially inserted in the other place, with wide support from a number of parties, but again, the Government decided to remove it in Committee. They need to own the consequences of their decisions. Last year, Transport Ministers needed to find money for an unfunded pay rise of 15% for ASLEF train drivers. Where did they get the money? Their first choice was to go after bus passengers, and their second was to go after pensioners. \p Jacob Collier: The shadow Minister talks a lot about price, but he is defending a system in which my constituents must get three buses or more to get to their destination, and pay individual fares on those buses. Under the integrated system proposed in the Bill, we could have a price cap, like the one here in London. Why does he not support that principle? \p Jerome Mayhew: I am perfectly happy with that principle. In fact, it was a Conservative principle, first introduced in 2016. We do not have to choose between one thing and another; that is a false analysis. The pricing was a political decision by this ministerial team, who chose to increase prices from £2 to £3, and that was voted for by all Government Members; they made that political choice. The choice between a franchise scheme, an enhanced partnership scheme or any other form of scheme has nothing to do with the primary political choice, made by Labour Members, to raise prices for bus passengers to pay for unfunded union pay rises. That is simply the fact. \p Andrew Snowden: Political choices are made locally and nationally. Labour Members talk about the past 14 years, but we Conservatives won control of Lancashire county council in 2017, and increased the bus budget by 50%. We put on bus routes that the Labour party in Lancashire had made the political decision to cut, just as it chose to put up the price cap from £2 to £3. These are political choices. \p Jerome Mayhew: 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. \p Joe Robertson: On the point about financial risk for local authorities, does my hon. Friend agree there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that local authorities such as mine, the Isle of Wight council, would possibly want to touch when it comes to franchising for buses across my constituency? The risk for small unitary authorities is just far too great. If there is any opportunity at all in this Bill—I am not sure that there is—it will apply only to large city councils and metropolitan areas. \p Jerome Mayhew: 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.” \p Luke Myer: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Conservative position is to support combined authorities being able to take on franchising, yet the Conservative Tees Valley Mayor has flat out rejected franchising powers. I am  proud that this Government are bringing forward this Bill to make it easier for combined authorities and other authorities to bring in franchising. In Committee, I raised the example of my constituent Norma Templeman, who has had to fight tooth and nail against the mayor and the bus companies to get buses into her village of North Skelton. How can that be right? \p Jerome Mayhew: I thought the hon. Member was in favour of devolution. Not all mayoral combined authorities are the same; if we have a mayoral combined authority, we want to have the right system for the area that the mayor represents. If the mayor in Teesside thinks that it is not the right thing for him, I back his decision.

Let me move on to new clause 31, which would give the Secretary of State the power to step in where there has been

“a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.”

It seems genuinely extraordinary that the Government are saying no to that added safeguard. No cost is associated with it; the new clause just says that where there is prolonged failure on the ground to deliver the service for whatever reason, the Secretary of State would have the power to step in and take on the management. Why would the Government say that they do not need that backstop power? They voted it down in Committee, and I do not see them accepting it today either.

All the amendments from the loyal Opposition have a common theme: they put passengers first. This Bill is not really about passengers; it is for a bigger state, more unions and more union involvement, and it is primarily against private business involvement. I understand that that is the ideology of Labour Members, but the problem is that their ideology is demonstrably wrong in this instance, and we see that in the Bill. Without amendment, it will damage our bus services and almost certainly damage our local transport authorities, particularly the smaller ones, if they are misguided enough to follow the encouragement of the Government and go down this route. Above all, I am sorry to say that the Bill will damage the chances of our passengers. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Will Members please be seated? Before I go to speeches from Back Benchers, I want to be clear about where we are and what we are debating, because there seems to be some confusion among colleagues. We are debating the remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, and we are on Report. Speeches should relate to the amendments listed on the amendment paper, not the Bill as a whole, so please check the amendment paper; I say that for Back Benchers who hope to contribute.

I know that the next Member knows exactly what they are doing. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, except to say it is no surprise that our first stand-alone inquiry in the Transport Committee was on buses in England outside of London. That issue affects Members in England from across the House and from all sorts of constituencies.

I speak in support of two amendments that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), myself and others:   amendment 66 and new clause 46. Since Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the Transport Committee has published its “Buses connecting communities” report, which focuses on potential solutions to the long-term decline in bus ridership in England outside London. If the Government seek the reversal of bus decline in England, I hope the Minister will support our two amendments. They add to the Bill, because they specifically seek to improve bus services in a way that relying on future guidance may not. They provide the context in which local transport authorities can determine their specific bus provision. Merely devolving greater control to local authorities without any kind of overarching values-based vision will not help in areas that have no interest whatsoever in enhancing and extending their services, and could risk simply entrenching inequality and decline.

New clause 46 seeks to ensure that local transport authorities have a duty to consider funding for service enhancements. It is about

“whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.”

The local transport authority must have regard to six principles. These are the potential for increased ridership; the overall sustainability of the network; the service improvements, particularly the frequency of existing services; extending operating hours; improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; and extending the routes of local services.

We know that progressive local authorities are committed to enhancing and expanding the public transport in their areas, and they do that; we have great examples under Labour mayors in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. Having more people on more buses addresses the policy objectives that they and we in Labour seek to achieve, such as addressing congestion, air pollution, carbon emissions, social and economic isolation, and growth. However, I fear that there are—and that there could be more—local authorities that care little for those important objectives, which are central to this Government’s values.

New clause 46 would therefore bake in a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate funds to improve bus services where it would

“grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network”.

It sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. It would also enable bus user groups and others to measure the intentions of their local transport authorities against those basic objectives.

New clause 46 comes from the Transport Committee’s recommendation 117, which says that the Department should

“require local transport authorities to consider using grant or fare box funding to enhance existing local bus services.”

The need to improve local bus services while growing ridership was a focal point of the evidence received by our Committee. \p Ashley Fox: On that point, does the hon. Lady accept that increasing the fare cap from £2 to £3 is likely to reduce ridership, whatever is contained in the new clause? \p Ruth Cadbury: I speak in the context of devolution within an overarching set of values. I will not go into the specifics of what level a bus fare should be, but the overall ridership and the sustainability of the bus system are a key objective. I know the Minister will say that with devolution, how that happens is up to the local transport authorities.

Returning to the evidence we heard in Committee, as everybody here knows, buses remain the most used form of public transport, yet the number of bus journeys in England outside London has dropped from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024. Alongside the declining number of journeys, the need to improve services and increase ridership speaks to the evidence received by the Committee about the impact on social isolation of a lack of access to buses. Transport for the North told the Committee that in 2024 some 11.4 million people across England faced transport-related social exclusion, and there was evidence that the problem was worse in towns than in cities.

The Minister told us that the Government intended the Bill to deliver services that were more affordable and reliable, faster and better integrated. However, when pressed on whether people in England would see more buses to more places by the end of this Parliament, he said that that is certainly their intention and they are doing everything possible to make it happen. My contention is that without that being baked into the body of the Bill, there is a risk that in many places there could be a continued decline in bus services over time.

Amendment 66 to clause 14 relates to socially necessary services. It seeks to insert in line 5 of page 10 after the word “services”:

“along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.

It would be for the local transport authority to define that, but in a publicly visible way. The amendment asks that local authorities be required to produce a transparent methodology for how they determine these socially necessary services.

The North West Surrey Bus Users Group made the argument to the Committee that a clear and consistently applied definition was essential for holding local authorities accountable for maintaining basic service levels on loss-making routes. It warned that in the absence of sufficient guidance to date, some authorities had, to a greater or lesser extent, abdicated their responsibilities. As a result of such evidence, the Committee’s report recommended that the Department should mandate local transport authorities to publish their own transparent methodology for how they determine which bus services qualify as socially necessary to ensure public accountability—hence the reason for this amendment. \p Helen Maguire: North East Surrey College of Technology in my constituency is not accessible by bus, leaving students having to travel even further for their education because local bus services are simply not serving young people. Does the hon. Member agree that the Bill must expand the definition of socially necessary local services to explicitly include schools and colleges? \p Ruth Cadbury: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which goes to the heart of what I am saying: it is not for this Bill and this Government to define whether or not colleges, schools and so forth  should be included—one would hope they would be—but it is for the local authority to define their socially necessary services according to the needs in their area. They should publish it, and a requirement to do so should be in the Bill.

I am pretty sure that the Minister will say, “Don’t worry, Chair of the Select Committee, it’ll be in the guidance.” My concern is that guidance is to some extent discretionary and can be changed over time. I, Alex Mayer and others would like to see the need to have a definition and methodology for socially necessary services stated in the Bill. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I talked so highly of the Select Committee Chair and said that she does everything right, but I think she mentioned a colleague by their name, not by their constituency. Can we try and stick to the etiquette? \p Ruth Cadbury: I have only been here 10 and a bit years; I will get used to it. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill as currently drafted suggests that local transport authorities merely define their socially necessary services. That could mean services as they are now; it does not take into account changes in need. New housing developments might mean that a loss-making route becomes commercially viable. The closure of a major employer might mean that nearby housing loses a viable bus service. The Bill allows for change, but it should require local authorities to have a publicly available methodology, on which user groups, communities and residents can hold their local transport authority to account. \p Martin Wrigley: In addition to the point about socially necessary routes, companies such as Stagecoach cut the frequency of essential buses—such as the No. 2 from Exeter through to Dawlish in my constituency and on down towards Paignton. That drives people away from the buses; when the frequency goes down from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes, it makes the service unusable and takes away the social value of the route. \p Ruth Cadbury: The hon. Member is entirely correct.

Our amendments would support local transport authorities to grow their local bus networks actively in response to demographic and economic changes, not just to manage the decline. Without the amendments, particularly amendment 66, the only requirement is for authorities to list their current services. While acknowledging the Government’s rightful drive on devolution, our Committee would not want any local transport authority to walk away from the Bill’s important objectives to promote growth, particularly in towns across England; to promote reliability and integration; and to address social isolation, inequality, traffic congestion and pollution. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Paul Kohler: I thank the Minister and commend him for his constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill on the Floor of the House, in Committee and via the usual channels.

Let me make it clear from the outset that my party supports the basic tenets of this Bill. The Tories’ ideologically driven decision to deregulate the bus network in the ’80s and allow private operators to cream off the profitable routes paid scant regard for many unprofitable, mainly rural, routes serving small communities, which unless subsidised by an increasingly hard-pressed local government were simply abandoned. Since 1985, as a direct consequence of their meddling, the number of bus journeys taken in this country has fallen by over 2 billion—a decline of almost 40%—and more than 8,000 services have been cut or withdrawn entirely. In counties such as Shropshire and Devon, and across the country from Cornwall to Caithness, entire villages lost daily services, and some areas were reduced to one bus per week or none.

The Bill represents a bold attempt to reverse that decline. If implemented properly, which will require more funding than currently on offer, it could be transformational, returning control over local bus networks to local communities. It would remove bureaucratic barriers to franchising, enabling local authorities to design routes, timetables, fares and branding that meet the needs of communities, while allowing profitable routes to cross-subsidise the unprofitable ones, rather than lining the pockets of big business, opening up the possibility of a more reliable, integrated and affordable network, which is so crucial for rural and deprived areas that are currently facing steep service declines.

Liberal Democrats want to ensure that this legislation fulfils its potential by empowering local communities, protecting vital routes and driving the shift to greener, fairer transport. We know how important buses are to people’s daily lives. If this Bill is to succeed, it must put passengers first. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled so many amendments. I acknowledge that many of them will not be selected for a vote, but even at this late hour, I ask the Minister, please, to cast his eye over them to see which ones he might still accept.

It is worth highlighting that no fewer than 42 amendments were accepted on Report in the Lords, 30 of them from the Government and a further six from Lord Blunkett which the Government chose to support, after some intensive behind-the-scenes lobbying by my Lib-Dem colleagues. I thank them for amendments that we re-tabled in this place to address bus fare affordability, disabled passenger access, decarbonisation of the bus fleet and the protection of socially necessary routes. \p Helen Maguire: The E5 bus service for Langley Vale in my constituency has a woefully inadequate timetable and a route that does not stop at the local hospital. Local bus routes are simply not servicing my residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill must tackle poor services and restore the £2 fare cap, reversing the devastating effect of route cuts administered under the Conservatives? \p Paul Kohler: Those are exactly the issues that the Bill should and could address if the Minister took the bold steps we are asking of him today. In its passage through the other place, the Bill was clearly strengthened through  constructive engagement across the political divide. The Government have been willing to accept sensible proposals from their lordships, so surely there can be no good reason why equally sensible amendments tabled here in the Commons could not be adopted.

One such sensible proposal concerns floating bus stops. Badly designed floating bus stops are a menace to the disabled, old and infirm, and in particular to the visually impaired, which is why my party tabled new clause 17, requiring the Secretary of State not only to conduct a review, but to retrofit all existing floating bus stops where necessary. We support amendments 18 to 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and welcome the Minister’s concessions on the issue.

I will address the three amendments that we continue to press with most conviction before turning to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). Our amendment 10 addresses the scourge of headphone dodgers, which is not a trivial matter. Many passengers feel unsafe or uncomfortable when others play loud content on their devices without headphones, oblivious of those around them. That is not simply an irritation; it causes genuine distress to many trying to travel in relative peace and quiet. More than 75% of those who use public transport stated that it disturbs them, according to a recent Savanta poll. More than 80% of people in a separate YouGov poll agreed that it is unacceptable. \p Ashley Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that the provisions apply to people who travel on trains but not on buses? Does he understand why the Government made that distinction? \p Paul Kohler: I agree entirely. We need a simple rule across all public transport. I also think it is odd that the hon. Gentleman makes that point after his colleagues jeered me when I first raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions a few months ago—but I thank him for his support now. Our amendment 10 would allow local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to prohibit such disruptive antisocial noise. It would be a simple, practical measure that would make bus travel better for everyone. Some have argued that such measures are illiberal, but liberalism—unlike libertarianism—is as concerned with responsibilities as with rights. My right to play loud content on my phone does not preclude my responsibility not to cause someone else unnecessary disturbance by failing to plug in my headphones—after all, that is why they were invented.

When I first raised this issue at PMQs, as I mentioned, the Conservatives and Reform—who are not here, of course—jeered at the suggestion. I cannot say whether the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) or other members of the shadow Transport Front-Bench team joined in that chorus. Although the Prime Minister, in his extremely constructive answer, agreed that it was a serious issue, his Labour colleagues in Committee voted down the amendment, which the Tories also refused to support, consistent with their previous hostility.

In a bizarre volte face, the Conservatives have now tabled an amendment that mirrors our own, and the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for  Basildon and Billericay, has taken to the airwaves in recent weeks to demand action on headphone dodgers, having miraculously seen the light—or at least heard the noise. Whether that was because of headphone dodgers or Conservative headquarters focus groups, I will leave others to judge. People say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and, despite the Conservatives’ previous mocking and blocking, I am delighted to welcome our Conservative friends to the cause. I ask the Minister to listen again—which would be a damned sight easier to do were amendment 10 accepted and the headphone dodgers were consigned to history.

Without doubt, the Minister will say as he did in Committee, that the Bill already gives local transport authorities the ability to address antisocial behaviour. However, it does not explicitly reference the scourge of auditory disturbance, which is so serious a problem as surely to merit the individual attention that our amendment 10 would provide, empowering local transport authorities to create a bus environment that is safe, civil and comfortable for everyone. If the Government are serious about improving the passenger experience, they, like the late-arriving Conservatives, must surely come around to supporting this sensible Liberal Democratic policy, which according to Savanta is supported by a vast majority of the public; only 13% are opposed.

New clause 1 would reinstate the £2 bus cap. The Government’s recent decision to hike the cap to £3 represents a 50% increase that will drive people off buses and hit the most vulnerable in our society. \p Victoria Collins: I absolutely support the reduction of the price cap to £2. However, in my constituency, where the Conservatives cut bus routes by more than 50% over the past decade, people often have to get several buses, so for a couple of constituents I have, going to the Jobcentre costs them £12, even though a price cap is in place. Do we not need a simpler structure and proper investment so that buses do not cost so much? \p Paul Kohler: Those are indeed the issues that we need to address and that are not addressed at the moment—my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The poorest, who use buses the most, are already struggling with the cost of living crisis. No amount of spin can hide the fact that the Government’s decisions represents a huge fare increase, despite the Prime Minister taking to social media last month to proclaim that he was putting working people first, and that this fare rise would “cut costs” for working families. No, it will not. \p Steve Darling: In Torbay, which is sadly one of the most deprived constituencies in the south-west of England, bus travel is the primary form of public transport. The £2 price cap was valued by young people and by those of working age in navigating Torbay. Does my hon. Friend agree that its reinstatement would help oil the wheels of our communities, such as Torbay? \p Paul Kohler: That is hugely important. If we want to get people back on the buses and help the most deprived in our society, we need to reinstate the £2 bus cap.

Fares have risen to the point where many households simply cannot afford to use the bus regularly. A £2 fare cap would make a tangible difference to low-income families, students and modest earners, while also helping to reduce congestion and cut emissions by getting more  people out of their cars. Sadly, new clause 1 has not been scheduled for a vote, so we will support the Conservatives’ more modest proposal, amendment 23, requiring the Secretary of State to conduct an impact assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap.

Another clause that will not be pressed to a vote is our new clause 48, which would have provided free travel for uniformed police officers in order to provide greater reassurance to the travelling public. Antisocial behaviour—and not just headphone dodging—is on the increase across the bus network, and the sight of more police officers on buses would only help to reduce that menace. Currently, there is a patchwork of different schemes covering some, but not all, bus operators, and requiring officers to produce a variety documentation to access free travel, which is not infrequently denied. Our new clause would have provided a simple baseline requiring no bureaucracy, allowing every officer in uniform to travel freely on any bus. I again ask the Minister to consider accepting that costless improvement to the safety of the bus network.

I now turn to a hugely consequential cross-party amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), whose work on the Bill has been thoughtful and persistent. His new clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes. It is supported not just by Liberal Democrats but by Members across the House, including on the Government Benches. Disabled passengers, forced to travel at restricted times under current rules, face unnecessary barriers to jobs, appointments and social inclusion. Removing time restrictions would allow them to use the bus network when they need it. It is right that the House should support this new clause, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it forward.

Rigid time slots reflect outdated thinking. Disabled people deserve travel choices that reflect real-life needs. If, as they claimed during their ill-fated attempt to reduce personal independence payments before the recess, the Government really want to help more disabled people back into work, removing such restrictions would be a wonderful place to start. I am delighted that Mr Speaker has selected new clause 2 for a vote, and I ask Members across the House to bear witness to the cross-party support that it has already received by voting together in support of it.

In conclusion, my party welcomes the Bill, which will make a real difference to our bus network, but I call on the Government and the Minister to not allow petty party rivalry and tribalism to stand in the way of making this legislation even more effective by voting against the sensible amendments and new clauses that we have proposed. \p Grahame Morris: I declare an interest as a member of the RMT and Unite parliamentary groups, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the RMT for its support in scrutinising the Bill. With thousands of members working in the bus sector across England, it is uniquely placed to contribute its expertise.

The context is stark. In 2024 there were 76 million fewer bus journeys in the north-east compared with 2010—a fall of more than a third. That decline is not just a statistic; it represents missed shifts, social isolation and communities cut off from opportunity. I place on record that I support the Bill, but I will speak to the four amendments that stand in my name—new clauses 25, 26, 27 and 35—and voice my support for new clause 45.

New clause 27 would create a national bus forum with representatives from the Government, local transport authorities, operators and trade unions. Deregulation has left the sector fragmented, making it hard to tackle challenges, such as recruitment, retention, skills and safety, in a coherent way. The Transport Committee’s 2018 inquiry into the health of the bus market, undertaken when I was a member of the Committee, recommended that the Government’s strategy be

“underpinned by a national forum”

to share information on service improvement, workforce issues and safety. The National Audit Office echoed that, urging the Department for Transport to use the bus centre of excellence to collate and share best practice. A national forum would provide that structure and oversight.

However, national oversight alone is not enough. New clause 25 would require all local transport authorities introducing franchising to establish a joint forum with unions and operators. The Government said that they expect LTAs to engage with unions, although expectation is not a guarantee. However, leaving this as an “expectation” will not guarantee meaningful engagement everywhere. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), there are inconsistencies, including in the Tees Valley. Some LTAs are experienced in working constructively with unions, but others are not. A statutory requirement would ensure consistent and meaningful engagement everywhere.

New clauses 26 and 35 address enhanced partnerships. Many local transport authorities will opt for enhanced partnerships instead of franchising, and that is a matter for them. At present, stakeholder forums must include passengers, businesses and neighbouring authorities, but unions are not listed. I respectfully say to the Minister that if the aim of stakeholder forums is to involve those most directly affected, then surely the workforce cannot be excluded. New clauses 26 and 35 would remedy that by requiring trade union participation in every enhanced partnership forum.

I support new clause 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), which would establish a legal duty on councils to provide a minimum level of night-time bus services to local employment centres, ensuring that workers such as nurses, hospitality staff and factory employees can get home safely. This is particularly important for women, given that more than one in four will experience some sort of sexual assault in their lifetime. Night-time buses are a matter not just of convenience, but of safety.

Taken together, new clauses 25, 27, 26 and 35 form a coherent package—national oversight and best practice matched by consistent workforce engagement at local level. Alongside new clause 45, these new clauses demonstrate what this Bill should achieve: a bus system that is accountable, safe and responsive to the needs of both passengers and staff. If the Government cannot  accept them, I urge the Minister to commit instead to addressing these matters through guidance or a code of practice, and to meet the trade unions and stakeholders to decide how that might be achieved. The Bill represents an opportunity to reshape bus services for the better, but that opportunity will be wasted if we repeat the mistakes of deregulation, fragmentation, inconsistency and sidelining the workforce. These new clauses are about making sure that this time we get it right. \p Julian Lewis: I rise to support new clause 47, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I will also make a passing reference to his excellent new clause 2, which I wholeheartedly support and which—as we have heard—is designed to remove the time restrictions on when disabled persons’ concessionary bus passes can be used.

New clause 47 is very simple and, I would like to think, very logical. It simply requires that the Secretary of State should,

“within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.

I was first alerted to this problem by some very effective lobbying done in Parliament a few months ago, which other right hon. and hon. Members may well remember. I was lobbied by a number of my constituents, who said to me that there was not much point in having a concessionary pass to use buses free of charge if they were unable to do so except when helped by a companion. It rather made a mockery of the concession.

I followed this up with a visit to the New Forest branch of Mencap, and the implications of the scheme were impressed on me as being so obvious as to require little supporting argument. What is the point of giving somebody something for free if they cannot use it without the assistance of someone else, unless a designated companion is able to travel with them for free on the same bus pass? A number of county councils, for example, allow this, but it is a discretionary power. That seems rather strange, because a number of aspects of the scheme are statutory requirements. I believe this should be one of them, if it is not to make a nonsense—as I have already explained—of the statutory requirement that disabled persons should have a free bus pass.

I have tabled a couple of written questions on this topic. One in particular—number 48343, tabled on 27 April—asked the Government whether their review of the English national concessionary travel scheme had made a recommendation on the question of companion passes for the disabled. The answer read, in part:

“The Department for Transport conducted a review of the ENCTS and is currently considering next steps. The review did not consider adding companion passes to the statutory criteria for the scheme.”

The answer then added a standard formulation that I have received in response to other questions on this topic:

“Currently, local authorities in England have the power to go beyond their statutory obligations under the ENCTS and offer additional discretionary concessions, such as extending the travel time criteria for the ENCTS.”

I simply put it to the House that if a pass-issuing authority has a statutory duty to provide disabled people with a free bus pass, there ought to be a statutory duty to require a designated companion to be included on that same pass for those who cannot use it without a companion. That is probably not something that will be decided today, but I hope the impeccable logic of my argument will appeal to the Minister and that within 12 months he will take the action requested. \p Marsha de Cordova: It is an absolute pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and to new clauses 23 and 24. I begin by commending the Minister for his engagement with me on this Bill. We have had some robust and good dialogue and conversation on floating bus stops, and I am sure he would agree with me on that.

Nobody in this place should be surprised to hear me speaking about floating bus stops. As we know, for more than a decade, floating bus stops have created a huge challenge for pedestrians. Active Travel England has rightly said:

“Bus stops should be easily accessible… The routes to the bus stops should be safe, direct, convenient and accessible for people of all abilities.”

Is there anybody in this House who does not agree with that? \p Florence Eshalomi: My hon. Friend knows that one of the busy floating bus stops in my constituency is right outside St Thomas’ hospital, which I will confess I have had a few bumps on. She and I did oppose its introduction. Does she agree that all floating bus stops should be reviewed, so that when patients are going to important sites such as hospital, they are not being knocked from their bikes or buggies? \p Marsha de Cordova: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree 100% with her assessment. She is right; all those years ago—I do not want to say how long, because we will be showing our age—we opposed that floating bus stop outside St Thomas’ hospital, because we knew the challenges it would present for pedestrians.

Pedestrians continue to be injured at floating bus stops, with cyclists too often failing to give way. Even though some floating bus stops have small zebra crossings, it is rare to see cyclists stop. We know that blind and partially sighted people are having to walk into cycle lanes and into the way of cyclists, and they cannot see. That will be terrifying and a dangerous experience for them. The risk of injury can undermine their ability to travel independently and safely, and not being able to travel independently is life-limiting. It affects everything from, as my hon. Friend has just said, accessing vital health services, to holding down a job, or just being able to go out and socialise with friends.

Anecdotally, we know that people are experiencing injuries and collisions at floating bus stops. For that reason, I strongly believe that we need to have hard data if we are to address the problem properly. That is why my amendment 21 would ensure that data is gathered on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. As we know, they vary in their design and some pose more danger than others. \p Daniel Francis: I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. She knows that, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, I share similar concerns for them. We often see that bus ramps are designed to fit in with the bus boarder, but it is then very difficult for the wheelchair user to pivot from the exit of the bus ramp back on to the pavement. Will she join me in continuing to impress upon the Government that we have got to get the design right in order to assist all disabled people, and that disabled people—whether blind or partially sighted, or wheelchair users—must continue to be engaged in this dialogue? \p Marsha de Cordova: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so well. I am fairly certain that the Minister will have heard him loud and clear and will agree. It is so important that we get the design right. If we are seeking to do what is best, we need to know what needs to be changed, and we need to collect data on the design and location of all floating bus stops so that we can compare it with the number of collisions and injuries.

I very much welcome the fact that Active Travel England will undertake further research, including a national audit and safety review of all floating bus stops, to gain an accurate picture of where such bus stops are in use, what type they are, and so on. That could really help to shape future guidance. I hope that the Minister will say a little more about when the research will commence, because I am sure that many people will welcome it.

Although I appreciate that there will be an equality impact assessment of the Bill as a whole, and that impact assessments have already been produced, it is clear to me that there needs to be a particular focus on the concerns of blind and partially sighted people when it comes to shared-use bus boarders and floating bus stops, so my new clause 23 would require an equality impact assessment on their provision. If we are to have the truly accessible transport system that we are all striving for, we need to pay attention to the impact of our transport decisions on disabled people.

Floating bus stops were introduced in London in 2013, and they have caused havoc. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned the one just over the bridge outside St Thomas’ hospital, but even in my own Battersea constituency they just appear, and they really do create a challenge for many—and not just for disabled people or blind and partially sighted people, but for the elderly and for families with young children and buggies. I would go so far as to say that in many respects the safety interests of some groups of road users have sometimes been treated more favourably, to the detriment of others. \p Florence Eshalomi: Does my hon. Friend agree that by getting this right and ensuring that we have bus stops that are accessible for everybody, including partially sighted people and disabled people, we will encourage more people to use public transport, because they will feel that it is safe and accessible for them? \p Marsha de Cordova: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are encouraging people to do more active travel and to use public transport, so we need to ensure  that the transport network is fully accessible and inclusive. The Minister has confirmed that an equality impact assessment will be published upon Royal Assent, and I press him again to clarify that for me.

Right now, we have a system that blind and partially sighted people say puts them at risk. It is not just me, with my own lived experience, saying that; many blind and partially sighted people say it, and the many organisations that support them have said the same. That tells me that we perhaps need to rethink floating bus stops. Indeed, if I had my way—I do not, unfortunately—I would ban them all, because they have created a challenge. None the less, we are where we are, and I am really pleased that the Government want to work to improve the situation. I welcome the fact that clause 31 seeks to address some of the challenges. My new clause 24 would place a duty on the Government to carry out an independent assessment.

I welcome the Government’s commitment on producing guidance for local services around the country in order to promote active travel, but also to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely and in reasonable comfort. In my view, that must be mandatory; it cannot be optional. I know the Minister has heard my concerns, and he has confirmed that that will be the case.

I also welcome the partial pause on some types of floating bus stops. As Members have said, it is so important that we address some of the safety concerns before moving to a full-scale roll-out of floating bus stops. I thank organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the National Federation of the Blind, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Transport for All, and the many blind, partially sighted and disabled people, for campaigning on this issue relentlessly to ensure that we really have a public realm that is fully accessible and fully inclusive, so that we can all benefit.

I will not push my new clauses and amendments to a vote. I fully support the Government in their endeavour, and I support this Bill. \p Helen Morgan: North Shropshire is a very rural constituency, and it is nestled in against the Welsh border, which is wiggly—I think that is the best way to describe it. That means that my constituents’ experience of using buses can be problematic, and I have tabled some new clauses that I hope the Minister will reflect on.

Shropshire is one of the worst-served counties for buses, having lost 66% of its bus miles since 2015. It has lost more bus miles, by percentage, than any other county in England. The average loss of bus miles is about 20.9%, so it has been a severe experience for my constituents. Towns such as Market Drayton have almost become isolated, because their bus service is so poor. I am sure the House has heard me say before that there is only one bus running in Shropshire on Sundays. I am lucky enough to be able to report that it runs from a town in my constituency, but it is hardly an acceptable situation for my constituents.

New clause 37 is sponsored by 30 colleagues from across the House, revealing that my constituents’ experience is shared by people in many parts of rural Britain. It tries to address the problem of poor bus services in market towns by requiring the Secretary of State to  ensure that a service must be available seven days a week, and that she consults the relevant bodies to ensure that constituents using the bus service can access essential services. My Bus Services Bill, which aims to get people to hospital and other health services when they need to do so, has that requirement, but it could equally be applied to schools, colleges and other important destinations for people who find themselves isolated. \p Tom Hayes: In Bournemouth East, I am campaigning to get a better bus route to Bournemouth airport, to improve the No. 33 and to reinstate a service in Throop, where the community feel very disconnected. Does the hon. Lady agree that one benefit of this Bill is that it empowers local authorities to run their own bus companies so that they can reinstate those routes? \p Helen Morgan: I am broadly supportive of the Bill, because I think it will do that. My point is that the power to franchise bus services is all very well, but the funding needs to follow the power. Otherwise, constituencies such as mine will not see the improvements for which they are desperate.

Colleagues have talked about the bus fare cap. I am supportive of measures to keep it at £2, but I must point out that in constituencies such as mine, which has little in the way of bus services, a cap has not made a huge difference. Some of the operators have not opted into that cap, so it has had limited impact for my constituents, important as it is.

The £1 billion fund announced by the Department for Transport last November promised to give rural and coastal areas a real sea change in their bus services, but in Shropshire—as I mentioned, it has had the worst drop-off in its services in the whole country—only £2.5 million was allocated. That is the critical point and why I am fully supportive of the Bill’s measures that will allow local authorities to decide where bus services are essential. The funding needs to follow them, regardless of whether areas are in a combined authority or have a mayor, and it should follow need, not just structure. I urge the Minister to take that on board.

Although we are not voting on new clause 37, across the House, including on the Government Benches, 30 Members have sponsored it. Many similar amendments have been tabled that likewise seek to improve bus services for people living in rural areas, and ensure they are adequate to access essential services. I urge the Minister to consider the intentions of my new clause, and those of similar amendments tabled by colleagues, and commit to some kind of improvement for rural areas when he makes his closing remarks.

I mentioned that North Shropshire is pressed up against the border with Wales and that the border with Wales is very wiggly. That gives my constituents a specific challenge with their bus passes. If they want to catch a bus between two destinations in England but it stops in Wales or they need to change in Wales, their bus pass is not valid. I think that is a bit crazy. For example, if they want to go from Oswestry to Chester and they need to change at Wrexham, their bus pass will not be valid. That is the one service that runs on a Sunday. We need to ensure that people can use their bus  passes when they are crossing the border. That is a very low-cost thing, which ought to be very easy for a Government to sort out. My new clause 39 would require the Secretary of State to liaise with the Welsh Government and come up with a workable solution for what is probably an unintended consequence of devolution between England and Wales. I hope the Minister will take that on board and consider a workable solution for people using their bus passes across the border.

I also tabled new clause 40, which replicates that requirement for Scotland. I appreciate that that does not impact my constituents in North Shropshire, but I tabled it in the name of being inclusive.

I am proud to have been one of the first signatories to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I will not take any of the credit for the new clause because he has done all the hard work, but I will urge the Minister to consider accepting new clause 2 because it is so important. Disability does not stop at 9.30. \p Chris Hinchliff: I speak in support of the Bill and in favour of new clause 22 in my name.

We can now say in complete confidence that the privatisation and deregulation of our bus services has been a catastrophic failure for rural towns and villages such as those across North East Hertfordshire. Decades of dogmatic adherence to flawed ideology has created vast public transport deserts where residents have no meaningful alternative to driving a car. The consequent social costs of this failure have been profound: more and more traffic that stifles our communities and chokes our rivers and air with life-limiting pollution; young people cut off from education and employment, forced to leave their homes to get on in life; and our elderly trapped in loneliness and isolation, which should be a source of shame for our entire nation. The privatisation disaster means for those unable to drive or afford a car, a connected life in rural England is practically impossible.

I welcome many of the clauses in the Bill that together offer a chance to reverse the hollowing out of our villages which threatens to end centuries of cultural and economic vibrancy. We need a bus network that comprehensively meets the needs of every community, especially for rural areas that lost their train stations in the Beeching cuts, including Buntingford, Westmill, Braughing, and Standon in my constituency. That is why I have tabled new clause 22, which would empower Ministers to conduct a review into the delivery of guaranteed minimum bus service standards for every community with more than 300 residents across England.

During the progress of the Bill, I ran a survey on the experience of my constituents of their local bus services. Hundreds of residents responded and a massive, if unsurprising, 83% of them felt that the bus services available do not offer a viable alternative to owning and driving a car. As I am sure you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether via the survey or in community meetings, my constituents have been none too shy in sharing their thoughts about the quality, reliability and general usefulness of local bus services. Consequently, it is completely clear to me that voters in North East Hertfordshire are utterly fed up with a bus network based on profitability for shareholders rather than  public need. The measures in the Bill to address that with a long-overdue strengthening of socially necessary bus services are very welcome.

However, to succeed in meeting the hopes of communities such as those that I represent, we should go further and move towards a universal basic right to public transport with enshrined service standards across the country, replacing the threadbare, patchwork and inadequate network left by deregulation. Although it may be difficult to imagine, given the current state of public transport in our nation, that is, in fact, something that other countries are quite happily doing already. In Switzerland, the region of Zurich guarantees villages of 300 people or more at least an hourly bus service running seven days a week from 6 am to midnight, linking rural residents to regional facilities for employment, education, training, shopping and leisure, while North Hesse in Germany has a target of bus services reaching every village across the region every hour.

Now is the time to show that we are no less ambitious for our communities and to set out on a path towards internationally leading bus services in England. To achieve that, new clause 22 would trigger a review into setting minimum bus service standards for communities in England, considering their varying requirements based on population size and rurality, alongside the regulatory powers and funding arrangements necessary for local transport authorities to implement a comprehensive network of this nature. I look forward to hearing the response from the Front Bench to this new clause, which I hope they will consider in the positive light in which it is intended.

I note that the Minister argued against new clause 22 in Committee, on the basis that he believes that the legislation to guarantee minimum levels of service for communities already exists in the Transport Act 2000. I gently say to him that, having reviewed that legislation with a little support from the superb staff at the Commons Library, I have not been able to identify any such powers. I am more than happy to accept that I may well be wrong on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but suffice it to say that Transport Act 2000 or no, the communities I represent in North East Hertfordshire are not yet enjoying bus services remotely comparable to those delivered to guaranteed standards in Switzerland, Germany and elsewhere.

Of course, a comprehensive bus network with guaranteed minimum service standards will require adequate public funding, and it is important to be up front about that. However, year on year, under successive Governments, we have spent billions of pounds on wasteful, counterproductive and environmentally damaging road-building schemes. Analysis suggests that redirecting that funding to the bus services our constituents need for their day-to-day lives would fully fund guaranteed minimum service standards across the country.

A comprehensive bus network based on guaranteed minimum service standards would transform public transport across the country, especially for rural areas. It would demonstrate the profound change the Labour Government were elected to deliver. Above all, it would inject new optimism and opportunities into our communities, as people would find themselves able to make entirely different life choices: young adults could choose to stay living close to friends and family, as  commuting from the village they grew up in would become a genuine possibility; key workers struggling with the cost of living could avoid debt and hardship without the need to buy and maintain a second car; and high street businesses would flourish, with greater footfall and an expanded pool of employee talent and energy.

It is time for public transport that puts people before profit. New clause 22 would do just that. \p Ashley Fox: My constituents want the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services to be improved, and that is why I support new clause 34. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for re-tabling it. When the Secretary of State spoke to the Bill on Second Reading, she said that improving bus services underpins the Government’s plan for change. If that is the case, it strikes me as odd that the Government would strip out a new clause made in the other place that specifically stated that that was the purpose of the Bill.

I also support new clause 29, which calls for a review of the provision of bus services to villages in England. There are many villages in my constituency with poor or non-existent bus routes, with particular problems in Spaxton, Enmore, Combwich, Fiddington and Stockland Bristol. These villages find themselves just off the main routes, with the residents left all but stranded, unable even to get to and from Bridgwater unless they have a car.

Even in the villages that do have services, far too often the bus service stops in the early evening. For example, the last No. 16 bus to Langport, which serves Westonzoyland, Middlezoy and Othery, leaves Bridgwater at 5.15 pm. That means not only that the services fail to cater for those who want to travel for leisure, but that many constituents are unable to use buses for commuting because they cannot get home after work.

The review should also consider integration between different modes of transport, which is an important issue for those living in rural areas who need to travel further afield. There has been no usable bus stop at Bridgwater railway station for several years because of road layout problems. It is a relatively small fix, but despite running Somerset council for the last three years, the Lib Dem administration seems unable to fix the problem. We must ensure that the Bill obliges local authorities to act in circumstances such as these, and I hope the review will assist in that.

Another problem my constituents would wish the review to consider is seasonal timetables. I am fortunate to represent a beautiful part of Somerset that attracts large numbers of visitors to both the coast and the Quantock hills. During the summer, demand for buses is understandably higher. What the bus operators seem to forget, however, is that the local resident population relies on bus services continuing all year round. Seasonal buses help those in the north of my constituency commuting to work or college in Weston-super-Mare. The reduced frequency of the No. 20 bus service and the lack of a Sunday service in the winter months mean that fewer people can rely on it. I hope that the Government accept the need for this review and that its results better inform policy when the new franchising is rolled out.

I support amendment 23, which calls for an assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap. The £2 cap was a great achievement of the last Conservative Government, and  I was disappointed when the Labour Government decided to scrap it. They increased the amount that all our constituents have to pay by 50% and then proclaimed it a triumph. It sounds like something from Soviet propaganda. We are supposed to welcome this glorious new £3 bus fare as some sort of victory of the proletariat over the forces of capitalism, conveniently forgetting what preceded it. I want to see the £2 cap reinstated, and I hope that the assessment will be the first step toward that.

I want to see bus services improved for my constituents. I believe that amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34 would improve the Bill, and I urge the Minister to accept them. \p Euan Stainbank: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses.

Within my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) are two sites of the UK’s largest bus manufacturer, Alexander Dennis, which employs around 400 people in Falkirk, with thousands more jobs dependent on the buses created at Falkirk. Manufacturers will welcome new clause 38 and the certainty that it gives by consolidating the provisions of the Bill in Scotland.

Bus manufacturing in Britain has been in difficulty in the past year, partly due to the failure of the previous Government to deliver on their pledge of 4,000 British-built, zero emission buses by 2024. In the end, they supported just over half that number, with just under half being bought from abroad. The Tories funded too few buses and got far too many of them from elsewhere in the world.

Then there was a second policy failure, this time by the Scottish Government’s recent ScotZEB 2 programme, which saw less than one fifth of its buses come from Scotland’s only bus manufacturer and more than three times more come from China. Standing up for Scotland—aye right! Both the Conservatives and the Scottish National party did not take the protection of the domestic bus manufacturing sector seriously, and their failure has jeopardised hundreds of jobs in my constituency and potentially thousands in the supply chain across the country.

All this is to say that the future of a domestic industry that we will need if we want to see a green, clean, safe and effective bus network is contingent on legislation that supports the effective domestic procurement of buses and enables local authorities to make decisions that are right for their area and put the passenger first. The Bill does an excellent job of delivering on those priorities, with a streamlined and more flexible franchising process, stronger powers for grant funding from local authorities, and local authorities able to order in bulk, as in the case of the Bee Network in Manchester.

The Bee Network was bolstered by 254 buses ordered from and built in Falkirk. I will never miss an opportunity to remind the House that the Bee Network’s buses were reliant on the skills and craftmanship of bus manufacturing workers in Falkirk, more than they were reliant on any  other place. That is thanks in no small part to the instincts and political foresight of the Mayor of Manchester to work in the national interest—instincts that will be empowered across the country by the provisions in the Bill. If only we had the same foresight from the Scottish Government, who must now deliver on their commitment to a prospective rescue deal for Alexander Dennis workers following the excellent engagement and flexibility of our Transport, Cabinet Office and Scotland Office colleagues.

It is welcome that, following consultation, the ban on registering non-zero emission buses for local services will start no earlier than 2030, as moving too fast on the necessary transition to zero emission vehicles would create a degree of risk for domestic manufacturers in the current market. This year, the industry reported that 35% of ZEV buses purchased in the country by local authorities and operators will come from China, compared with 10% only two years ago. That is an alarming share to have been taken out of our domestic manufacture. We must address that before we throw ourselves head-first or too fast into building an exclusively clean, green and foreign fleet across the country.

While I am sympathetic to the well-intentioned environmentalist calls in amendments 62 and 63 from the Green party to accelerate the non-zero emission buses ban, that approach would risk creating a situation in which authorities and operators would likely be compelled to buy from abroad, further undermining the competitiveness of our domestic industry, on which my community relies. I would more than welcome Green Members’ engagement with the all-party group to discuss how the House can align British industry with the laudable intention of those amendments. The UK timeline will align with the transition in Scotland, as I mentioned, as is addressed in the Secretary of State’s new clause 38 and amendments 46 to 48.

Accelerating our ambition beyond what domestic capacity allows would create a risk that local authorities and operators would be compelled in the long term to buy an unsustainably high proportion of their fleet from abroad, from manufacturers who have received decades of state subsidy elsewhere. I repeat the ask of my all-party parliamentary group for Ministers to use the work of the bus manufacturing expert panel to map out a fully funded and coherent pipeline of zero emission bus orders that can be met by our world-leading domestic manufacturers, and provide the certainty that the sector—especially workers in Falkirk this week—needs before the ban comes in in 2030.

As I mentioned, Falkirk has already seen the benefit of local authority-controlled bus networks, with Labour-controlled Liverpool and Manchester combined authorities making clear strategic commitments to partner with UK manufacturers and ordering significant numbers of buses from Alexander Dennis. Considered strategic and small-p political local leadership can often make more effective policy decisions than the private sector or—I acknowledge—lazy franchisers, who all too often simply look to the cheapest price rather than considering our national, industrial and economic interests.

More authorities operating like that, in tandem with the upcoming changes to the local authority procurement framework, could see us not just protect jobs in Falkirk in the short term but materially enable an expansion of the industry. That is essential to delivering the socially  positive outcomes clearly articulated by hon. Members in new clause 45 and amendments 7 and 16, to mention just a few. We cannot forget the social benefit of an industry that provides an additional 3.25 jobs per job hired in manufacturing. The benefits are seen in quieter and smoother journeys, but also in jobs created and protected, taxes paid and communities strengthened.

The Bill seems on the whole to be about building up the powers of our local authorities, but it also gives us an opportunity to build up the bus manufacturing industry while we set our minds to the task of improving local transport. The Bill on the whole is better for passengers, better for local authorities, and hopefully better for British workers. With the Bill we can deliver a transport system that is clean, affordable and reliable and a bus manufacturing industry that thrives for decades to come. First stop, Falkirk. \p Judith Cummins: With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Tom Gordon. \p Tom Gordon: I will start by speaking to new clause 2, which stands in my name and is supported by over 70 colleagues from across the House. It calls for the removal of time restrictions imposed on disabled bus passes.

Under the English national concessionary travel scheme, eligible disabled people are entitled to free local bus travel. The policy rightly recognises that, for a variety of reasons, disabled people rely on public transport to access healthcare, work and education, as well as for family and community purposes. The policy also recognises that disabled people are more likely to require financial support, as they face disproportionately higher costs of living. Yet from 11 pm to 9.30 am on weekdays, that entitlement becomes void, dependent instead on whether travel authorities choose—or even can afford—to extend the benefit. Disability Action Yorkshire, a charity in my constituency, first highlighted the absurdity of the restriction to me last year. Since that meeting, I have been campaigning to have the time restrictions removed. I have met and received support from a number of charities that work with disabled people, including Transport for All, Whizz Kidz, Bus Users UK and the RNIB. The consensus is clear: the current restrictions have huge impacts on the everyday lives of disabled people. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to remove the time restrictions imposed by the ENCTS, allowing disabled passengers to travel for free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of their postcode.

The facts are simple: disabilities do not disappear at peak times. Why, then, are our policies based on arbitrary timeframes? To design a scheme intended to promote accessibility, only to limit it when most people need it, undermines the very purpose of the policy. The issue came to light when my mum put me in touch with her friend Amy, who gets in a taxi with her son to drop him off at school. She then has to spend 30 minutes waiting before she can use her disabled bus pass to get home. In South Yorkshire, a disabled bus pass holder got in touch with me about how their travel journey included one stop in a different local authority. Kurt, who is registered blind, ended up being thrown off the bus at 9.25 am. Liberal Democrat councillors have long  campaigned on this issue, including John Lawson in Kirklees, who raised the case of a Cleckheaton resident with epilepsy who suffered from the restrictions too.

There are around 870,000 disabled bus pass holders in England, making up about 10% of all concessionary users. Although the DFT points out that most local authorities offer some form of free travel before 9.30 am, only a third provide unrestricted, 24/7 access. For many, that means that commuting to work, attending education or making early medical appointments is either unaffordable or impossible. The DFT has a responsibility to improve accessibility. It cannot keep kicking the can to local or transport authorities, claiming it is up to them to make discretionary changes. Just as the Department can enforce the restriction, so it can remove it. It is time to stop passing the buck.

Provision remains patchy, insecure and vulnerable to cuts. \p James MacCleary: My hon. Friend may be aware that in East Sussex, where I am lucky enough to be an MP, the county council has already removed the restriction on timings. Indeed, he has met my former Liberal Democrat council colleague Sean Macleod to discuss that. Does my hon. Friend agree that that creates a postcode lottery across the country, where some people are fortunate to live in places that have removed the restriction and others are not so lucky? \p Tom Gordon: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I highlight the work that Liberal Democrat councillors, including him, have done over the years to ensure that such provision is made. That postcode lottery is completely unfair.

Economically, the argument is equally strong. We know that disabled people already face higher living costs. Removing the 9.30 am restriction would open up work and training opportunities that begin before that cut-off, and crucially, the cost of doing so is modest. Research by Whizz Kidz showed that it would cost about 1% of the current annual spend on concessionary travel, and we know that for each pound spent on concessionary bus passes, it is thought that over £3 is brought back in economic benefit.

Ending the restriction would deliver more than just transport access. It would promote independence, reduce isolation, improve health outcomes and encourage greater use of sustainable public transport. Charities such as Whizz Kidz have shown that young disabled people overwhelmingly support 24/7 access, with many saying it would help them build confidence, friendship and skills.

The amendment has support from leading disability charities such as the RNIB, as well as cross-party support in this House. Now is the time for this Labour Government to show their commitment to improving access and tearing down barriers to inequality by supporting the amendment. The Minister and I have had many interactions on this subject and I am sure he is not surprised to see me pushing for it again today. I urge him to consider it, whether through the Bill or further down the line in different possible measures and arrangements.

It is high time that disabled people had the same freedom to travel, the same independence and the same opportunity as everyone else. That is what the amendment  would deliver and I urge all Members across this House to support it. Disabilities do not start at 9.30 am, so disabled bus passes should not either. \p Julia Buckley: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British buses.

Today’s debate is so important to the people of Shrewsbury, as we have lost over two thirds of our bus routes in the past 10 years. We are one of the largest towns in the UK, with over 65,000 residents, yet we have not seen a Sunday bus for over a decade. We also have very few evening bus services, which is holding back our nighttime economy, despite being a glorious tourist destination.

The new bus powers for franchising will be a game changer for local councils such as ours in Shropshire. They will give us the opportunity to introduce new bus routes if they are considered to be socially necessary, such as that all-important Sunday service or some additional stops to widen access to our current hospital bus route and the new health clinic facilities coming down the track. It is our belief that these social routes could eventually build up their passenger numbers and ultimately become economically viable in their own right.

To that end, I wish to speak in support of the Bill and new clause 45, which seeks to bring forward requirements on transport authorities to deliver the minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services. That could transform access to employment for many of the residents in my constituency. We have only a handful of bus services after 6 o’clock and only one single bus at 8 o’clock, yet we are the county town and host to the county’s health, governance, economic and education services, as well as being a major employer for a county of 350,000 residents. Shift workers, NHS staff and those working in hospitality—as well as those of us who enjoy hospitality—need those buses to run beyond 8 o’clock.

The Shropshire bus services users group has consistently campaigned on the need for evening and the all-important Sunday bus services. Until now, no commercial company would take the risk, but within the last year, bus routes added by my local authority using Government bus service improvement plan money have led to increased passenger numbers and become embedded in our network. To overcome the reticence of private companies to widen their routes at economic risk, the local authority is ready to do that, where legislation allows and where passenger data indicates that all-important demand and socially necessary routes. The new clause would support Shropshire council by underpinning the need to re-establish evening and Sunday bus services, giving the impetus to widen those routes.

To conclude, I wish to remind the Minister, as I do in every speech, that my beautiful town of Shrewsbury lost its Sunday service a decade ago under the last Government, and that it is in both our hands to ensure that we reinstate it under this Labour Government. \p Charlotte Cane: I rise to speak in support of new clause 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate  and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and has cross-party support. I really hope that that cross-party support holds up in the vote.

As we have heard, disability does not stop at peak times. I represent a rural constituency and our buses are very infrequent, so having a time restriction on a bus pass is even more serious. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on classics, I enjoy a good tale about mythological creatures such as centaurs and the minotaur, but unfortunately for some of my constituents, seeing a bus is almost as likely as seeing one of them.

Remarkably, there are no Sunday bus services at all in most of my constituency. We have one of the greatest cathedrals in the world, but many of my residents cannot get to it for Sunday worship. Some of my villages have no buses at all, and the likes of Coveney and Wardy Hill have one bus per week. Others have bus services every two hours—those services are probably some of the best. If we restrict disabled people to using their passes after 9.30, they cannot catch the 9.20 bus and have to wait for the 11.20, so effectively they cannot do anything anywhere else in the morning. That cannot be right. We have to remove that restriction.

The current situation is not sustainable or acceptable. For rural communities, the situation is so dire that the recent risk of the 9 bus route between Littleport and Cambridge being halted meant that communities faced being unable to get to work or college. Constituents referred to this service as a lifeline for them, and they were right. To have a situation in 2025 where the ending of a single bus route makes entire communities a transport black hole is dreadful. It is just not acceptable. Had residents been properly consulted, I am certain the proposal would have been comprehensively rejected, which is why I support new clause 32 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) to require consultation before any discussions on the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service. I know the new clause has not been selected, but I hope the Minister will consider it.

The Government’s decision to increase the bus fare cap hit my constituents hard, because many of them have to get more than one bus to complete their journey. I ask both for the cap to be brought back to £2 and for it to be a cap on the journey, not the fare for each bus someone catches. It should not be too much to ask for a basic, functional and affordable transport service for rural communities. Pensioners should not have to miss medical appointments because there is only one bus per hour, students should not have to worry about missing classes, disabled people should not have to miss anything in the morning, and people should not have to move from their home village for the sake of getting to work on time.

This Bill is positive, but the Government need to do a lot more to improve transport services in rural communities such as mine. It would be a start if we allowed the disabled members of those communities to catch buses at any time. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill and new clauses 46 and 66 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer). The Bill represents a step towards giving communities greater control over their local transport  networks. Colleagues across the House recognise how vital bus services are for connecting people to opportunities, to each other and to the services they rely on. Sadly, buses are too frequently undervalued because they do not have the visible impact of a train.

It is perhaps fitting that the Bill comes at a time when we are experiencing a tube strike in London, and our colleagues based in London can understand what those of us outside London feel having an entirely dysfunctional public transport network.

I want to raise two points that I hope the Minister and colleagues will take on board as we move towards implementation. In my Calder Valley constituency, which the Minister knows well, we have seen a number of services withdrawn or reduced in frequency, particularly in the upper Calder Valley. Those changes have left many residents feeling cut off, especially in areas where alternative transport is simply not available. I welcome the extension of franchising powers to all local authorities. That is long overdue, and it is a step that gives communities such as mine the chance to shape bus networks to make those networks work for them. I urge the Government to consider how these powers can be supported with the necessary funding and guidance, so that councils can act decisively to protect routes that are essential to community life.

The second point I want to raise is about franchising. I support West Yorkshire combined authority’s plans to bring services under public control and to build a network that puts passengers at its heart. Cross-boundary routes—those that run into Lancashire or Greater Manchester—will not automatically be part of the franchise. While the Bill allows for some alternative arrangements, there is a real risk that those routes could be overlooked. We are a border county and a border country, and I am keen to ensure that the needs of my residents in Todmorden who go to work or school in Burnley are not overlooked. I know WYCA is committed to working with neighbouring authorities, and I hope the Government will support that collaboration. Passengers in Calder Valley and across the country do not plan their journeys around administrative boundaries or transport operations, and we need to be mindful of that.

I am confident that the Bill will provide a better, fairer bus network, and I am proud that it is another example of this Government making people’s day-to-day lives better. But we must ensure that isolated communities across boundary routes such as those in Calder Valley are not left behind. I look forward to working with Front-Bench colleagues to ensure that those voices are heard. \p Anna Sabine: I will speak to new clause 2 brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), which would extend the eligibility of disabled bus passes.

The current restrictions, which mean disabled bus passes can only be used after 9.30 am, have real and disproportionate consequences for disabled constituents, particularly those who rely on public transport as their only means of getting around. For many disabled people, buses are a lifeline. They are the gateway to essential medical appointments, employment opportunities, education and social connection, and they mean the difference between isolation and independence. In rural  areas such as Frome and East Somerset, where bus services are already limited, there is a particular challenge. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, if someone misses the morning bus because their pass is not valid until 9.30 am, that can mean waiting several hours more and being late for work.

Furthermore, some of us in this place represent constituencies that straddle more than one local authority. In those areas, a postcode lottery has emerged: disabled residents living just a few miles apart are subject to different rules. One person’s bus pass might allow travel before 9.30 am, while their neighbour, who lives just across an invisible council border, is forced to wait. I have seen that issue arise at first hand in my constituency. I have been campaigning with Hettie, a diamond bus pass user who lives in Radstock in my constituency and commutes to Bath for work. Radstock falls under the West of England combined authority. When Hettie raised the unfairness of the 9.30 am restriction on disabled bus passes, I wrote to WECA, and I am pleased to say that it responded positively and extended the validity of the pass to 24 hours a day. That was a significant and meaningful win for people in one half of my constituency. However, the other half, who live under Somerset council, remain restricted and are still unable to use their passes before 9.30 am. How can that possibly be fair when all that separates them is an invisible line?

We cannot talk about levelling up or dignity in public life while ignoring the daily barriers faced by disabled people. Nor can we claim to support rural communities while expecting vulnerable residents to navigate a postcode lottery of restrictions that limit their independence and opportunity. I urge the Minister to look closely at the benefits of removing those time restrictions altogether. Let us give disabled people one less barrier to face in their everyday lives and move toward a system that treats all with fairness, dignity and respect. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I rise to speak in favour of new clause 21, which stands in my name. Many members may be unaware that the fare cap that applies to single bus journeys does not apply to services that are provided exclusively to take children to and from school. That is why my new clause calls for the national £3 bus fare cap to be extended to all school routes, and for any future changes to the cap to be applied to school-only transport, too. I am grateful to the Members from across the House who have added their names in support of my new clause.

In Poole and across England, the exclusion of school routes from the fare cap has left families paying more simply to get their children to school—that cannot be right. Local parents, especially those who might have two or more children attending different schools in the area, have complained to me about the unfairness and additional financial pressures that they face as a result. I have raised that with the local bus provider, Morebus, and although it is sympathetic to the arguments, it will not act unless instructed to do so in legislation. I have also raised the matter with the Department and with the Minister, but, as he will recall, I was told that my proposal was too difficult to achieve through the Bill. I therefore urge him to reconsider that approach when he responds to the debate.

I am sure that Members will recognise the very obvious unfairness. The cap applies for a child who gets on an ordinary bus that takes them past their school, but for a child on a school-only bus, the fares are higher. As well as that unjustifiable situation, parents are concerned that they cannot buy their school tickets in instalments and often have to fund the entire cost of their child’s bus journey on a termly basis. That can be expensive and discourages many families from using the bus as their preferred means of school transport.

I see bus services in the way I see most policies: through the lens of making life easier for families in Poole working hard to get by. The Bill offers significant steps towards building a transport network that is genuinely accessible, affordable and reliable. The Government must also be guided by their mission of ensuring that every child has the best start in life. That mission cannot be confined to a single department or a handful of policies. It must run like a thread through Government Departments and be hardwired into how we set priorities and deliver change. Labour values must underpin everything we do.

Extending the £3 bus fare cap to school routes is one practical way that the Government can ease the everyday struggles that parents face and make family life that little bit easier. This simple but impactful measure would reduce the cost of getting children to school, particularly for families with multiple children, and free up parents who would otherwise drive as part of the school run. It would mean lower costs for working families and less pressure on parents juggling a daily mountain of responsibilities. That also lines up closely with the Minister’s ambition to get more people out of polluting cars and into public transport, which I am keen to support.

I recognise that putting more money in the pockets of working people requires broader change, but measures such as extending the bus fare cap to school routes could make a tangible difference to day-to-day life while building a fairer and more accessible transport system for everyone. I therefore urge the Minister to consider new clause 21 seriously and to see how the Government can address the unfair anomaly on school-only bus travel. \p James MacCleary: Day in, day out, I hear from people across my constituency—from Polegate to Plumpton—who want to use the bus but simply cannot do so. People must be at the heart of transport policy, so let me begin with one example from my constituency. I recently heard from a woman in Wilmington village who wants to get to her job in Lewes by bus but cannot do so at present. To do so, she must travel in the wrong direction to Polegate, wait, then take a slow service through multiple villages. What would be a 15-minute drive becomes an hour or more on the bus, so she drives. That is not a lifestyle choice; it is a failure of network design. This Bill could give us the tools to put that right, if we use them properly.

The A27 in my constituency desperately needs a direct service between Eastbourne and Lewes, and we must make that happen. The stops are on the road; there is just no bus to serve them. That is exactly why I support amendment 2, on socially necessary routes, so that journeys to work, schools and health services are  guaranteed, even when the market will not deliver. Franchising powers in the Bill mean that our local transport authority could finally design services around what people need, not what happens to be commercially convenient. The new duty to provide socially necessary routes must make that real. Our amendments would ensure that if the market will not deliver, the authority must step in and be properly funded to do so. The A27 express should be at the top of that list.

I recently heard from a young lady in Stone Cross in my constituency who tries to get to college. Buses fail to appear—one recently sailed by her when she was waiting—and that means lost education time. The powers in the Bill on performance, data and enforcement must bite. We must publish stop-level reliability and give local transport authorities the lever to withhold payment for no-shows and require operator recovery plans. We must also back our “headphone dodgers” amendment, so that authorities can make byelaws against sustained antisocial noise. Safe, civil journeys retain passengers.

Much like the case in Stone Cross, I see the same story repeated in the village of Ringmer. An 85-year-old constituent depends on the bus to reach the Tesco in Lewes, yet sometimes it never arrives, and at other times the driver simply drives on by. That is not a public service; it is a gamble. If people are to use these services, they must be able to rely on them. That is why I back amendment 11, on accessible stopping places and reliability. We must ensure that information is clear, that drivers are trained and that passengers are not left stranded. Rural villages across my constituency send the same message: they have gaps, long waits, and first and last buses that do not work for people’s real lives.

Community transport services are a lifeline in rural areas where commercial routes do not run. In my constituency, volunteer-led Cuckmere Buses and CTLA keep people connected. The Sussex Art Shuttle, run by Cuckmere Buses, shows how small, community-driven transport projects can open up access and enrich local lives. These schemes run on tight budgets and good will, yet they deliver where the market will not. Amendment 9 would recognise their value and ensure that funding streams work for them, not against them.

There is also the Flexibus scheme, a forward-thinking initiative from East Sussex county council showing how a local authority can take control and fill the gaps left by traditional services. With booking available by app or phone, it is a practical, people-centred service that makes rural transport work for many. New clause 8, on VAT rules for demand-responsive services, would make it easier for such schemes, allowing councils to innovate locally and deliver real solutions for communities.

Sadly, in Lewes we have lost our bus station. Years of campaigning could not save it. The result is an interchange tacked on to the Phoenix Causeway bridge—busy, exposed and in the wrong place. It is not possible to grow ridership while dismantling the places where people change buses. We should give local transport authorities explicit powers, duties and funding to safeguard and replace our interchanges as part of franchising schemes. That is why new clause 5, on accessibility reports so that bus stations and interchanges are explicitly safeguarded and properly planned, is so important.

The upcoming Budget must unlock much-needed funding for major roads that are congested and therefore delay bus service. I have raised the A259 in my constituency  directly with the Prime Minister in this place. It is a vicious cycle: congestion holds back buses, people turn back to cars, and traffic gets worse. Better buses mean fewer cars, and a transition to a zero emissions fleet must be central to how we plan for the future.

Affordability underpins all of this. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 1 would restore the £2 fare cap, which worked well; it put money back in pockets and passengers back on seats. Lifting it is a bus tax on work, study and care. Our new clause would restore the cap and require a formal assessment of the impact of hikes. We go further: new clause 9 would provide free travel for those on carer’s allowance, and new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), would remove time restrictions for disabled concessionary passes. This Bill will be judged not by what it promises on paper, but whether it delivers for people who wait at the bus stop, and I hope this Government will deliver that. \p Marie Tidball: I rise to speak to new clause 2, which covers issues of accessibility. My older, younger and disabled constituents often tell me that they are left stranded, enduring painfully long waiting times due to unreliable bus services, and facing distressing situations such as toileting issues, missed NHS appointments or arriving late at school. This is the reality of failed bus services faced by many constituents across my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency as a result of the Conservative legacy. This is unacceptable, as I mentioned on Second Reading, when Reform MPs could not even be bothered to show up—where are they today?

When I was growing up, our South Yorkshire transport system was the envy of the world, but 14 years of the Conservatives’ north-south transport divide and their broken promises of a London-style transport system for South Yorkshire in reality meant that my constituency lost 53% of its bus services, with a paltry 38% spent per head on our doorstep compared with London. And the SL1 tram link bus was scrapped, leaving many of my constituents unable to continue to work or to go to college in Sheffield.

Our local communities have helped build the prosperity of this great nation. From the speciality steelworks in Stocksbridge and the farmers across Penistone, to the advanced manufacturing sites across Chapeltown, my constituents are among the hardest working people we could ever meet. \p Alison Griffiths: The hon. Lady and I share a huge concern for ensuring access to all types of transport, including buses, for the disabled of every kind. Does she agree that the strike in London, which is crippling transport services, is causing greater harm to the disabled community here than in any other part of the country? \p Marie Tidball: The accessibility plans that this Bill will now put in place will dramatically improve the accessibility of bus networks up and down this country.

My constituents have the potential to be the beating heart of British growth, with good, well-connected public transport that unleashes their potential. Our Labour Government have already begun to power this change for transport. South Yorkshire is already set to benefit from £1.5 billion of extra transport funding under this  Government, adding £20 billion to our regional economy. I am proud to support the Bill, which will finally end the Tories’ postcode lottery of bus services and will save and create vital bus routes by supporting every community to take back control of our bus network. Through new powers to set routes, fares and services, communities will finally have a proper say in the essential services that they rely on, instead of routes and fares being left to the whim of unaccountable private operators.

Transport inequality leads to health inequality too, which is why it is fantastic that as a result of the work done in the Lords, the Bill will also require local transport authorities—as I said to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths)—to produce bus network accessibility plans. Furthermore, driver disability awareness training will become mandatory for the first time.

As a result of the measures in the Bill, our Labour South Yorkshire mayor, Oliver Coppard, will be further empowered to take back control of our buses with franchising. Securing the reintroduction of the SL1 tram link bus in my constituency is my top priority as part of that scheme. So, too, are vital improvements to the No. 21 bus serving Penistone, Dodworth and surrounding rural villages, which are some of the worst served by poor bus routes in the country, after a decade and a half of Tory transport inequality.

In my constituency, I have already been cracking on to deliver better buses, helping my older and disabled constituents. Last month, I launched the beautiful new No. 35 hopper bus, the Little Don circular around Stocksbridge and Deepcar. The vital No. 34 extension bus connects the village of Bolsterstone for the first time in a decade. My constituents have described the new services as “a thrilling improvement to” their “quality of life” and a lifeline that has enabled them

“to cope with life’s necessities, not stranded and dependent on others”.

But I do not want to stop there. I want to work with the Government, my constituents and our Labour mayor to look at additional hopper routes around Wharncliffe Side, Oughtibridge and Grenoside to connect to a reinstated SL1 tram link bus. My constituency is the gateway to the Peak District, and I will continue to work with the national park team better to connect local beauty spots such as Langsett with new bus routes.

My constituents are already seeing the benefits of this Government’s choices on transport. The Bill will bring better bus transport closer to home. Equitable access to transport connectivity is the golden thread that weaves our urban and rural communities together, that keeps our families and friendships close, and that ensures that people growing up and growing old in my constituency can fulfil their potential. \p John Milne: I will speak mainly to new clauses 32 and 33 in my name.

There is a lot to like in the Bill, but it is at its weakest where it touches on rural areas. That is a great shame, because if we could solve transport, we could also solve the rural productivity problem. Economic inactivity is nearly two-and-a-half times higher in rural areas than it is in urban areas, and that is directly related to transport  issues. If we could boost rural productivity to urban levels, it would fix the Chancellor’s Budget deficit in one go.

The key freedom that the Bill brings is to support local authorities that want to establish a bus franchise or to set up their own municipal service. If we stand back to look at the scale of the challenge, however, do we really think that that will be enough to reverse the long-term decline in rural areas? The answer must be no. Given how cash-strapped and under-resourced most local authorities are, it is clear that most will be unable to take advantage of that freedom without additional support.

In my previous life as a West Sussex county councillor, I served on a committee considering a bus improvement plan, but the measures we were given to look at were all small and tactical. No one on that committee believed that the plan would change the curve. Too many local authorities long ago surrendered to a tacit acceptance of managed decline. That has to change—hence my new clause 33, which would set out a new duty actively to promote and increase bus usage.

The key paradox that must be solved is why, if public demand for bus services is so high, usage is always dropping. Clearly, price is one issue, but the service has also become increasingly mismatched with local need. In West Sussex, a 2021 survey found that 80% of residents had stopped using buses because of a lack of a suitable route or infrequency of service—that is a huge percentage of the potential market to give away. The problem, especially in rural areas, is that what we have left today is a legacy service—the ghostly outline of routes and frequencies that existed years ago. We have fought a long defensive war of attrition, and we have been losing. Individual routes have been salami-sliced to destruction. That is why I have tabled new clause 32 to require local authorities to consult in advance on significant service changes.

In my constituency of Horsham, residents of Partridge Green discovered they were losing their direct No. 17 service to town only when they saw the new timetable. In Slinfold, the No. 63 was removed altogether, also without any warning. The county council says that the changes are nothing to do with them, and they are the responsibility of the commercial operator, but the operator says that they are up to the council. There is simply no one left at the wheel of our local bus service.

When I looked at the huge public reaction as villagers fought to save their services after the axe had already fallen, I could not help but wonder what might have been. What might have happened if we could have harnessed that enthusiasm to create a service that met people’s transport needs? We have been beaten down, over many years, into accepting that it is impossible to fix the problem, yet Switzerland, Austria and Germany, in areas with far lower population densities than many areas of the UK, are providing all-day, every-hour services, seven days a week. We can do that too, if we have the will.

It is good to see bus services getting legislative attention, and I appreciate that, but I hope that the Government do not think that this Bill will be nearly enough by itself. I urge the Government to make a special study of the  needs of rural areas, which have been a recurring theme during the debate, and work out what it would take to genuinely reverse decline. \p Peter Prinsley: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I support new clause 22, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who is temporarily not in his place. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.

What Members notice when they come to London from rural constituencies, such as my constituency in Suffolk, are all the red buses, all over the place. Routes run from early in the morning until late into the evening, in no small part because of the years of excellent Labour administration that Londoners have enjoyed. Out in Suffolk, we certainly do not have a fully integrated bus service. For a start, there are simply not enough buses. From 2010, a decade of declining public funding left the interwoven jumble of local bus maps looking decisively threadbare. From 2018 to 2024, 18% of bus services in my county council area simply vanished.

In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I have been supporting residents fighting to save local bus routes, and I am sure that many hon. Members will have been doing exactly the same in their areas. In Bury St Edmunds, we managed to get the 73 and 73A bus routes retained, which are essential for getting children to school at the Thurston community college. At Marham Park, where residents were in danger of being fully cut off, we did the same, thanks to £8 million of funding from the Government. In the years to come, we will further undo the loss of bus services: some 17 new or improved bus routes are rolling out just this month across Suffolk.

If people are lucky enough to live on a route that survived the last 15 years, the problem is that they will be hard pressed to find a bus that goes anywhere after 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Imagine a lady from the village of Honington, in my constituency, who has to attend a 4.30 pm appointment at the West Suffolk hospital about her dodgy knee. The 332 bus runs from Honington to Bury St Edmunds four times a day, so she catches the 2.40 pm bus and arrives in Bury St Edmunds with an hour to spare. She has her appointment and she gets out of the hospital after an hour, so at 5.30 pm she is standing outside the hospital and she cannot get home. She has missed the last bus and she is stuck in Bury St Edmunds. She cannot march 10 miles home, because she has a dodgy knee, and she has no friends, so she gets a taxi. A taxi is £35, but our imaginary lady has no choice—she has to pay that £35.

We capped the cost of a bus fare at £3, but we all know that for lots of real people in rural areas, inadequate bus service means that transport costs easily spiral out of control. That is why we need to critically examine the minimum bus service standards required across communities in England. Many Members have spoken about CPRE, which has mentioned that some countries such as Switzerland legally mandate public transport frequencies for communities of different sizes. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire —who still has not returned to the Chamber—will ensure that progress is made towards undoing some of the inequalities that have built up in transport, and will move us much closer to the unified transport model that we all know we need. \p Vikki Slade: I rise to support amendments that will serve to ensure the most vulnerable and isolated people in our communities are not cut off from employment, health services, education and leisure. I will start with new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who has just returned to the Chamber. That new clause would remove the start time from the use of disabled bus passes. I must declare an interest, as my own son George has one of those passes. It is a crucial element of helping young people with disabilities to gain their independence, and for teenagers and young adults with additional needs, it is a far more cost-effective option for accessing college and school than providing costly and isolating taxis.

The bus pass that George and many of his classmates hold cannot be used on the way to school—in our case, that is two buses and two fares—but can be used on the return journey. While that causes frustration to parents such as me, for others, it is completely unaffordable. It forces many of them to use the offered council taxis, which are crippling councils. For those who are able to drive, blue badges are not time-restricted; why should those on a bus pass be discriminated against? We know that people with disabilities are less likely to be in employment, so anything that reduces barriers to work should be grasped by this Government. When this issue was raised in an Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the Minister pointed to the cost, but as the proposal would affect only disabled bus passes and not the whole concessionary bus pass scheme, it would apply to only 10% of passes, so the cost is fairly low.

I turn to Liberal Democrat new clauses 7 and 16, as well as new clause 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), which relate to young people. The very first motion I put to my party conference, back in 2014, proposed extending discounted bus fares for young people. That policy made it into the following Lib Dem manifesto, and has remained in some form ever since. I cited a case then that applies now: that of a young person from Bere Regis who secured an apprenticeship in Bournemouth. They were no longer eligible for a free bus pass to access the college course, because for some reason, when the age of participation was increased, the age of bus travel was not. They had to take several buses each day to access their job. The cost of doing so took up such a large proportion of their income, and the service to their village was so poor, that they had to give up their apprenticeship.

If we are to make bus services sustainable into the future, they need to be a genuine choice for young people: an alternative to buying a car or a motorbike. If we are to deal with congestion and air quality and reach our net zero targets, we need public transport to be a real option for everyone. Achieving long-term change typically starts with young people. It makes sense—young people are familiar with using buses for school, so extending discounts so that they have them available as they start in the world of work or higher education is most likely to deliver the long-term change that we need. Students from the Purbeck school and Magna academy have all written to me confused about why they were not eligible for discounted bus fares, even though they were now expected to stay at school.  This policy feels like a clear oversight from a previous Government, and one that could be easily fixed by this Government.

I also support my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), who has proposed a cap extension for school services. Not extending the cap to those services is incredibly unfair. I have also been lobbied on the issue, particularly by families living in Merley, who are just about within the three-mile window.

During my village tour in the summer—whether I was in Bere Regis, Gaunt’s Common, Shapwick or Hinton Martell—the No. 1 issue that came up was buses. Communities that are cut off from bus services cannot thrive, so I welcome amendments 6, 7, 28 and 29 and new clauses 4 and 15, which would ensure that such communities are considered and—whether it be via commercial services or community minibuses—that small villages are not cut off. It seems ironic that British people always use the phrase, “You wait for a bus and then two come along at once.” For thousands of my constituents in Mid Dorset and North Poole villages, just one every so often would be nice. \p Alex Mayer: My amendment 66 and new clause 46 are not intended to change Government policy, nor to bind the hands of locally elected mayors or transport authorities—quite the opposite. Amendment 66, which my hon Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, talked about some considerable time ago, would require local transport authorities to set out a clear, transparent formula for calculating whether a service is socially necessary and then to use that formula in deciding how funding is allocated. That reflects recommendation 53 in the Transport Committee’s “Buses connecting communities” report.

Amendment 66 would purposefully give local leaders flexibility to create their own formula, because the Minister is right that priorities will differ from place to place. The amendment would not be a diktat from Whitehall, but a window into decision making, for the first time allowing residents to see what is being prioritised and why. The amendment would make it clear where the cut-off point for taxpayer support lies when resources are scarce. It could also empower local communities. For example, if one criterion in the formula was usage, passengers or would-be passengers could rally together, use a bus and protect it by using it more.

More importantly, the amendment would stop supported services lists from stagnating. As a new development springs up, its needs might then be included. The amendment would curb the risk that the loudest voices secure the best buses. We would have service design and funding guided not by noise, but by numbers. I very much welcome the Minister’s assurance that socially necessary local service guidance will ask local authorities to publish a description of the methodology used, but given that he now accepts the principle, I see no reason why we should not put it in the Bill to future-proof this concept.

New clause 46, which I also tabled, relates to a growth duty. I want to give local leaders the tools they need to do the job. As I have said before in this place, it is wrong to pigeonhole local transport authorities as the place of sticking-plaster solutions. Success lies in active  local leaders embracing a network-wide approach. That will inevitably mean tough decisions and trade-offs. It will sometimes mean the choice to enhance one route over supporting another, such as by increasing the frequency of a well-used existing service, extending the operating hours of a commercially viable bus or adding some extra stops at either end of a route. Given that we are about to have in primary legislation more obligations on socially necessary services, we should balance that with a duty in legislation for the LTA to consider using some public money to grow and improve its existing local bus services, because in the round that is the way we get better buses.

The Minister has suggested that new BSIP guidance will address those points, but I gently say that BSIP guidance can change. The original 2021 bus service improvement plan mechanism was specifically not about supporting existing routes, and then there was an about-turn in 2023 with BSIP+. Legislation, not guidance, should support local leaders to make the call on service enhancements and provide the ability to try new and innovative approaches when the goal is to grow passenger numbers. After all, growing passenger numbers is ingrained in the national bus strategy, and I was pleased that the Minister mentioned it in the first part of his opening remarks.

I welcome the Minister’s constructive engagement as we have discussed setting standards to increase ridership through statutory guidance on stopping places. We have also discussed franchising guidance and being clear that it is not enough just to consult current passengers—we need would-be passengers, too. After all, we need more people on buses, and everything we do has to be about encouraging more passengers. More farebox means better services overall. On that note, I thank Grant Palmer for what it did in Dunstable recently, and I also thank the Dawsongroup for bringing a bus to Parliament as part of Catch the Bus Month. This September, I wish all Members and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy Catch the Bus Month. \p Liz Jarvis: Two weeks ago, the No. 61 bus made its final journey—yet another bus service my constituents relied on has been lost, with no apparent thought given to how people are supposed to get to work, school, college or hospital appointments, or simply from A to B. The withdrawal of the 61, which took residents directly to Winchester hospital, will make life significantly harder for many of my constituents. That is why I support new clause 37, which would guarantee every town a regular bus service to hospitals and GP surgeries, and amendment 2, which would ensure that socially necessary routes include those serving hospitals, schools and colleges.

As well as the 61, we have seen the withdrawal of the 461, the major route that served Peter Symonds college, and the 46, which was an important service for the residents of Valley Park. They were cut because they were not considered commercially viable, but healthcare and education are essential services. No one should be left isolated from a school, college or hospital simply because a bus company cannot turn a profit.

In addition to cuts to bus services, Conservative-controlled Hampshire county council’s decision to withdraw discretionary top-up enhancements to the English national concessionary travel scheme has increased challenges for my disabled constituents. I support new clause 2,  tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), because disabled people must not be unfairly restricted in when they can travel.

The removal of the companion bus pass and the restriction of free travel to between 9.30 am and 11 pm creates fresh barriers for many disabled people, including the 55,100 visually impaired residents in Hampshire. Last month, I visited the Guide Dogs community team centre in Chandler’s Ford, where I spoke to constituents who are deeply worried about the cuts. One told me she now struggles to reach medical appointments, while another, due to her disability, prefers early morning buses to avoid bright sunlight, which causes her severe eye pain. I have been supporting Guide Dogs’ campaign to make sure that people with a visual impairment can travel independently and with confidence.

Many visually impaired constituents understandably require assistance to travel safely, often relying on friends and family to accompany them to work, school and medical appointments. I have heard from constituents that losing access to the companion pass has meant that they are travelling less and resorting to costlier methods of travel, including taxis, to get around. The savings to the council are minimal compared with the cost to my constituents’ quality of life. That is why new clause 2, which would remove time restrictions on disabled concessionary passes, and new clause 9, which would extend free travel to carers, are so important. They would help restore independence and dignity to those who need public transport the most.

I hope the Government will accept the amendments that I have addressed and ensure that socially necessary routes are protected, because my constituents need affordable, reliable buses now. \p Steffan Aquarone: I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the Bill back before the House. Although it does good work, it simply does not go far enough in its ambition or its delivery of the change we need—that is apparent from the number of amendments tabled on Report.

One of the really important amendments for me is new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). I spent the final week in August visiting dozens of North Norfolk’s villages as part of my summer tour. I heard about a huge range of issues, but a consistent theme across my area was frustration with our buses. Shirley and David in Hindringham told me that two buses a day just is not enough to get them to the places they need to go at the times they want to get there. They are right: that is indicative of a system that serves nobody in rural areas like mine.

It is not just anecdotes that back up that feeling; the numbers do, too. Those of us in the east of England get less than half the spend per head on transport as those in London. We accept that the transport system in our capital is different and that, overall, more money ends up being needed to accommodate the millions who need it, but to spend on each individual Londoner more than double the amount that is spent on my residents is patently unfair—and that is before we consider the advantage that urban areas have. They are set up for carrying out public transport. Running a bus network through a busy, well-populated area will always be  easier and cheaper per head than having to dart around country lanes, picking up at small villages a handful of times a day.

I am excited about the prospect of franchising, which could bring real benefits to Norfolk’s bus services. However, rural areas like mine are embarking on the unknown. Franchising has a track record in big cities such as Manchester and London, but how we make it work in other areas with different characteristics remains unknown. That is why new clause 12 is so important. We should not be prescriptive, and nobody wants to force areas into pre-designed templates, but we have to offer them suitable support and off-the-shelf models so that they do not go through it totally alone.

As the Transport Committee, of which I am a member, found in its “Buses connecting communities” inquiry, there is a lot to learn from elsewhere when it comes to running successful bus networks, especially in rural areas. Without providing some of that knowledge in the form of clearly researched and defined transport model options, I worry that we are setting up another postcode lottery, whereby the quality of how these new powers are used depends on whether a transport authority got lucky in trying to make a new scheme work.

I spoke in Committee about how one such model should be a rural bus hub-and-spoke network, which would give the most coverage possible to as many areas as possible. Trying to reach every single village all the time just is not feasible, and we have to accept that. What is feasible is making sure that every village is near to a rural bus hub that is accessible through walking, cycling or a short drive. These hubs, if connected to one another, will finally create a rural network. We have to start challenging old ideas about how rural public transport works, and to be bold in the solutions we take forward.

I am very supportive of new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). To its credit, Norfolk county council has voluntarily expanded the times when people can use a disability bus pass, and I have heard positive testimony of how this has helped many people in my area. People across the country should be able to benefit from that equally, so I hope the Government will support new clause 2 tonight.

I make no apology for constantly banging on about buses. It cannot be beyond us to build a rural bus network that takes people where they want to go, when they want to go there. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking, but I urge them to seize the opportunity before them. They should not let this Bill go through as an unfunded damp squib that creates some new powers, with no help in their delivery. I hope they will take the suggestions of Members on board tonight, and make this the best possible Bill to drive forward the much-needed rural bus revolution. \p Clive Jones: I will speak to new clauses 1 and 2, and amendment 9. This Government are giving more powers to local authorities, such as the franchising of local bus services. They expect councils to fund more bus services, while they undermine and reduce councils’ core funding at the same time. Our amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central Government funding to support franchise schemes. That is essential because, due to the pandemic, bus service usage massively declined in my constituency of Wokingham.

Since then, the Lib Dem-run council has acted to improve local bus services, increasing the frequency of services on key routes. It is now predicted that bus services in Wokingham will recover to pre-pandemic rates. The Lib Dem-run council has done that despite being one of the lowest-funded unitary authorities in the country, but Labour’s new council funding formula will take £47 million away from Wokingham over the next three years. How can the Labour Government expect councils such as Wokingham to improve services and take on the responsibilities created by this Bill without proper support from Government, as is called for in amendment 3?

I wholeheartedly support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), which proposes that time restrictions be removed from disabled people’s concessionary passes. That would be widely welcomed by many of my constituents.

I also support new clause 1, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would restore the £2 fare cap. That would help younger and older constituents in my Wokingham constituency. \p Charlie Maynard: There is a lot to welcome in the Bill, and I support the overarching aim. However, there are several important details that very much concern small operators and community transport providers in my Witney constituency, and I shall speak on their behalf. They include West Oxfordshire Community Transport, including Andrew Coles, Andrew Lyon and their team, and David Miles and Amanda, who have done so much to get the First & Last Mile moving.

My fear is that the franchising frameworks and new training requirements stipulated in the Bill will squeeze out community operators and that the social and economic cost will be severe, particularly in rural areas where mainstream operators have withdrawn. Section 22 community bus permit holders, who provide transport on a not-for-profit basis without the need for a full public service vehicle operator licence, ensure a service in communities that would otherwise be completely unserved. The Bill currently does not recognise this category at all. That raises a couple of worries.

One particular worry is that the new driver safeguarding and training requirements could become unworkable for small fleets. The Bill’s provisions do not clearly differentiate between private hire vehicles—dedicated school buses—and public service buses which may sometimes carry schoolchildren as part of the general route. In practice, that means that every driver would need full safeguarding training, regardless of the service they normally operate.

For larger companies that would be manageable, but for small operators with mixed or volunteer drivers, such as West Oxfordshire Community Transport and First & Last, the infrastructure to train and certify every single driver at short notice simply does not exist. Community bus services already provide some training for their drivers, volunteers and employees, but we are seeking proportionate requirements for drivers and transitional support to help small operators to meet new reporting and training burdens.

Another real threat for community operators is around franchising and tendering. Small and community operators risk being locked out of very complex bidding processes and a lack of guaranteed inclusion in them. Competing for franchise contracts demands administrative and legal capacity well beyond what a volunteer-led organisation can manage. What is needed to address that is explicit protection for community operators within franchising models.

There is much to welcome in the Bill, but I say again that there is a risk of some unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to look into them. \p Caroline Voaden: Over the summer recess, I held surgeries in 52 towns and villages across my constituency and an issue that came up again and again and again was buses, or rather the lack of them. Many communities in my rural constituency are now effectively cut off. Some have just one or two buses a day, but others, such as Bigbury, St Ann’s Chapel and Ringmore, have no service at all. Since 2015, bus journeys in Devon have fallen by 40%. Under the previous Conservative Government, services were cut, scaled back or made so unreliable that they are no longer usable. I do not think it is a coincidence that not a single Conservative Back Bencher is in the House to talk about the state of our bus services.

Since the election last year, the cuts have continued. The Gold bus, which goes from Plymouth and Torbay and is a vital connection for lots of rural communities between larger economic centres, has been downgraded this month. This is not just about inconvenience; it is about opportunity or the lack of it. Buses connect people to jobs, education, healthcare and each other. Without a convenient, frequent and affordable service, people of all ages are being left behind. In some areas, the last bus leaves before the working day ends, stranding carers, hospitality workers and students, and stifling our visitor economies. That is why I support amendments 2, 5 and 6, which require local transport authorities to identify socially necessary routes and ensure service provision where commercial services are unable to meet demand.

Transport planning must reflect the reality of people’s daily lives, and access to healthcare and education should not be dictated by commercial viability. Devon has the largest county road network in the country, but only seven commercially viable routes. We need more buses, not fewer, to encourage more regular usage—it becomes a virtuous circle.

Public transport plays a crucial role in ironing out inequalities. In a session on child poverty this morning in this place, transport came up several times as an element that is contributing to child poverty levels. When I visit schools and colleges, I regularly hear about the prohibitive cost of public transport. Even just a few pounds for a journey is a significant amount for a student and hits disadvantaged students the hardest. This is why I support new clauses 6 and 17 to offer discounts for under-25s and those in post-16 education, to ensure that transport is not a barrier to education or employment.

Another issue affecting residents in my constituency is the postcode lottery on concessionary bus passes. In Devon and Torbay, as many others have said, usage is restricted to after 9.30 am on weekdays, which means that residents may not be able to attend early medical  appointments or get to work on time. As this Government are keen to encourage disabled people back into the workplace, that must be looked at.

Devon county council tells me that the revenue support grant mechanism provided by central Government has fallen substantially since it was introduced, to the point that the scheme is now primarily financially supported through councils’ own revenue budgets. Concessionary travel in the Devon county council area is expected to cost nearly £8 million this financial year, while the cost of offering pre-9.30 am travel to all passholders is estimated to be £2 million per annum. I am really proud to support new clause 2, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), which would remove time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, but local authorities must be properly funded for it.

In the face of all the challenges, local people are stepping up, and I would like to highlight the incredible community-run services we have in South Devon, including Bob the Bus, the West Dart bus and the Coleridge bus—groups helping to fight rural isolation, reducing loneliness and providing a vital lifeline to those who would otherwise be cut off. These services are under growing pressure. Small transport operators should be prioritised for grants from local transport authorities, ensuring that they can continue to support those who rely on their services. I therefore support amendment 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), whose work on the Bill I commend.

Public transport in rural communities is a basic service, but right now, in far too many parts of South Devon, it simply does not exist. While I support the many positive measures in the Bill, we must go further to fully address the needs of rural areas and ensure that no community is cut off. Decent public transport alleviates poverty, reduces the number of cars on the road and enables the young, the elderly and those who cannot drive or afford a car to participate fully in the economic and social life of their communities. It does require serious investment, but the gains to be had from this financial commitment are exponential.

The previous Government wasted £2.5 billion on the cancelled leg of High Speed 2, which is almost enough to fund a service to every village every hour of every day across England—imagine the transformational power of that if the right choices were made. \p Siân Berry: I thank my fellow members and the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee for the work they did; I felt work on the Committee was very constructive from the different Opposition Members. It followed some very constructive amendments that were made and agreed in the other place, too, including on villages and vision zero for road danger. I was sad to see so many good ideas defeated and removed in Committee. I think this issue crosses party boundaries; it should be about practicalities, not party politics.

On road danger, I am pleased to have tabled new clauses 41, 42 and 43, with support from members of the RMT, which seek to improve safety through driver support and wellbeing. These measures are all necessary to achieve vision zero for road danger for our buses.

I am full of support for new clause 2 and other measures that seek to remove time restrictions on concessionary bus passes. Having these time restrictions  is a major disincentive to working. The Government cannot keep dodging this contradiction in their stated policies, and must act to enable disabled people’s mobility and enact real equality.

Young people, too, have received attention with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and in Liberal Democrat measures. I myself have tabled new clause 44, which seeks simply to enact a policy that is already in place in Scotland in order to give free bus travel to anyone under the age of 22.

Today, however, I want to advocate mainly for clean air, as the promoter of the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—Ella’s law—and for toilet access to be taken seriously by Government in relation to buses. My amendments 62 and 64 would help to fix those policy gaps. The clauses in the Bill on zero emission buses seem to block the highest ambition by not setting the earliest date for a mandate on new procurement of zero emission buses until 2030. That is a really long time still to be buying dirty, diesel-powered buses. It is extremely poor when dirty air is a killer, and when in certain streets and hotspots—often where the least advantaged live—cleaner buses can make a real difference and it is in the gift of public authorities to deal with it. I believe that the Mayor of London and Transport for London began procuring zero emission buses only as long ago as 2021. Given that some London routes are very long indeed, such buses could be introduced in other areas much sooner. With the right help and investment, the infrastructure could be built and good, green jobs could be filled, as implied by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). I have yet to hear good reasons from Ministers why the clause is so tragically unenterprising.

Another vital issue of equality is ensuring that access to toilets features in local transport plans for bus infrastructure and facilities. This is the ideal time for me to be talking about this topic; I apologise to Members who have also been in the debate for a while. As Age UK said in January in its delightfully named “Lifting the lid” report, for older people, those with health conditions and many others, the availability of public toilets can determine whether they feel able to leave their homes. It is basic equality of mobility.

My Green colleagues on the London Assembly are famously very persuasive. Working with groups including Age UK, they have gained consensus and won investment, and targets have been set for toilet access on the tube network—toilets should be no more than 20 minutes of travel time away. The Minister talked about creating more accessible stopping places. That kind of standard access to essential toilet facilities on bus routes would enable mobility, and it is so achievable. I hope that Ministers will listen and take these proposals forward in their work. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Jerome Mayhew: 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. \p Paul Kohler: Does the shadow Minister accept that I made the point to him in Committee that he was being too narrowly lawyerly? Does he also accept that when I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, the Conservative Benches jeered almost unanimously on this point? \p Jerome Mayhew: I stand corrected, in the sense that I have listened to the hon. Member and, on reflection, I accept that I was making perhaps too legalistic a point. If by adding “sustained antisocial auditory disturbance” to the definition of nuisance we can make what is an implied power an express one, I am happy to support that. As for the jeering, perhaps my hon. Friends were cheering—who knows? \p Tom Gordon: rose— \p Jerome Mayhew: On that point, I will give way. \p Tom Gordon: The shadow Minister mentioned how the Conservative party came to change its view on my hon. Friend’s amendment on audible noises. One thing that has not come up during the debate is his party’s position on new clause 2, which would extend concessionary bus passes. Given that the argument is an economic one and his party wants to see disabled people getting to work, will he support that tonight? \p Jerome Mayhew: 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. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he is approaching the debate. Local authorities all over England are letting contracts every single day, and all manner of contracts could go wrong. What is peculiar about this power that means there is a risk of bankruptcy? \p Jerome Mayhew: I am sorry that the hon. Member was not in his place throughout the course of the debate, as he would have heard that a franchise is not a normal contract. Under an enhanced partnership or a standard operating contract, that is exactly so: a contract is let and the commercial risk lies with the provider. The challenge with franchising is that the commercial risk is transferred 100% to the taxpayer, because the local transport authority is no longer letting a commercial contract; it is buying in services for a price, with the commercial risk lying with the taxpayer. That is the crucial difference. I am glad that the hon. Member put his finger on that, because I am as worried as he is about it.

Finally, I will mention the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We do not agree on many issues, but I do agree with her on this. She said that a lot of good amendments were tabled by Opposition parties—certainly three parties; there were sadly none from Reform, which would not know a transport policy if one got up and slapped it in the face. The hon. Lady came up with some good ideas, and even the Liberal Democrats came up with something or other. As for the Conservatives, we came up with good idea after good idea, yet until now they have all been rejected by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to his concession on all those good ideas. \p Simon Lightwood: With the leave of the House, I thank those who have contributed to today’s debate. I have carefully listened to the points raised. The breadth of interest shows that although we may not agree on the approach, we share an ambition to improve buses for all passengers.

As I have mentioned throughout the passage of the Bill, this Government strongly believe that local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their local communities; they know and understand their areas’ specific needs and have a direct relationship with their communities. We do not want to increase the number of burdens on them. We must trust the local areas that we are empowering to take the right decisions for local people.

Even though I recognise the importance of ensuring that there is full accountability, there are a large number of amendments that do not align with that core principle and that would actually increase the burdens on local transport authorities. Amendments have also been proposed today that would take away key funding decisions from local areas, requiring them to fund specific parts of the bus services in their area without considering the possible negative consequences that will undoubtedly arise for others. As I have mentioned, this Government seek to provide greater flexibility in how a local area uses its bus grant. Local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their communities and we must trust them to do that.

I will respond to several points raised by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). On the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, despite what the Conservative party claims, franchising was delivered on time and on budget there, and that is despite the overly complex process that they had to go through because of the previous Government’s Bus Services Act 2017. We are correcting the mistakes of that legislation, cutting red tape and making the process more efficient. \p Jerome Mayhew: I hope that the Minister is not misleading the House inadvertently. Although he is right that it was delivered on time and on budget—it was about £156 million—it is argued that the subsequent year of operation had a deficit of about £236 million. Even though it may have been delivered on time and on budget, it has been in a terrible deficit ever since and is on strike now. \p Simon Lightwood: I am afraid that we have been around this roundabout quite a few times. I neither recognise nor agree with those figures. We would have thought that the Conservatives, as the party that gave Greater Manchester the power to franchise buses, would be more supportive of one of the few positive things that they did in government. If the Conservative party thought it was so important, why did it not do something about it while in office?

I also remind the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), that he was literally the buses Minister. Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government of the 1980s who deregulated buses outside London, which led to services being cut, fares going up and patronage going down. This Labour Government are reversing decades of decline in bus services. \p Richard Holden: The Minister should see how committed we were in office, because I gave more than a billion pounds to Manchester for that scheme and for setting it up. Indeed, the National Audit Office recently praised our £2 bus fare scheme, saying it

“achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage.” \p Simon Lightwood: I would not stand there so proud of overseeing 300,000 miles fewer travelled by buses under the Conservative party.

Moving to the matter of concessionary travel, let me begin by recognising the strength of support for new clause 2 in the party of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). Although the intention of that amendment and others on concessionary travel is understandable, the ENCTS costs around £700 million annually, so any extension of statutory entitlements must be carefully considered to ensure financial sustainability.

Having received a good outcome from the bus funding in this spending round, we will shortly make a multi-year allocation to local authorities to support bus services locally. The multi-year nature of these allocations will enable local authorities to plan their bus services with greater certainty and negotiate the best value provision from bus operators. Local authorities already have the power to offer additional concessions beyond the statutory scheme funded locally. For example, in the year ending March 2025, 66% of travel concession authorities offered concessionary travel to companions of disabled people. I would also note that a review of the ENCTS was conducted under the previous Government in 2024, including consideration of travel times, and we are currently reviewing this for next steps.

On the matter of travel for police officers, many operators already offer free travel to police officers. We are discussing with the industry how we can build on that offer and increase awareness, given the importance of safety on buses. This work is being led by the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) to discuss that further. \p Julian Lewis: It is good news that 66% of local authorities recognise the importance of companion bus passes for those disabled people who cannot otherwise use a bus, but given the lack of logic of giving somebody a pass that they cannot use, is this not one of those cases that ought to be taken away from discretion and simply added to statute as a matter of common sense? \p Simon Lightwood: We believe in passing the power and the funding down to local areas to make these decisions. A multi-year funding settlement has been reached and details of that will be provided to local authorities in due course. They already have the power and they will have the funding and the ability to do just that.

I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling amendment 58. The Bill seeks to remove the existing requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process.  This is a purely administrative step and has no effect. It occurs before a franchising assessment has been produced, so the Secretary of State has no evidence at all on whether to support or block a move towards franchising. The Bill’s purpose is to help streamline and simplify bus franchising and, in turn, open up the option of bus franchising to all local transport authorities. Clause 1 is consistent with that aim. It puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field and will speed up the process for those authorities pursuing bus franchising. For this reason, I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

I will now address amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and amendment 59 from the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham together. I am aware of the recent campaign by the hon. Member for Wimbledon regarding noise nuisance on the bus network, and I can confirm that the Government are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour on buses, including headphone dodging. In Committee, I outlined the existing regulations in place, which set out the behaviour expected of drivers and passengers travelling on buses, so I will not repeat them here.

Further to those existing powers, clause 28 of the Bill provides scope to tackle a broad range of antisocial behaviours, and that could include making byelaws to tackle disruptive forms of behaviour. Of course, Conservatives Members would know this if they had bothered to read the Bill, but they obviously had not noticed this when they were talking to the press about headphone dodging. As such, these amendments are not necessary and I would ask right hon. and hon. Members not to press them.

I move next to the issue of fare caps. The previous Government left no funding to maintain any form of cap beyond 2024. We stepped in with a £3 cap to avoid a cliff edge and to ensure that fares remained affordable. The fare cap captures around one fifth of bus fares. This reflects passengers’ use of other forms of ticketing, such as a weekly season ticket. As a result of the recent spending review, funding has been secured so that authorities can provide targeted interventions if they so choose. School-only services were fully considered when designing the £3 fare cap scheme, and it was determined that they should not be included.

On amendment 23, the Bill introduces socially necessary local services as a measure. The £2 fare cap ended in December 2024 prior to this measure coming into force. The expectation is that it will take some time for local transport authorities to identify socially necessary local services in their areas. An evaluation of the £2 fare cap has already been published by the Department for Transport. It looked at the first 10 months of the previous fare cap. Evidence suggested that the scheme delivered low value for money. \p Tom Gordon: The Minister made an interesting point earlier about allowing local transport authorities and mayors to make decisions when it comes to buses. Why does he think that a national mandatory bus fare cap should apply but not a national mandate allowing access for disability passes? Why is it that some decisions should be taken locally and others nationally, and how does he reconcile those differences? \p Simon Lightwood: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The national fare cap has been successful. We continued to expand it to ensure that it was affordable across the board. I hear what he says, but I go back to my points: we were giving local areas the power to do exactly what he is talking about.

We are undertaking an evaluation of the £3 bus fare cap. The outcomes will be known in the coming year. I hope hon. Members will withdraw the amendments. \p Oliver Ryan: Does the Minister agree that the £3 fare cap is an essential lifeline for people taking the bus from Burnley to Blackburn hospital, which was a service that I managed to secure through work with local transit companies and Lancashire county council? \p Simon Lightwood: I completely agree, and unlike the Conservatives, we actually got it funded.

I thank hon. Members for the new clauses and amendments on the provision of socially necessary services. Clause 14 requires areas with enhanced partnership schemes to specify a process that will apply when a local transport authority wants to change or cancel a socially necessary local service. In franchising areas, existing legislation and measures contained in the Bill set out a detailed procedure governing changes to a franchising scheme. That includes changes to services specified in a scheme. Careful consideration has been given to the Bill’s measures, ensuring that there is an appropriate balance between consultation and burdens being placed on local transport authorities. The consultation requirement proposed by new clause 32 would be duplicative.

On amendment 2, when the Bill was debated in the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail made a statement to the House to officially confirm that medical and educational establishments come within the definition of essential goods and services. My Department is also producing bespoke guidance for LTAs, which will emphasise that point.

The desired effect of amendment 5 is already sufficiently covered by the Transport Act 2000. On amendment 6, following the spending review settlement, LTAs will be allocated a significant amount of support through the bus fund to decide where they can invest in their services. My Department has committed to ensuring that funding is fairly allocated. The amendment runs contrary to the Government’s aims. Amendment 7 is contrary to the Government’s view that local leaders are best placed to make decisions on how they spend their funding. Restricting the range of choices for how a local authority does that would therefore go against the spirit of the Bill.

On amendment 8, the Department already publishes bus data through the bus open data service. That provides timetable, bus location and fares data for local bus services across England. The Department also publishes bus statistics through gov.uk. The majority of the statistics are updated annually, with information on bus fares made available quarterly. Providing further information directly to Parliament is therefore not necessary.

Amendment 60 would create practical challenges and may not provide the benefits the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is seeking. The needs of communities evolve over time. Services that previously ran may have been integrated into other bus networks  through changes intended to make the bus route better reflect current needs. I also note that the amendment does not work because an operator cannot amend or cancel an already cancelled service. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask hon. Members to withdraw those amendments.

Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), with the support of the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), would include training on domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, in the mandatory training for bus staff on crime and antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for Wimbledon tabled the same amendment in Committee. In Committee, I said that clause 34 captured domestic abuse because it is already a criminal offence. However, I must clarify that there is no specific criminal offence of “domestic abuse”. Under existing legislation, if someone commits a criminal offence and that behaviour also satisfies the definition of domestic abuse under section 1 of the 2021 Act, it is treated as an aggravating factor in the commission of the underlying offence, and that can also be considered during sentencing.

The definition of “abusive behaviour” in the 2021 Act includes physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, and psychological, emotional and other abuse. The measures in the Bill already account for abusive behaviours that are also criminal offences. However, that is unlikely to be the case for parts of the definition from the 2021 Act—namely economic abuse, or psychological and emotional abuse, which may not be criminal offences. Those abusive behaviours are less likely to be apparent, and I do not consider it reasonable to expect bus staff to be able to identify instances of such behaviour in the course of their duties. Should an incident escalate to a criminal offence that would cause a victim or potential victim to fear for their personal safety, it would be covered under the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw amendment 14.

On minimum service levels, I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) for tabling new clauses 22 and 45 respectively, and those who sponsored the new clauses. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley)—I always look forward to her reminder about Sunday services in Shrewsbury, and hope that those days are numbered given the Bill’s progress. The Bill will empower local areas across the country, including by giving them the tools to decide where to run services and their frequency. The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the transport needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts, as set out in the Transport Act 2000. I clarify for the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire that section 108 of that Act requires an LTA to develop policies that meet the transport needs of persons living, working, visiting or travelling in the authority area.

If an area chooses to franchise its bus services, it must consider lots of factors to determine the right level of service needed to support its communities. That level is likely to be different in different areas. Similarly, when an LTA considers an enhanced partnership, a lot of work is undertaken to understand the service level that the local area requires, and it will then work with  operators to investigate how best to proceed. [Interruption.] I believe that I am being hastened on. [Hon. Members: “More!] I have never been so popular.

Finally, let me address the amendments on zero emission buses. In developing the Bill, we have taken into account the need to provide the industry with sufficient notice before the measure comes into effect, and with reassurance that it will not happen suddenly. We have also considered the impact on bus manufacturers. A significantly earlier date could impact on bus operators and passengers. The costs of decarbonising sooner could lead to reduced services, increased fares and an increase in car use. With that, I bring my remarks to an end. I thank Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 38 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”—(Tom Gordon.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Judith Cummins: The result of the Division is as follows: the Ayes were 69, the Noes were 400. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 2 June).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 58, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4).—(Jerome Mayhew.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 364.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 31, page 2, line 27, leave out “relation to”.—(Simon Lightwood.) \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 32, page 7, line 25, leave out “relation to”.

Amendment 33, page 7, line 31, leave out “relation to”. —(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 23, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 35, page 20, leave out lines 20 to 29.

This amendment and Amendments 36 to 45 remove provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Amendment 36, page 20, line 42, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35.

Amendment 37, page 21, line 18, leave out subsections (6) and (7).—(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 38, page 22, line 17, leave out subsection (6).—(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 10, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert

“, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”.—(Mr Kohler.)

This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: 39, page 28, leave out lines 33 to 36.

Amendment 40, page 29, leave out lines 19 to 21.—(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 41, page 31, leave out lines 31 to 34.

Amendment 42, page 32, leave out lines 14 to 16.—(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 43, page 37, leave out lines 31 to 40. —(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 44, page 39, line 19, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 45, page 39, line 40, leave out paragraph (a). —(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 46, page 42, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) Section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland) extends to Scotland only.”—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment is consequential on NC38. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 47, page 43, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) Section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland) comes into force—

(a) for the purposes of making regulations, on the day on which this Act is passed;

(b) for remaining purposes, on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint.”.

This amendment is consequential on NC38.

Amendment 48, page 43, line 13, at end insert—

“(4A) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland).”.

This amendment is consequential on NC38.

Amendment 49, page 43, line 16, at end insert “other”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 48.

Amendment 50, page 43, line 17, at end insert—

“(6) For regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (3A)(b) or (4A), see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (Scottish statutory instruments).” —(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 48 and NC38. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 34, page 44, line 11, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 51, page 49, line 1, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 52, page 51, line 8, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 53, page 51, line 9, at end insert—

“(zi) a variation of additional facilities identified under section 123A(3)(d) in the scheme;

(zii) a variation of the plans for consultation included in the scheme under section 123A(9);”.

This amendment provides for variations of additional facilities identified in a franchising scheme and of plans for consultation included in the scheme to be covered by the variation procedure in Part 3 of new Schedule 9A to the Transport Act 2000.

Amendment 54, page 51, line 11, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 55, page 51, line 13, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 56, page 51, line 15, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 57, page 51, line 21, leave out “12(b)(i),” and insert “12(b)(zii), (i),”.—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment provides for consultation with the Welsh Ministers, local authorities, relevant organisations and the Passengers’ Council in the case of a variation of plans for consultation included in a franchising scheme. \p Stephen Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to report an error in the announcement of the Division results for the first vote this evening, which was on new clause 2. I can confirm that the correct numbers were 69 for the Ayes and 300 for the Noes. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Teller for that point of order and for correcting the record. I hereby direct the Clerks to correct the numbers and confirm that the Ayes were 69 and the Noes were 300.

Third Reading \p Heidi Alexander: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Government believe that reliable, affordable and accessible transport is not simply a luxury to be enjoyed by some, but that it should be everyone’s right to access essential services, travel to work or school, fulfil aspirations and expand horizons. Today we take a step closer to that vision, because after 14 years of failed deregulation, seeing services cut, routes axed and fares rise, we are finally taking our lifeline bus services off of life support. This vital legislation ushers in the biggest change to our buses in a generation. It means improved services for passengers and protection for socially necessary routes. Greener buses will be rolled out faster. Accessibility and safety standards will be raised across the board, and buses will be integrated across local transport so that it is easier and simpler to get around.

Ultimately, this Bill is about where power lies. It transfers control away from private interests and towards the public good, and away from central Government and towards the local leaders who know their areas best. They and they alone will choose how best to meet local transport needs, be it through franchising, enhanced partnerships or locally owned bus companies. My message to the public is simple: buses will get better.

I thank hon. Members for the scrutiny and support they have provided throughout the Bill’s passage. I specifically recognise Opposition Members including the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for holding the Government to account and for their considered questioning. It has been a respectful and constructive process, which I must say has been refreshing.

Many of the measures in the Bill build on the national bus strategy, which I know the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), played a role in implementing, particularly in Greater Manchester. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my  hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for his excellent work and dedication in steering the Bill through the House. I know that the genesis of the Bill stretches back a long time, so I also acknowledge the passion and foresight of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), in making the case for the Bill and her advocacy for a better bus network for all. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to all the parliamentary staff, including the Clerks and Chairs, as well as to my officials, who have worked at pace to help deliver this landmark legislation.

Buses connect us to the things that matter most, yet for too long they have been a symbol of decline. That changes now. After committing substantial funding for bus services, we are now getting on with fundamental reform, fixing the faults of the industry, transferring power to the local level and putting passengers and local communities first. Change is coming to our buses. I commend the Bill to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Richard Holden: What bus passengers really want is reliable, affordable and cheap bus travel on a growing network. That is what was guaranteed under the last Conservative Government’s £2 fare cap. It was a commitment in our manifesto, and one that worked. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may jeer, but the National Audit Office said—they might want to listen—in praise of the DFT that the

“DFT’s £2 bus fare cap achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage”.

That is a policy abandoned by Labour but stood up for by the Conservatives. This Labour Government scrapped it, and they keep on pretending that a 50% increase to £3 is actually beneficial to taxpayers.

There is zero indication of how the Bill will improve passenger numbers or ensure rural coverage. Indeed, the Bill creates an even more fragmented and inconsistent service across the country. Labour has scrapped a national fare cap and failed to replace it properly, and now it expects local councils to pick up the bill without any extra funding. The last Conservative Government delivered real investment for passengers, backing bus services and improvements in the west midlands, and Greater Manchester with £1 billion. I was there with Mayor Burnham, and anyone would think it was all down to him. I am sure Ministers are finding dealing with Andy as interesting as I did. We also did so in West Yorkshire, delivering bus service improvement plans, and working with local authorities to get real results.

The Bill is the opposite of that. It will drown councils in process, drive up costs and threaten rural connectivity while ignoring what passengers really need. Without significant subsidies, councils will naturally prioritise cities and towns over villages, leaving our rural communities even further behind. Just as we have seen in our courts and our prisons, the Government risk creating yet another two-tier system—this time for buses—where city regions are supported and everyone else is simply forgotten. How else to explain forcing operators towards zero emission bus registration without any plans to help make that transition for them?

After hammering rural communities with attacks on family farms, the Government will do exactly the same all over again with reduced services because they are not providing extra funding. To make matters worse, they are undermining the very infrastructure that buses rely on by cutting roads funding in road investment strategy 3 by 13% in real terms and delaying or cancelling critical projects. The Government cannot promise better bus services while cutting the very roads that they and all other users depend on. In tearing up the safeguards around the Secretary of State’s oversight, Ministers are giving councils free rein to set up municipal bus companies without ministerial sign-off or competitive tendering. Let me be absolutely clear: if those companies fail, the responsibility lies squarely with the Secretary of State, with taxpayers left to pick up the Bill.

Moreover, the Bill has completely ignored the shortage of bus and coach drivers across our country. We have called time and again for 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to be allowed to drive buses beyond 50 km a day. Fifteen months ago, the consultation ended. This Government have had 14 months, yet last week, in answer to a written parliamentary question, they said that they are still considering their response to the consultation. It is a straightforward and common-sense change that would help tackle driver shortages, boost businesses and tourism, and get more buses back on our roads. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor have told this House repeatedly that they will pursue growth by any means necessary, yet when an opportunity clearly presents itself, as this has done, they do not seem to want to move at all.

In this week of hugely damaging and disruptive strikes in our nation’s capital—we will see further bus strikes across the country next week—the Government are putting ideology ahead of delivery and siding with the unions over passengers, with a Bill that fails bus users, fails rural communities and fails to guarantee value for taxpayers. That is why we on the Conservative Benches will vote against the Bill tonight, and I urge all hon. Members to do the same. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Paul Kohler: My party supports this Bill. After decades of failure, with the deregulation orchestrated by the Tories, this is clearly a move in the right direction. It is not ambitious enough, and I regret deeply your failure to reinstate the £2 bus fare cap, the failure to remove the time limits on concessionary travel for disabled people and your failure to address— \p Caroline Nokes: The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly used the words “you” and “yours” throughout this afternoon’s proceedings. Please can he do better? \p Paul Kohler: And the Government’s failure to address the awful scourge of headphone dodgers. Most fundamentally, the Bill will not work unless it is properly funded. At the moment it is not, and the Government cannot hide behind localism when it needs proper funding. However, we will support the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 87.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 7 July, be approved.—(Mark Ferguson.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: 7.9 pm \p Robbie Moore: I rise to present a petition to save Keighley Picture House from closure. When Bradford council announced its intention to sell the cinema building, there was deep concern that the Picture House cinema—a key landmark, open since 1913—would close with it, as it was advertised for a redevelopment opportunity. Residents of Keighley deeply value their cultural heritage. This petition, which I launched to make clear to Bradford council people’s deep feeling that selling the building was not an option, has received 5,421 signatures. Losing the Picture House would be another blow to our high street—one that Keighley simply cannot afford.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley

Declares that Keighley Picture House has been part of the town’s heritage since 1913 and must be saved from redevelopment by Bradford Council.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work constructively with Bradford Council and Keighley Town Council to guarantee the future of Keighley Picture House as a cinema and cultural venue for generations to come.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003111] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Ferguson.) \p David Simmonds: This Adjournment debate is on the future of the minor injuries unit at Mount Vernon hospital. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, who, despite representing a Bristol constituency, has a great deal of knowledge of my area having grown up in it, and to the Secretary of State for a number of conversations that have recognised that the loss of such a unit runs contrary to the 10-year plan set out to the House. It would have a much broader impact, beyond the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust, which is the overarching NHS body for both the Mount Vernon hospital and the Hillingdon hospital site to the south.

That is reflected in the fact that more than 20,000 people have signed my petition expressing concern about the loss of the service and calling for an opportunity to think again. I place on record my thanks to the Members of Parliament in a number of neighbouring constituencies who have supported me with that petition and supported their local residents. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is present, has maintained the long tradition of Hillingdon MPs working together on issues that affect their constituencies. My neighbours in Harrow East, Hertsmere, South West Hertfordshire, South Buckinghamshire and Harrow West have all expressed a similar view. They understand the impact that the closure will have on their constituencies. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman, to whom I spoke beforehand. The support for what he is proposing goes much further afield. We recently lost a minor injuries unit in a small town to a centralised urgent care A&E unit. Like him, I urge caution. I am informed that the merging of A&E and urgent care has affected waiting times, with ill teenagers lying in a cold waiting room for upwards of 15 hours. Does he agree that it is imperative that the centralisation of services does not leave worse waiting times and standards of care? That is the very issue that he is referring to. \p David Simmonds: I am grateful to the hon. Member. What he described is similar to the concerns outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and others across the wider area, as well as by many people who have been in touch with me directly.

We know that minor injuries units in general, and the one at Mount Vernon in particular, are valued by people for whom A&E is not always the best place to seek treatment. Many local schools have been in touch to say that if there is an injury during the school day, minor injuries units are the ideal place for a child to get the treatment that they need. For older residents, particularly if they are not in the best of health and perhaps not up to the journey to an A&E department—many of which are under significant pressure—a minor injuries unit is the place to be. I know the Secretary of State and Ministers have responded very positively to the pleas of  a number of Members across the House who have asked for the prospect of a minor injuries unit opening to serve their constituencies as part of the 10-year plan, so to see one lost that is already providing a good service seems to me a great shame.

The Minister will know that the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust has been financially challenged for many years; indeed, during my days as a non-executive director of the Hillingdon primary care trust, in the days of the last Labour Government, the overspend was significant. It is a challenge that has persisted to this day under Governments of all parties, despite numerous initiatives to try to resolve it. That is reflected in the poor state of the main hospital building, which is pending a rebuild. I should declare for the record that my wife is a doctor in that building. I know the Minister and the Government have accepted the programme of works set in place previously, which was granted planning permission by the local authority and announced under the last Government, to provide a new district general hospital at Hillingdon.

I am sure the Minister will know, because of her local knowledge, that we need to recognise that Hillingdon serves Heathrow airport as well as the normal district hospital population. The airport has a very large population of transitory people coming through it, many of whom are taken ill and add to the pressure on A&E. In addition, we have the largest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the country and a significant number of people in immigration detention, pending deportation. This is not just a hospital serving the normal day-to-day needs of the population area; it has particular and unique pressures, and a minor injuries unit is a means of beginning to take off some of that pressure for the benefit of local residents. \p Danny Beales: My constituency neighbour perfectly describes the very difficult situation in Hillingdon inherited by the trust leadership and this Government, such as the hotels opened under the Conservatives putting pressure on the local system. I am pleased that the Government have committed to close hotels across the country and deal with this issue and are reviewing the fair funding of local authorities. That is much overdue in Hillingdon.

The hon. Gentleman describes the situation in Hillingdon hospital, with the need for a rebuild after 14 years with no funding. Again, I am pleased that the Minister, who knows Hillingdon very well—I am sure that did not influence the decision—finally provided the almost £1.4 billion that the hospital needs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those are positive steps forward? I agree that the decision on Mount Vernon hospital is concerning, and I have raised those concerns with the trust’s executive leadership myself. Does he agree that there have been positive steps forward on those long-term issues and that we need to continue to work together to improve neighbourhood healthcare? \p David Simmonds: I am grateful that my constituency neighbour is here. Had he the same degree of history in Hillingdon as myself and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, I am sure he would recall that the hotels were set up and opened as part of a dispersal programme started under the Labour Government in the mid-2000s and led by Andy Burnham, who is now  the Mayor of Greater Manchester. I know that has placed ongoing pressure on the local area, but the number of people put into that initial accommodation who are now stuck locally is very large.

I am sure the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) shares my concern that, under the recent announcements about local authority funding, Hillingdon remains broadly the same as it always has been, but I welcome his commitment to carry on the work started under the previous Government for the rebuild of Hillingdon hospital. I know the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will be very aware that the work undertaken on sewerage and electronics for that new build over the last few years has presented a significant challenge to residents in accessing the hospital—I am sure his constituents complain about it as much as mine have done.

Indeed, the challenges that will come during the rebuilding process of the hospital on what is currently its car park are a further argument for why a minor injuries unit is important in this period. It creates a bit of additional capacity to help with potentially challenging times at A&E and the difficult logistical challenge of accessing a hospital whose car park is already constrained and will be the building site for a new hospital. All those are additional reasons why a minor injuries unit remains important.

It is noteworthy in this context that the move away from an open access unit to appointment-only, which took place following covid, has significantly reduced the footfall at the Mount Vernon unit and has driven up the cost per visit compared with the previous position. This is part of a pattern that we have also seen in the Harrow part of my constituency at the Pinn medical centre, where the loss of a walk-in facility has led to more patients attending the local A&E, to longer waits and, ultimately, to increased cost to the NHS, because A&E attendances are more expensive than nurse-led walk-in services such as that which is available at Mount Vernon.

The Minister knows all this personally. She knows how much value the local community—not just in Hillingdon, not just in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but across north-west London and into neighbouring Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire—places on that service and how often Members of Parliament representing places like Watford and the Harrow constituencies have been in touch to share their concerns about the delays and challenges faced by patients attending A&Es in Watford, Hillingdon or Northwick Park, which are the main destinations for alternative treatment. \p Gagan Mohindra: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. He has highlighted the issues in his constituency, and he is lucky enough that Hillingdon hospital is going to be refurbished. Given the delays to the Watford General refurbishment, where spades will not be in the ground until 2032 at the earliest, does he agree that Mount Vernon is even more critical for the surrounding areas with the capacity that it provides? \p David Simmonds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, another constituency neighbour, for the support that he has lent to this campaign on behalf of his constituents.  In a busy capital city, where there are all kinds of challenges arising not just from the airport but from our transport links, the pressure on some of those A&Es is higher than the NHS funding formula has traditionally recognised, and services such as minor injuries units have come into being over the years to make sure that that provision is there.

I know that my constituency neighbours’ constituents attend Mount Vernon not just to go to the minor injuries unit; it is also home to a cancer centre, a hospice, a private hospital, a general practitioners—a whole variety of NHS and private healthcare services—as well as to research and scanning, and nurses’ accommodation. All those things are incredibly important to the local community.

My asks of the Minister are straightforward. She understands as well as we all do that the NHS is always under financial pressure regardless of which party is in government, and she understands personally how much this unit at Mount Vernon hospital matters to local people across an area that is much wider than that served solely by the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust. She also understands that the vision of the 10-year plan puts great emphasis on out-of-hospital care. The commitment to the Northwood and Pinner cottage hospital started under the previous Government and now under construction at the site in my constituency is an example of the willingness of both this Government and the previous one to invest in those types of service. It therefore seems perverse to be closing down one such service that is already successfully in operation and that is both valued and has the potential to further reduce the cost and service pressures on our local NHS.

I ask the Minister simply to intervene with the trust and to ask her officials to engage with it about the wider impact that the closure will have beyond the Hillingdon hospitals trust alone. From the trust’s perspective, moving those staff and that budget on to the main hospital site will improve the look of its bottom line, but in the long term it will increase the costs to the NHS for those patients and reduce the quality of the service that they receive. Will she therefore consider encouraging the trust to move back to an open access model, as used to operate at the site, which would further reduce the number of A&E visits, which are costly to the NHS and stressful and time-consuming for patients? Will she confirm to the House that she notes the concerns that have been expressed so profoundly and across party by MPs from Hertsmere, Beaconsfield, South West Hertfordshire, East Harrow, and Hayes and Harlington, some of whom have taken the time even during a tube strike to be present for this debate to demonstrate the importance that they place on it?

Some have said that the more than 20,000 local people who signed the petition were expressing faux outrage. Those 20,000 people value the service. Many of them, including myself, have used it over the years. We know the benefit that it brings. We know that it is in accordance with this Government’s vision and strategy for the NHS. We know that, used properly, it can reduce costs to the NHS and improve the quality of service, not just for my constituents but for all our constituents. Will the Minister please intervene, ask the trust to think again and find a way to secure this valued service for the future, for local residents? \p Karin Smyth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing this debate. He mentioned that his wife works in the system, so I pay tribute to her for her service in the local trust.

As the hon. Gentleman alluded to, I am a Hillingdon girl; it is where I was brought up. My brother was born in Hillingdon hospital, some 59 years ago. It was a great pleasure to be there recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). Some years ago, I predicted that we might have a Labour MP there, so after being around the area for a long time, I am personally very pleased to see that.

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tempted me to move into the wider areas of what are rightly a to-ing and fro-ing on some of the bigger pressures in that part of north-west London and into Hertfordshire. I will not go into that, but it is absolutely right that hon. Members use this platform to share their campaigning on behalf of their constituents.

Service changes such as these are always hard and they are rarely popular. I have been the Member of Parliament for Bristol South for more than a decade, and before that I was an NHS manager, so I have seen many service changes and reconfigurations over the years. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was also a non-executive director in a past life. All the changes that I have seen were done through good consultation, with strong clinical leadership and a good clinical case, and involved patients and the public.

I strongly believe that patients, public and staff are often ahead of the wider system and sometimes of politicians in knowing the balance of the money, the funding, the good value for taxpayers’ money, clinical outcomes and safety. If they are managed well, those conversations and the sorts of debates we are having tonight can often yield better results than maintaining the status quo or decisions made behind closed doors. I am familiar with such debates, as like many of us I often found myself standing where the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is, advocating for my constituents against changes that I thought were not in their best interest or not clearly communicated. He was right to secure this debate. \p David Simmonds: I agree with every word that the Minister has said about how we get good decisions in the interests of local people, but does she share my concern that there has been no public consultation about this decision at all? There has been very limited engagement even with local residents’ associations about the process and, for the staff involved, there has been some—shall we say—degree of ambiguity about what decisions have been made at each stage of the process. Does she agree that it would be wise at this stage, as a very minimum, to pause, to think again and to undertake that public consultation, so that the NHS managers tasked with making the decisions fully understand the impact on the local community? \p Karin Smyth: I will comment on that later. I understand that there is a meeting on Friday, to which I will allude.

In preparing for the debate, I met representatives of the trust, and I am grateful to those in the local NHS for their time in giving some further background. The trust  is clear that it would be more efficient for urgent care services to be consolidated at the site in Hillingdon, bringing forward the urgent care nurse practitioner service at Mount Vernon into the urgent treatment centre at Hillingdon hospital. The rationale for having urgent treatment centres alongside A&E is well established clinically.

The hon. Gentleman referenced the 10-year plan—I am pleased he is such a fan—and the direction of travel. I am pleased to say that the trust also believes that people are better served by primary care hubs, so that more responsive care can be delivered closer to where people live. Three such hubs are being developed in Hillingdon, one of which will be in Ruislip. I am sure that he welcomed the announcement this week of the roll-out of the first of the 43 hubs, including the one in Hillingdon, which will deliver the neighbourhood health services model. \p Danny Beales: Despite some of the heat in the debate, the misquoting of things that have been said and the unfortunate politicisation of this important local issue, about which there is general agreement among Members of all parties and in the community, the consensus that I hear is that people want more accessible services, more locally. There is a need for three hubs—the system wants that—and I am pleased that the Government have announced funding and prioritised Hillingdon. I have also heard that there is a potentially greater role for community pharmacies in providing urgent services and care. Does the Minister agree that more can be done by primary care providers across the board in Hillingdon and elsewhere? \p Karin Smyth: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is the direction of travel that we want to see in all of our constituencies across the country.

The long-promised rebuild of Hillingdon hospital will be delivered by this Government as part of wave 1 of the new hospital programme. The money is guaranteed and construction will start between 2027 and 2028. We are already helping the trust to prepare for when we get spades in the ground, and it was a pleasure to visit the trust recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner raised the issue of consultation. I understand that there is a meeting with the trust, the integrated care board and the local authority on Friday, and I am sure that he and other hon. Members will be part of that. It is entirely proper for a Member of Parliament to raise issues about changes in their area—that is part of our democracy and democratic accountability. Now that this Government have put the new hospital programme in order, it is also proper for the House to hold us to account on its progress. \p John Martin McDonnell: I will try to attend the meeting on Friday, but the Minister must appreciate that there is an element of scepticism about the future, in particular about what is happening with this unit. It confirms in my mind that if you stand still long enough, things will come around time and again. In our constituencies in Hillingdon, we have gone from cottage hospitals that provided immediate care for minor injuries, as well as having beds, which were closed, to being promised Darzi units, which we  never saw, to looking forward to the hubs themselves. On Friday, I want to be able to convince people that there is a comprehensive plan that will be held to and properly invested in, because people will be very sceptical about the closure of a unit without the confidence that the architecture will be in place to meet the needs of our constituents. The petition has garnered such a large number of signatures because of that concern. \p Karin Smyth: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have seen some of those promises made and not delivered over many years. It is important that Members of Parliament are involved and that there is a wide conversation with the ICB and the trust around those changes and the development that they make towards delivering the 10-year plan.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we would bring together NHS England and the Department for Health and Social Care precisely because we think that democratic accountability for £200 billion of taxpayers’ money is important. However, that accountability does not mean micromanaging, or intervening in every difficult decision that the ICB makes. We expect local NHS organisations to make changes and to reconfigure their services as best needed by the people they serve. That is in line with the direction outlined in the 10-year plan.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has received several requests to intervene on a number of issues. Having looked at them thoroughly and assured himself that patient safety and access were guarded, he has decided not to intervene in nine reconfigurations. Getting our NHS back on its feet is a team effort, and we have to trust local NHS leaders to deliver. Decisions that affect the people of Hillingdon should be made in Hillingdon—it is not for someone sat behind a desk in Whitehall to make those decisions for them.

Having said that, I want to assure colleagues that that does not mean we will give local leaders a blank cheque to do whatever they like. Yesterday, we published a data tool and league tables that make NHS performance open and accessible, to inspire improvement and deliver a better NHS for all. Those NHS organisations that are doing well will be rewarded with greater freedoms, such as in how to spend their capital, and those that demonstrate the best financial management will get a greater share   of capital allocation. We want to move towards a system in which freedom is the norm and central grip is the exception, in order to challenge poor performance.

Improving services for patients should be rewarded; the quid pro quo is that there will be no more rewards for failure. Undertaking the reforms we have set out to make as a Government will require a good deal of trust between central Government and local leaders, and we will build that trust only by showing those local leaders that we trust them to get on with the job and make difficult decisions where necessary. \p David Simmonds: Will the Minister give way? \p Karin Smyth: I am going to pursue this point, if I may. Debates about service changes and reconfigurations have gone on since the birth of our NHS. I understand that they are really important for local people, and I understand the level of discussion about this issue and—as the hon. Gentleman has outlined—the wider impact on areas such as Watford. It would be easy for this Government to make ourselves popular by sacking some managers and promising people that services are never going to change, or that they will never close in any part of the country, but we were not elected on a populist platform, and it would not be in patients’ long-term interests not to reform and modernise the system.

We are building an NHS that is fit for the future. That is what the 10-year long-term plan is based on—moving services from hospital into the community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention. We expect local NHS leaders to make that happen. They must do so with local clinical leadership in the best interests of the populations they serve, and they must do it with the public—we expect open and transparent communications going forward. Local politicians have an important role in that, which Members present in the Chamber have demonstrated ably, and will continue to do so. I would be very happy to maintain contact with the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The wider implications of the issues he has raised need to be outlined to him, and I commit to writing back to him about the consideration that is being given to those wider implications. I note his concerns, and I am happy to continue working with him.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.