House of Lords
NHS: Single-sex Provision for Staff and Patients
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fox of Buckley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to issue guidance relating to single-sex provision for NHS staff as well as patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, all employers, including the NHS, are required to comply with existing law on single-sex facilities. In these cases, a common-sense and empathetic approach is needed. It is important that service providers have clear guidance about the Equality Act. We will consider whether further guidance is needed, including on how lawfully to apply its single-sex exemptions.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that reply. I know that the Government value front-line health workers and I am sure that they are concerned to hear that NHS trusts are allowing ideology to deny nurses safety, privacy and respect at work. I am disappointed, however, that action is not more immediate. The Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, said that he was horrified by the case of the Darlington nurses being forced to share their changing facilities with a male colleague who identifies as female. Does the Minister agree that trusts need urgent guidance on this issue? I know that the Darlington nurses have submitted draft guidance to the department—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Okay, the question is: can that guidance be brought forward, because nurses are being bullied and harassed at work around this issue?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am not sure that I can agree with the noble Baroness about trusts being driven by NHS ideology. All staff should be and must be treated with dignity, with their safety and privacy respected. Much of this is about practicalities and working with staff in the same way that other policies are worked with, and I would expect a common-sense and sensitive approach to prevail. The Secretary of State did indeed meet with the five nurses from Darlington regarding their concerns about single-sex spaces. We have indeed received a draft version of the guidance that they have produced and will reply to them at the earliest opportunity. However, the guidance that I would focus on is from the Government. We are looking at how we can assist all employers in complying with legislative requirements.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, NHS England wrote to me on the—
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I think we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, first.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that once again we must reinforce the need to treat everyone with compassion, dignity and respect, especially in media reports that discuss protected characteristics and cases of alleged discrimination?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would indeed agree with the comments of my noble friend.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister considering any possible unintended consequences of this guidance? As a lesbian who is frequently told she is in the wrong toilets and who is addressed as “my Lord” and “sir” frequently around this place—which is always cute—does the Minister think there might be some unintended consequences for those who are not trans but perhaps do not fit the immediate, on-first-glance version of what a woman might look like? Perhaps we should let women determine their own sense of identity in these situations.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sorry to hear of the noble Baroness’s experience, which I have heard her speak of before. To me, as I said earlier, it points to the need to treat people with respect, with dignity and without making assumptions. I cannot emphasise enough the need for sensitivity and respect, which applies to everybody.
While we are talking about changing facilities, we should think about the huge difference in shops over the years. There used to be communal changing rooms, but you would be hard pushed to find them now. People have private spaces for changing and this again applies to everybody. I recognise the challenge of the NHS estate, of course, but I am talking about creative solutions and working with staff to get to where we need to be.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to talk about dealing with this issue very sensitively, by respecting people’s dignity and acting with compassion. However, some NHS staff and patients—the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to this—have asked for single-sex provisions to protect their privacy and dignity. If the Government are planning further guidance, how do they intend to achieve that difficult trade-off and balance in potential conflicts between single-sex provisions for NHS staff and patients and the rights of individuals under the Equality Act 2010, while respecting their dignity and acting with compassion?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. In all cases with guidance, that is always the balance we seek to reach. I am also interested in the history of this, and I am sure the noble Lord will remember that the 2019 guidance on trans patients in single-sex spaces proved somewhat controversial, if I might put it that way. The guidance was meant to be updated under the last Government, but this did not happen. I am advised that it was delayed by a dispute between the previous Government and NHS England, which also delayed proposed updates to the NHS constitution. These again were consulted on under the last Government—which was a good thing—but nothing actually happened. So all these come to us as a new Government and will be given full consideration to get us into the right place.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
In the last few weeks alone, we have heard about the range of challenges facing our NHS: physically collapsing hospitals, extensive waiting lists and a social care review, to name but a few. More guidance in areas of uncertainty is to be encouraged. However, given that only 0.55% of the English population is trans, where does the Minister think that this should come in the order of priorities?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I know that everybody in your Lordships’ House will take the view that the NHS is there both as an employer—as all employers are; this is not specific to the NHS—and in its service to patients. It is there to treat all with the right dignity and respect. We have a legislative framework to which reference can always be made. We will see what further guidance is needed—and that may be to all employers, not just the NHS. Again, I cannot emphasise enough the need for careful consideration and the involvement of all staff, on what has to be a trust-wide basis, because everybody is different in terms of their estate and what their challenges may be. It is not as simple as numbers: it is about fairness and dignity for all.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
NHS England wrote to me to confirm that any patient can choose the sex of a chaperone. Will the new guidance define what is meant by “sex” in that case?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
There is, of course, already a definition in legislation of what that means. I know my noble friend will understand that I cannot predict what the guidance will be, but I will certainly pick up the point she has made.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that I sit as a non-affiliated Member of this House. I encourage the Minister and the department to proceed with the utmost caution. Trans women and trans men pose a threat to no one. In relation to single- sex space, this House has debated the issue frequently. Therefore, does the Minister agree that the Equality Act works, with any measures for exclusion being on a case-by-case basis, proportionate and evidence-based? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will continue that sensible and humane approach?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that the legislation provides a clear framework to all employers, but I also accept that some employers may wish to have further guidance on the existing legislation to enable them to make the right local decisions as employers, and it is that that we will consider.
Old Oak Common: Train Disruption
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what intercity train disruptions are expected and for how long because of the construction of the new Great Western Railway station at Old Oak Common.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, building Old Oak Common station will enable HS2 to start operations by providing a new interchange with the Elizabeth line. Without it, HS2 cannot open. The complex construction work cannot be delivered without some disruption to the Great Western main line. It will require a mixture of overnight and weekend possessions and some limited use of full closures. Industry partners are reviewing plans to ensure that disruption starts no earlier than it needs to and is minimised during construction, and that any journey time impacts, both during construction and future operation, are limited.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation, but is he aware that four of the eight platforms to be built on the Great Western main line are for intercity trains that come from Bristol, Swansea and the south-west? There seems to be no idea of how many people would want to get off a train from Bristol and change at Old Oak Common to get to Birmingham. There is a perfectly good service called CrossCountry. Why is it necessary to have the four intercity platforms built at all? How much money would be saved if they were not built?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have to give your Lordships a brief description of railway geography in west London. The Great Western main line at Old Oak Common has two pairs of tracks. One is called the main line and the other the relief lines. The Elizabeth line now runs on the relief lines and, as my noble friend said, Great Western main line trains run on the main line. However, two of those four tracks sometimes close for maintenance, and if platforms were not built on the main lines, even in the interim period before HS2 provides the full service that it one day will, the station could not be operational because Elizabeth line trains could not stop on the main lines. So it is essential to have platforms on both sets of tracks, and in the long term, when HS2 is operational and serves a whole variety of destinations in northern England, stopping Great Western Railway trains there will be useful to railway passengers.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my entry in the Member’s register. The current fastest train time from Maidenhead to Paddington is 17 minutes. It is possible that the work at Old Oak Common could cause those trains to stop for 15 minutes, which would double the length of time to no benefit to passengers. Will the Government now actively look at creating a proper hub and interchange station at Old Oak Common or Old Oak Common Lane to improve and provide benefits for people coming from the Thames valley, the south-west and Wales?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I was pleased to discuss this matter with the noble Baroness personally recently. Of course, there will be some benefits to travellers on the Great Western main lines and, particularly, the Elizabeth line east of Reading. On the wider interchange at Old Oak Common, which she referred to, there are other railway lines in the vicinity and providing platforms on those would enhance the interchange experience and improve the effectiveness of the site for the development of jobs and housing, but they are not part of the initial proposals, at least. I will not deal in detail with the times that she mentioned, but I do not recognise them. In fact, we are working very hard—I was on the site with all the industry partners in November—and my estimation is that if we carry out this work properly the actual delay for trains that do not stop on the Great Western main lines will be in the region of 60 to 90 seconds.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what discussions has the Minister had with the new chief executive of High Speed 2 to ensure that all platforms at the new Old Oak Common station will provide level boarding for all passengers?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I was at Old Oak Common with the new chief executive of HS2 on the day of his appointment and I raised the question about platform heights, particularly on the Elizabeth line platforms at Old Oak Common, because I know this is a matter of great interest to everybody who needs level boarding and, indeed, for the safety of the railway. The discussion has not concluded, but her point is very clear and I intend to pursue it.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, given the Government’s sensible decision to restore Euston as the terminus of HS2, is Old Oak Common really necessary given the fact that a lot less passenger interchange will arise following that decision? Will it really take seven years, as has been reported, for this work to take place—if it actually does—bearing in mind that the Chinese could probably build 10,000 miles of electrified railway line in that time?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will answer the second part of the question first. Our construction methods are a good deal safer than Chinese construction methods. Saving lives and preventing accidents on construction sites has been one of the principal activities on the railway and in wider construction for a very long time. Both stations are necessary because HS2 will not be a complete service to anywhere without a central London station, but Old Oak Common will be equally necessary because it will have interchange to, for example, Heathrow Airport. The wider development of the Old Oak Common area will be dependent on a station at Old Oak Common, just as it was in Stratford with the Olympic park.
Lord Bichard (CB)
Would the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the House and those of us who are privileged to live in the south-west that our transport needs are given as much attention and priority as those of our vocal friends in the north? It is beginning to feel, with the impact of the six-day contract and the long construction programme at Old Oak Common, that we are being condemned to a six-day service in the south-west, which will have inevitable consequences for individuals’ quality of life and the economic growth of that area.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to criticise a railway that cannot operate reliably on Sundays and a lot of work is going into making sure that the optional working arrangement for Sundays for drivers and train managers on the Great Western Railway is addressed. But he is conflating two issues. We are mindful of the railway needs of the south-west of England. I think I have met virtually every Member of the other House west of Bristol on the matter of Old Oak Common. Old Oak Common will be an asset to the railway, and the railway to the south-west of England. As always with these things, construction is difficult and takes more time than we would like, but the result will be a better railway network for all parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that a station at Euston is indispensable for the success and effectiveness of HS2. Indeed, the Government made funds available in the Budget to build the tunnels from Old Oak Common through to Euston. How close are the Government to seeing deliverable engineering proposals for the construction of those platforms at Euston that allow passengers to board, alight and make use of these tunnels? How far away are we from actually having a plan?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not sure whether the noble Lord knows, but one of the things that I took on in my previous role was chairing the Euston Partnership, which I did for five years. In that time, we saw at least two iterations of a design for the HS2 station. One was eye-wateringly expensive and included air-conditioned platforms, which is not the case even in Saudi Arabia. The alternative looked like an eastern European railway station after the Second World War, with corrugated iron canopies. Neither of those is at all sufficient. I have seen work going on for an integrated station between the Network Rail side and the HS2 side. I am optimistic that it is affordable, and that it can be financed and built. Incidentally, there will be a large amount of office space, creating jobs and housing in that area as well.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be well aware of the vital importance of these rail links to the south Wales economy. He will also be aware of the uncertainty that has arisen on many occasions recently regarding the dependability of services. Therefore, in view of these changes, can he look to find some mechanism whereby the maximum amount of advance information can be made available about the impact of these changes so that people travelling know what to expect?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I welcome that question. One of the issues that arose was quite clearly that a number of Members of the other House had not received information about the closures in November and at Christmas and the new year. I spoke to the managing director of Great Western Railway so that that information was shared. I can leave the noble Lord with this thought: I am not expecting further disruption as a result of the construction of Old Oak Common in this calendar year, the next one or, indeed, the one after that. I think the next line closures are quite some way away. That would be right, because we should start that construction process no earlier than it needs to be done in order to open it in time for HS2.
Cultural Sector: Freedom of Speech
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Strathcarron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect freedom of speech in the cultural sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, everyone has the right to express themselves and share ideas without interference from the Government. This right is protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are absolutely committed to freedom of speech, including in the cultural sector, and the Secretary of State for Culture has expressed an unequivocal ambition that the era of the Government stoking culture wars should be over.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
In thanking the Minister for that reply, I ask: is she aware that the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s recent rulings breach its own editorial code of conduct? Would she please use her good offices to impress upon it that it would be well advised to stop issuing media versions of non-crime hate incidents and stay within its remit?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not going to be drawn on specific cases, but the whole point of this Government’s approach is to focus on delivery for the people of this country, not to stoke individual cases or culture wars. This is what we are going to do, and what we expect other organisations to do as well.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, the cultural sector often operates with very fragile operating models. One source of revenue is corporate partnerships and we have seen those, such as the brilliant long-term partnership that BP has had, year after year, with the British Museum, come under attack in recent months. Does the Minister agree that we should encourage cultural organisations to be more robust to allow the voices of corporates and, of course, the staff of those corporates to enjoy the culture so that the rest of the cultural sector can flourish?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is important to recognize that arts organisations operate independently of government, and which philanthropic donations they should accept are therefore commercial decisions for them. But I am clear that philanthropy has historically allowed audiences, including me, to enjoy fabulous cultural experiences that they would not otherwise have enjoyed and which open up the arts and culture. Some of the big exhibitions rely on philanthropy; I am thinking particularly of the Van Gogh exhibition, which I know from speaking to Members that many people in this House have attended. The Charity Commission has published guidance in the past year to help charities when deciding whether to accept, refuse or return a donation. I hope that will provide some clarity and, where organisations are charities, they should have regard to it.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, creatives in the cultural sector need their intellectual property to be protected—as a key source of their livelihoods—as well as their human rights. This is being actively threatened by artificial intelligence—“theft” is the word that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, used in this Chamber—because when it comes to training AI models, there is no transparency. The Government accept this, so do they also accept the words of the Creative Rights in AI Coalition? It says that the solution is not just about transparency but that the priority in safeguarding UK creative IP from exploitation by AI must be to ensure that current copyright laws are registered and enforceable.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a really interesting point. It goes some way from the original Question so I will be honest and say, rather than answering it on the hoof, that I would be very happy to sit down with her and talk through the issue that she raises in more detail.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the rules for what was permitted to be put out on social media were written before it was controlled by two billionaires, who seem to be determined not to have any fact checking in their processes? Can the Minister assure us that when we are drawing up and making our rules, we make sure that people are not allowed to put things out on social media that have not been fact checked?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As my noble friend the Leader of the House said yesterday, the new approach taken by Meta, which I think my noble friend Lord Watts refers to, relates to the United States and not Europe, where fact checking will remain. As my noble friend said, all platforms will want to ensure that their information is as accurate as possible. I know that noble Lords across the House will agree with that point.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, for over 200 years the Royal Society of Literature has been promoting excellence in literature but over the last couple of years, it has exercised censorship; it failed to denounce the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie; and it has tried to silence its own members. Will the Minister make representations to the RSL and remind it of its duty to freedom of speech? I mention my interests as president of the Cliveden Literary Festival and as a speaker at the Sevenoaks Literary Festival, where, sadly, fewer people turned up to hear me speak than there were oaks.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord that I would turn up to hear him speak.
In relation to the question, I am aware of the issues that have been in the media this week; clearly, they have been going on for some time. I note that the society has commissioned an external review by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which has a lot of experience in these matters. This will, I hope, support the organisation in its governance and management, including on issues around freedom of speech, and help it focus on the really important work it does.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if arts and creative organisations are forced to rely on philanthropy from billionaires and giant multinational companies, then they are the people who will decide what arts and creative offerings are available to the public? It is crucial that there is proper, decent, democratically decided government funding for arts organisations. That means that we have to tax rich individuals and multinational companies so that money is available for democratically decided allocation of arts funding.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
While I support philanthropy, I am clear that there is a place for government funding as well. We need to make sure that we do not cut off people’s willingness to put money into the arts for fear of repercussions. We have to get the balance right between saying that the state should fund art and recognising that there is a valuable source and tradition of philanthropy in this country. For example, I think of Carnegie libraries. There is a huge tradition of philanthropy in arts and culture in this country that we should celebrate and want to continue, rather than rejecting it out of hand.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I warmly welcome what the Minister has just said. Following a rather spurious campaign, including by Members of your Lordships’ House and the Society of Authors—it turned out that its own charitable arm had investments in fossil fuels—Baillie Gifford was bullied into ending its long-standing generous support for book festivals, including in Cambridge, Edinburgh, Wigtown, Cheltenham and Henley. Does the Minister share my concern about such campaigns? They cause great distress to the staff and volunteers who run such events. Does she agree that cultural events, such as literary festivals, are precisely the sort of forum in which people should be able to come together to exchange ideas and disagree constructively?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would like to think that the art of disagreeing constructively is something we do reasonably well in your Lordships’ House—on most subjects. In relation to sponsorship, it is something we need to consider. People have the right to object to the work that organisations do, but when it is to the extent that people are feeling harassed in the workplace, we have to recognise that, with the right to express and protest comes a responsibility not to harass and intimidate those trying to do their job.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, what action will the Government take regarding mischievous booksellers who have put Boris Johnson’s autobiography in the fiction section?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Like a number of noble Lords across your Lordships’ House, I had the pleasure and privilege of being an assembly member while the former Prime Minister was Mayor of London. I am going to say absolutely nothing about my noble friend’s point.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, since 7 October 2023 the atmosphere in the cultural sector towards Jewish artists, writers and performers has been chilling. The Tate has been threatened with a boycott unless it ends sponsorship from trusts deemed to be close to Israel. Michael Etherton, the head of the UK Jewish Film Festival, has stated that cinemas have now made it almost impossible to make film bookings. What action are His Majesty’s Government taking to protect Jewish people, who contribute so much to the country’s cultural sector?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for bringing us back to a specific example that is adversely affecting a significant portion of our society. Anti-Semitism has absolutely no place in our society, which is why this Government are taking, and will take, a strong lead in tackling it in all forms. Making sure that all British Jews are not only safe but feel safe and able to express their views, cultural identity and religious views is really important. It is unacceptable that, in 2025, this could ever be called into question.
Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry: Recommendations
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to the 7,000-plus victims and survivors who shared their experiences and helped shape the work and focus of the inquiry. Since taking office in July, this Government have worked to deliver an ambitious programme of activity, responding to the inquiry and on child sexual abuse more broadly. As the Home Secretary announced to the House of Commons on Monday, this includes delivering a new mandatory reporting duty in the upcoming crime and policing Bill.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I hosted over 400 child abuse survivors in this building, and I spent 30 days representing many at the inquiry, IICSA. I share their impatience with how quickly the 20 recommendations are being implemented. On recommendations 9 and 10, on DBS checks, does the Minister agree with me that Parliament should take a lead and that every parliamentarian should be required to have a DBS check, in line with those recommendations? On recommendation 19, on having a single redress system, does he share my anguish and anger that my friend Terry Lodge, who was given a public apology seven years ago—he was imprisoned and enslaved as a 10 year-old and forced to spend his teenage years not at school but working in a foundry—has still received not a penny of compensation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation deserve access to appropriate support and routes to compensation. As he mentioned, the inquiry’s report gives indications of recommendations to that effect. The experience of his former constituent highlights the need for that to be a matter of urgency, and we are working at pace in government to ensure that we identify how best we can deliver against the inquiry’s recommendations.
My noble friend mentioned DBS checks, which are one of the recommendations that we are still working through and looking at. Some of those issues in relation to this House will be for the parliamentary authorities. More generally, the report was commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, as Home Secretary in 2015. It came through in October 2022 as a major report and it was responded to by the Government in May 2023, but no progress has taken place until July this year, and we are now starting to exercise some energy in response to those recommendations. We will bring forward recommendation responses in due course.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the law of the land should apply equally to everybody, irrespective of their background, colour or whatever else? Secondly, does he agree that it must be child-centred and that the welfare of each child is of paramount importance? That is the law of the land, and we need to make sure that it is implemented everywhere, for every child.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord brings tremendous experience to this area, and I share exactly his sentiment and intention. Child abuse is a vile crime. We have to take criminal action against individuals who commit it, but we also need to ensure that we support the victims of such crimes. The noble Lord makes an extremely important point that, whatever the gender, sex, colour or race of any perpetrator, they should be held to account by government and the criminal justice agencies, and pay penalties. Their victims should be supported by the forces encompassed by this House and the House of Commons.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in thanking Professor Jay for her tireless work in leading the independent inquiry into these abhorrent crimes. Inquiries are extremely informative and benefit society as a whole. Taking this into account, can the Minister explain why his Government are refusing so vehemently an independent inquiry specifically on the topic of child sexual exploitation? Does he agree with me that victims are the most important group of people in any criminal investigation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly answer the noble Lord on those points. First and foremost, the report that was managed by Alexis Jay, and set up by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in 2015, has produced a large number of recommendations to government, which were published in 2022. The then Government, of which he was a supporter, responded to those recommendations in May 2023 and took no real action between May 2023 and when we took office in July at the general election.
We intend to take forward those recommendations, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on Monday three specific measures: first, a mandatory reporting recommendation, as in the report; secondly, a report to ensure that we have an aggravated offence for people involved in grooming; thirdly, that we will take action on child sexual abuse online. Those are three important issues. A further inquiry would not necessarily add anything to what Alexis Jay has done. There are independent local inquiries, which we have supported and allowed to continue, and that is fine. But what we are really interested in is putting in place the action on the recommendations made to date, which is what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said she would do and what the focus of this Government is going to be.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, one of the IICSA recommendations was on providing a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing where a child was exploited—that is, controlled, coerced, manipulated or deceived into sexual activity—by two or more people. Does the Minister agree with the last Conservative Government’s response that this was unnecessary, or with the current Conservative spokespeople, who seem to have changed their minds?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. To be honest, what the previous Government and their current Front Bench say on those matters is for them. What this Government are about is implementing action. On the issue of an aggravated offence, on Monday this week, in the House of Commons, my right honourable friend said that there would be an aggravated offence for people who were involved in grooming, child sex and organising child sex gangs. That will be brought forward in the police and crime Bill later in this Session. It will do the job—and whatever the current Opposition do is a matter for them.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, recent events have rightly turned the spotlight on the Church of England’s record around safeguarding. Those of us on these Benches are highly committed to listening to survivors and bringing about the further institutional and cultural changes that need to be made, beyond the enormous progress that has been made over the past 10 years. What assurance can the Minister give that the police will act on information that they receive, which, it is alleged, was not the case in 2013, when the horrendous crimes of John Smyth were correctly reported to them?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. Let me put it this way: one thing that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has committed to this week is to make sure that we have a mandatory reporting requirement for individuals who have child abuse reported to them, and indeed for perpetrators who report themselves to an authority. That will then have to be mandatorily reported to the police and to law enforcement authorities. Self-evidently, if there is a mandatory reporting of that incident, it will be a major failure of any police force not to investigate, and potentially take further action, reporting to the CPS, if they substantiate the allegations that have been reported mandatorily by an individual. The history of this is complex, but I hope that the recommendations made can be implemented. That is one of the early things that we want to do, which is why we are getting on with it, rather than having further inquiries that will delay matters to safeguard children.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, with IICSA, as with every other major public inquiry, there is no structure in place to monitor the formal response to recommendations. That is true for Grenfell, IICSA, infected blood—all of them. Would the Government consider maintaining a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by all public inquiries, together with the Government’s response, as recommended by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the Select Committee of which I was a member?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness; she makes a sound point. I will reflect on wider public inquiries, as it is a cross-government response, but I can say to her from the Dispatch Box that we have started to respond to the recommendations from IICSA on Monday and will continue to respond. That will be for public record, public examination and public accountability of Ministers on the issues that we agree to address.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, this is a very complicated situation. I understand the position of the previous Government—the current Opposition—but there is something that worries me, and it is a spectre that we need to understand and deal with. Can the Minister comment on what his view might be if the leader of the Reform party follows through on his commitment yesterday to raise private funds to hold a private public inquiry into this matter, which could be funded from overseas?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect, I appreciate the noble Lord’s question but the leader of Reform can do what he wishes. We are the Government, and we are trying to take sensible approaches and to get cross-party support for those sensible approaches. He is welcome to contribute to that. There is a real issue of safeguarding children, and those who seek to make political capital out of that are not, in my view, people who have a serious approach to life.
Business of the House
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That, in the event of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill having been brought from the House of Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday 15 January to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise simply to seek assurance from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that we can table amendments to this Bill when we consider it next Wednesday. The Bill asks us to provide taxpayers’ money to assist Ukraine. I entirely support that, as it is vital that Putin does not win. However, the West has immobilised about $300 billion of Russian assets, including about €210 billion immobilised in Europe. The United Kingdom has frozen about £18 billion of assets, and I understand that the United States has frozen only a few billion dollars. Nevertheless, the United States and Canada have passed legislation permitting their Governments, should they wish, to utilise those former frozen Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine. The US legislation is called REPO: rebuilding economic prosperity and opportunity for Ukraine.
Last year the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe unanimously adopted a resolution calling on each state that holds Russian assets to co-operate in the transfer of those assets to an international mechanism to compensate Ukraine for the losses it has suffered. The United Kingdom Government—the previous Government and this one—have consistently said it is clear that Russia must be held responsible for its illegal war. That includes its obligations under international law to pay for the damage it has caused in Ukraine.
I simply want to table a very straightforward and short amendment to the Bill, giving the United Kingdom Government the same powers that Canada and the United States have taken—namely, after the words “money provided by Parliament”, to add, “or out of any assets, reserves or any other property held within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, directly or indirectly, by, for or on behalf of the Russian Federation”. I say to the noble Baroness and to the House that it is a simple permissive power. It does not force the Government to do it if they do not want to, but it would give us the same power to utilise those frozen Russian assets. I simply ask the noble Baroness whether it would be possible for me or any other noble Lord to table an amendment such as that to the Bill next Wednesday.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is an experienced parliamentarian. He may be confusing the two Houses. This is a money Bill and the procedure in this House is that there are no amending stages on the Bill. It has already been debated in the other place, so when it comes to this House there will be no opportunity to table amendments.
Arrangement of Business
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we begin the next item of business, I remind noble Lords of the rules of the House in relation to Conduct Committee reports. Standing Order 68 says:
“Reports from the Conduct Committee resulting from an investigation under the Code of Conduct, together with any motion on a sanction, are decided without debate”.
That is very clear. It is a Standing Order of the House and was agreed by the House in April 2019. The Standing Order means that the only Members who can speak on these Motions are the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who will speak briefly to both reports, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, who will then speak and move his amendment. The noble Baroness may then reply. No other Member may speak, so once we have heard those contributions we will move to decide whether these reports and sanctions will be agreed.
Conduct Committee
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Manningham-Buller
That the Report from the Select Committee The conduct of Baroness Meyer (2nd Report, HL Paper 58) be agreed to.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, but I shall speak to both reports from the Conduct Committee.
I shall begin with the report on the conduct of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I am of course aware that some noble Lords have criticised the committee’s findings, and this is reflected in the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, tabled last Friday, which was then retabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. I shall therefore take a few minutes to explain our findings. I shall not address wider procedural issues, such as Standing Order 68. It is clear that Motions such as this, as we heard from the Chief Whip, are not to be debated, but our report on the reform of the code, which we expect to publish later this month, will allow the House to debate these issues of procedure in full, and any changes that the committee will recommend to the House for approval.
In outline, the Commissioner for Standards upheld two complaints of harassment against the noble Baroness made by fellow members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The first complaint was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The commissioner, having heard evidence from two witnesses, who both had clear recollections of the incident, unlike the noble Baroness herself, concluded that the noble Baroness had twice referred to the noble Lord as “Lord Poppadom”.
The second complaint arose from an occasion when the noble Baroness complimented a Member of the House of Commons, Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, on her braids. She then asked whether she should touch them and, without waiting for Ms Ribeiro-Addy’s reply, reached out and lifted her braids.
Both incidents were mortifying and upsetting for those involved, and both met the test of harassment—a test that, I remind the House, replicates that contained in Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The commissioner also found that in the case of the noble Baroness’s words to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the harassment had a racial element. It would be hard to deny the racial overtones of the words “Lord Poppadom”, as addressed to the noble Lord. The commissioner concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no racial element to the second incident, relating to Ms Ribeiro-Addy’s braids. The commissioner accordingly recommended that the noble Baroness undertake bespoke coaching to support her in reflecting on her behaviour in both incidents. He also recommended, with specific reference to his finding of racial harassment in the first incident, that she be suspended from the House for three weeks.
Both the noble Baroness and the complainants were given two weeks in which to appeal against either the commissioner’s findings or, in the case of the noble Baroness, the recommended sanction. There were no appeals. The Conduct Committee’s role was therefore to review the recommended sanction: we had no discretion to revisit the commissioner’s findings in the absence of an appeal. We considered the sanction with great care over two meetings and reflected carefully on a letter submitted by the noble Baroness, along with supporting materials, which set out some mitigating factors, but ultimately we decided to uphold the commissioner’s recommendations.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out from “that” to end and to insert “this House declines to agree the Report from the Conduct Committee The conduct of Baroness Meyer.”
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I apologise to the House, because the only way that I can possibly speak in defence of my noble friend Lady Meyer is by putting down an amendment. I can reassure the noble Baroness, the Chairman of the Conduct Committee, that I will not press it to a Division.
We are talking here about a total miscarriage of justice. My noble friend’s reputation has been completely shredded by the verdict that has come from the Conduct Committee. She has been accused of being a racist, and I cannot imagine anybody less racist than my noble friend.
Let us look at the two cases which have been mentioned by the noble Baroness. The first is the accusation that she touched somebody’s hair and said at the time, “Is it all right if I touch your hair?” and touched their hair without waiting for their response. For that, she has been held up to be responsible for harassment. It almost defies credibility that harassment should take the form of somebody saying, “Is it all right if I touch your hair?” and then just touching a braid of somebody’s hair.
The more serious accusation against my noble friend is of racism, connected with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and her reference to “Lord Poppadom” when she was coming back from a dinner which had been held on the last day of the visit to Rwanda. Everybody had been drinking, apparently, and she had been drinking too. I am afraid the reality is that alcohol affects us differently, and certainly my advice to my noble friend Lady Meyer would be that it is not the best time to crack jokes, which is what she said she was doing when referring to “Lord Poppadom”. At the same time, you cannot accuse her of racism. This is nothing to do with racism. My noble friend Lady Meyer has a daughter-in-law who is half Eritrean; she has not got a racist bone in her body. She has been subjected to an extraordinary kangaroo court which is held in secret—
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is now trying the patience of the House. He should withdraw that remark and focus on the Motion in hand.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
All right, I am happy to withdraw my remarks about the kangaroo court, but it seems to me that this is a committee that meets in secret. We are unable to debate the issues afterwards because of the convention of the House, which is why I have had to put down this amendment today.
This is a very serious matter for my noble friend Lady Meyer. Her reputation has been completely blackened by this verdict. All I would say to noble Lords is that it may be Catherine Meyer today, but it could be you tomorrow. I beg to move.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I much regret the characterisation of the works of the Conduct Committee—set up by your Lordships’ House, obeying the Code of Conduct agreed by your Lordships’ House and focusing on a Standing Order agreed by your Lordships’ House—as a total miscarriage of justice.
In his defence of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, made no mention of the effect on the people concerned—the complainants—of her comments, so I do not agree that this is a total miscarriage of justice, nor do I agree with his concern about the fairness of the question. The noble Baroness changed her story. She had ample time to question and challenge the evidence of the complainants and the witnesses. The only redactions in the material provided to her were those needed to protect the identities of the witnesses.
I return to the fundamental point that the noble Baroness addressed twice the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, as “Lord Poppadom”, and he subsequently complained about this. To say this was just a joke was not how it was received. She was given two weeks in which to appeal against the commissioner’s findings; she did not do so. The facts are clear and uncontested. Given the weight of the evidence, I do not see how the commissioner could have come to a different conclusion.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, for indicating that he will not press his amendment, which simplifies the decision before the House. I therefore once again invite the House, by agreeing our report, to confirm that the use of such offensive language is simply not acceptable. I add that, of course, the committee meets in private because sometimes it will dismiss complaints, and it is essential that that continues to happen.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
That, in accordance with Standing Order 11, Baroness Meyer be suspended from the service of the House for a period of three weeks; and that, in accordance with section 1 of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, in the opinion of this House, the conduct giving rise to this resolution occurred after the coming into force of that Act.
Conduct Committee
Baroness Manningham-Buller
That the Report from the Select Committee The conduct of Lord Stone of Blackheath (3rd Report, HL Paper 59) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, under Standing Order 68, no debate is allowed on this Motion. I must therefore now put the Question that this Motion be agreed to.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
That, in accordance with Standing Order 11, Lord Stone of Blackheath be suspended from the service of the House for a period of six months; and that, in accordance with section 1 of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, in the opinion of this House, the conduct giving rise to this resolution occurred after the coming into force of that Act.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:26 - Division on Baroness Williams’s amendment to Lord Livermore’s Motion. - Ayes: 226 / Noes: 228 - Baroness Williams’s amendment to Lord Livermore’s Motion disagreed.
Lord Livermore
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the substance of this Bill was addressed during the Second Reading debate in your Lordships’ House on Monday. However, I briefly remind noble Lords that, in the Budget last year, the Government set out a plan to repair the public finances while protecting working people and restoring public services. This meant taking some very difficult decisions, some of which are contained in this Bill. I of course understand and respect the legitimate concerns that have been raised, both inside and outside your Lordships’ House, in relation to the Bill, which is why the Government are committed to ensuring thorough and detailed scrutiny of the legislation.
I am aware that an amendment is before the House that the Bill should be considered in a Committee of the whole House, rather than in Grand Committee. There is clear precedent for the latter. Every national insurance contributions Bill since 2006 that has not been fast tracked has been considered in Grand Committee. The Grand Committee has proven to be entirely capable of providing the detailed scrutiny that a Bill such as this requires. Since Committee stages began being held in Grand Committee in 2002, the Grand Committee has been the normal venue for smaller or more technical Bills, including those that have made substantial changes. The precedent set over the past two decades demonstrates that Grand Committees are well equipped to handle the detailed examination required for such legislation. This Bill, while significant, follows the same technical nature, and the Government believe that there is no reason for treating it differently from its predecessors.
As noble Lords know, unless there is an intention to vote in Committee stage, which would be highly unusual for a Bill of this type, there is very limited procedural difference between the Grand Committee and a Committee of the whole House. Both venues afford the same opportunities for thorough scrutiny and debate. Proceedings of the Grand Committee are fully transparent and are recorded in Hansard, just as they are in this Chamber. Members of the public and the media have access to the debates, ensuring that the process remains open and accountable. However, there are important practical considerations and time constraints for this Bill. If it were necessary to wait for a slot in a Committee of the whole House, the Government would be concerned about meeting the resource budgeting and accounting deadlines for the Bill. The Grand Committee offers a timely and efficient solution, ensuring that we can meet our obligations without unnecessary delays.
I look forward to addressing in Committee all the concerns that noble Lords have raised about this Bill. The Government believe that the Grand Committee is the most appropriate forum for detailed scrutiny of this legislation, following the precedent of the past two decades, ensuring that we can proceed in a timely and efficient manner. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out “Grand Committee” and to insert “Committee of the Whole House”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my amendment to the Government’s Motion, that the national insurance Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, of which my noble friend Lord Altrincham gave notice in his speech on Monday evening.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches are focused on the substance of this important Bill, which we demonstrated with our regret amendment on Monday. Disputing where Committee stage is debated is very much a second-order issue, especially when, to make progress on the substance, we will have to try to find some common ground. During the years of the Conservative Government, significant mixed Bills of equal impact on people were debated in Grand Committee at Committee stage. We did not seek to vote against that then. I do not see the change of Government as a reason to vote against that now, and we will support from these Benches the Government this afternoon.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, forgive me for pointing out that on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the turnout in support of their regret amendment on Monday was less than half their complement. They moved a moved a regret amendment; they made fine speeches about how damaging this Bill will be to charities, hospices and other organisations; and then they also, at the end of the debate, made it clear that they would not give the whole House an opportunity to consider this on the Floor of the House. I do not know what is going on between the Liberal Benches and the Labour Party, but what is clearly going on is some kind of deal—a deal that is against the interests of the people of this country, including many charities, hospices and other organisations.
It is completely wrong to argue that in the Grand Committee this Bill can be subject to similar scrutiny. If it is on the Floor of the House, we can vote on some of the measures that we agreed with the Liberal Democrats need to be considered. We can have proper scrutiny. This is simply an attempt by the Government to hide their embarrassment at the atrocious consequences of this unprecedented national insurance Bill.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, suggested just now that it would not be possible to vote in Grand Committee. He is in error. I know that because I led for the Opposition on an insurance Bill about 12 years ago and there was a vote in the Committee, which the Opposition won. So it is entirely possible for the same process, the same level of scrutiny and the same seriousness to take place in Grand Committee as on the Floor of the House.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Perhaps I might comment on the remarks of the noble Lord opposite just now. I have for 25 years had the privilege of being a Deputy Speaker—I forget what the earlier term was—and I can assure him that it is quite clear that Divisions in Grand Committee are not permitted.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I do not like to disagree with the Minister, but I cannot help thinking that describing this Bill as a technical Bill is rather far-fetched. If you compare the Bills that we have seen in Grand Committee, such as the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which was a very large and technical Bill, or indeed the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which went through last time round, you see that these are indeed very technical Bills—of a short and long nature. But this Bill is one of the tiniest Bills I have seen. It is very short. It proposes two simple measures. One is to lower the threshold at which employers will pay national insurance, the consequences of which were pointed out on Monday. The second is to raise the percentage of national insurance paid by employers on every salary, notwithstanding the raising of a certain employment allowance. I therefore cannot help but think that this is a very simple proposition for this country and a very serious one, and to describe it as a technical Bill is a slight exaggeration—perhaps the noble Lord will agree.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. This Bill is significant and should of course be subject to thorough scrutiny by your Lordships’ House. As I said, the Government believe that the Ground Committee provides the best forum for that scrutiny. It was notable in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that she sought to revisit all the arguments that were debated thoroughly during Second Reading of the Bill on Monday and did not address a single question of precedent.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am sorry. I apologise; I meant procedure. The noble Baroness did not address a single question of procedure. She sought to relitigate all the arguments that were made extensively at Second Reading. That shows that we are far from seeking somehow, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, to shy away from debate. Both he and I sat through six hours of debate on the Bill on the Floor of the House just on Monday, so in no way am I or the Government seeking to shy away from debate. I am very happy to debate these matters on the Floor of the House any time, as the noble Lord knows.
As I said in my opening remarks, every national insurance contributions Bill since 2006—in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, this one has not been fast-tracked; the two she mentioned were fast-tracked—has been considered in Grand Committee. This has been the normal venue for small or technical Bills—and, as the noble Baroness said, this is indeed a small Bill—including some that have made substantial changes. She mentioned some that made extremely substantial changes that were considered in Grand Committee.
The precedent set over the past two decades demonstrates that Grand Committees are well equipped to handle the detailed examination that is required for such legislation. This Bill follows the same technical nature and the Government believe that it should be treated in the same manner as all its predecessors. We of course understand and respect the legitimate concerns that have been raised in relation to the Bill. We are committed to ensuring thorough and detailed scrutiny of the legislation which, following the precedent of the past two decades, we believe will be best achieved in Grand Committee.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Will the Minister take the opportunity to correct his noble friend and confirm that Divisions are not allowed in Grand Committee?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not as expert in procedure as the noble Lord. I am happy to defer to my noble friend.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I am happy to confirm that you cannot have Divisions in Grand Committee.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord has just taken the words out of my mouth. I was just about to address the procedure, which is that you cannot have Divisions in Grand Committee. This Bill may be small and technical, but it will have a massive impact on people up and down the country. For that reason, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Northern Gaza
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, we all want to see this terrible conflict in Gaza come to a sustainable end as quickly as possible, with the emphasis, of course, on “sustainable”. I am sure we are all watching the current developments in Cairo extremely carefully. The key to a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza remains the release of the hostages. Can the Minister update us with any further information the Government have on the status of the hostages, particularly the British national hostage, Emily Damari? We also want to see more aid reach Gaza because we all know that innocent civilians in Gaza are suffering and desperate. Sadly, they continue to be used as human shields by Hamas, which seems to have no regard at all for their safety and welfare. Does the Minister agree that Hamas has the power to end this conflict immediately by releasing those hostages? Does he agree that there is no moral equivalence between Israel’s defensive war and Hamas’s terrorist atrocities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I think the noble Lord knows the answers to those questions because he has heard me speak repeatedly of the need for the immediate release of the hostages. Both sides need to show flexibility and do a deal now. We reiterate our call for the safe release of all hostages, including the British national, Emily Damari, and three hostages with strong UK links. Ensuring their release is a top priority for this Government. I also emphasise that we are facing a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza and that our response has been to focus on that too and make it clear that some of the actions that the Israeli Government have taken need to cease, so we need flexibility on both sides. We have announced £112 million for the OPTs this financial year, including £41 million for UNRWA, which provides vital, life-saving services to civilians in Gaza and the West Bank and to Palestinians across the region. As the noble Lord said, what we need is an immediate ceasefire and proper access for humanitarian aid.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is an outrage that the innocent hostages are still being detained. Yesterday, Minister Falconer said in the House of Commons of the Israeli military:
“Air strikes within the designated humanitarian zone show there are no safe spaces left for civilians”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/25; col. 733.]
The most pressing threat is to the 50,000 pregnant women and the 17,000 unaccompanied children. There is now hunger and no health facilities at all. Not only that, in December, we saw the lowest levels of aid getting into Gaza, and the Israeli Government, as an occupying power, was blocking its distribution within Gaza, contrary to international law, and contributing to the looting and criminal activities by gangs and Hamas. Notwithstanding the Minister’s concern and the number of times that Ministers have expressed their frustration with the Israeli Government, what consequences will there be for the relationship between the Israeli Government and His Majesty’s Government? There now need to be consequences; otherwise, nothing that Ministers say about their concerns will have any influence on the Israeli Government.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Lord knows that when this Government were elected, we took specific action. We have not been complacent here. On the mounting civilian deaths, we are absolutely determined to ensure that Israel does much more to comply with international humanitarian law and provide protection for civilians.
The Foreign Secretary continues to raise issues of international humanitarian law compliance in Gaza with the Israeli Government and since 2 September there have been no extant UK export licences for items to Israel that we assess are for use in military operations in Gaza. We have also restored funding to UNRWA to ensure that humanitarian aid can get in. I repeat to the noble Lord that we have not been complacent. We have acted and continue to act and put pressure on the Israeli Government and work with all our allies, as we have shown in our votes at the United Nations and the Security Council. I refute the suggestion that we have not taken action.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I recently met Dr Omar Alshaqaqi, who works in the cancer centre in Belfast City Hospital. He and his wife Dalal have seen 80 members of their two families killed in Gaza. On 4 December, Dalal was able to speak to her mother and sister in the camp that they had moved to on the instructions of the Israelis. As they concluded their conversation so that Dalal could go and collect her children from school in Belfast, she heard a bomb explode. When she returned with her children she learned that her mother and 34 year-old brother had been killed, and her three sisters and two of her three brothers had been seriously injured. All the hospitals have been destroyed. There is no anaesthetic and no medication to treat their terrible injuries. We all accept that Hamas must return the hostages but what more can be done after the destruction of all the hospitals to allow such injured people to get out of Gaza to a safe country?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution and her question. The situation in northern Gaza is absolutely dire and reports from Kamal Adwan Hospital have continued to shock and distress the international community. The United Kingdom has repeatedly raised concerns about the impact of this conflict on Gaza’s healthcare system and medical staff, including reiterating the requirement for all parties to comply with international humanitarian law. We are looking at all ways that we can ensure that proper health facilities are made available to those who need them and I hope, in the near future, we will be able to make certain announcements about that.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, three days before Hamas’s horrendous attacks on Israel I was in Gaza visiting the Anglican Al-Ahli Hospital. That hospital was struck again on 29 December by an Israeli artillery shell—the fifth strike it has had. Earlier this afternoon, I asked the archbishop in Jerusalem for an update and he provided me with a list of things that are urgently needed by his medical director at that hospital. They include antibiotics, anaesthesia drugs, sterile gloves, plaster of Paris, surgical knives, abdominal swabs and much more. All of that is in a container that has been in Amman for two months, held up because the Israeli Government will not allow it in. What might His Majesty’s Government do to try to enable that medical equipment to get to the Al-Ahli Hospital urgently?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have raised the issue of access to humanitarian aid and medical supplies with the Israeli Government. We are also giving support to UNRWA to try to get those supplies through. I think the right reverend Prelate makes an extremely valid point. It is unacceptable that such supplies should not be able to get through to those who need them. We are certainly making the strongest possible representations to ensure that they do get through.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I do not underestimate the difficulty of what I am going to ask my noble friend but on Monday I asked whether His Majesty’s Government could possibly consider the urgent temporary medical evacuation of children facing death, very serious illness and terrible injuries because clearly there are no medical facilities in northern Gaza which can deal with the situation they are facing. I repeat: is it possible for His Majesty’s Government to consider urgent temporary medical evacuation?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I tried to answer that question earlier, because there was a specific point raised. We are looking at all possible ways to ensure that there is access to medical assistance. I am not in a position to make any announcements today, but we are working with allies to see how this can be facilitated urgently.
Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree that this news is very worrying, particularly for those from Hong Kong who have BNO status. Given that the noble Lord’s ministerial friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is visiting China next week, can he ensure that she will raise these human rights issues, and the multitude of other human rights violations, during this cosy little tete-a-tete with the Chinese Communists? Will she also raise, again, the case of Jimmy Lai?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
Our approach to China is not to pivot between a golden era and a deep denial of any contact. We are taking a consistent approach that is rooted in the United Kingdom’s interests and global interests. We will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must. Let me reassure the noble Lord that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made it absolutely clear to the Chinese Communist Party and its leadership that they should release Jimmy Lai. We have made representations on that and have strongly condemned the recent announcement of Hong Kong police targeting individuals who are exercising their right to freedom of expression. We have called on Beijing to repeal the national security law. We do not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the United Kingdom.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the wholly unacceptable issuing of bounties for the arrest of innocent British residents and citizens is contrary to the promotion of and respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance in the United Kingdom. That is one of the criteria for Magnitsky sanctions. Will the Government act and ensure that those who issued those bounties will now be sanctioned by this Parliament as a statement and signal of that being completely unacceptable behaviour? In the light of these actions just before Christmas, will the Government now move with pace on the designation of China under national security legislation for the enhanced mechanisms, so that it cannot interfere in our democratic processes?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Lord knows I am obliged to say that I am not going to respond by predicting future sanctions. To come back to his point about FIRS, we have not yet made any decisions on which foreign powers or foreign power-controlled entities will be specified on the enhanced tier. The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme will further strengthen our national security, while maintaining the UK as an international hub for business. Announcements will be made after due consideration. Certainly, we have been clear, and we believe that our approach of engaging directly and robustly with China where it is in the UK’s national interest is the right one. It is firmly in line with our G7 and Five Eyes partners.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in another place yesterday, the Minister, Catherine West, said that we have to “balance” national security with the need to be
“an outwardly facing … trading nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/25; col. 760.]
Can the Minister explain what that means in the context of the 19 year-old young woman, Chloe Cheung, who now has a £1 million bounty on her head, along with several other young people, including Nathan Law, a former legislator in Hong Kong, whose own family have been threatened regularly, as he is now here in exile in the United Kingdom? Chloe said:
“Fear cannot restrain me. Suppression cannot silence me”.
Can the Minister tell us what more the Government will do to support people in her position? As the Joint Committee on Human Rights has decided to hold an inquiry into transnational repression, I hope the Minister will agree that that is an inquiry to which he will make a significant contribution as the Human Rights Minister.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am certainly willing to do that. Let me reassure the noble Lord that our position is quite clear. China is our fourth-biggest trading partner and the second-biggest economy. Trade between these countries has existed for some time. The United Kingdom Government, under both parties, have been very clear and robust about these breaches of international law. To suggest that we have done nothing that the Chinese Communist Party has been annoyed about is not true. The noble Lord can grimace, but the fact that we have given BNOs the right to come here was very much a concern of the Chinese Communist Party. We have acted—this has included sanctions for four Chinese officials and one entity for serious systematic human rights violations—and we continue to act. The idea that we can simply conflate our very strong condemnation of human rights abuses and then say that therefore we are not going to have any economic ties is simply not in the interests of this country or of the global economy.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that last answer. He is quite right that we should not be pivoting on the basis of headlines; we should have the closest relationship compatible with our national security and the principles that we uphold. None the less, I am sure the Minister will recognise that there was a substantive change in Chinese policy towards Hong Kong from 2020. Until then, the letter, if not always the spirit, of the Sino-British declaration had been honoured. With the national security law and the cancellation of the LegCo elections and change in the rules, China is now blatantly in violation of the “one country, two systems” deal, which was the basis on which the transfer of sovereignty was made. Whether it is by the kind of targeted sanctions suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, or by some other mechanism, surely there must be some response from the British Government when we see such an overt violation of a treaty to which we are one of the two parties.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Ongoing breaches of that agreement have been registered with the United Nations. As I have said, one of the biggest consequences of those was the United Kingdom Government’s actions in facilitating BNOs being able to come to this country—a very successful operation, on which I congratulate the previous Government. It was the right decision. It certainly annoyed the Chinese Communist Party, which saw it as a breach of the agreement, whereas it was a reaction to its ongoing breaches of the agreement. We are taking every possible step to raise our concerns about human rights violations, not only the introduction of the security legislation in Hong Kong but the ongoing breaches of human rights in other parts of China.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that there are consequences for not upholding international law and not sticking by treaty obligations? I remind him that our capitulation in the light of the violation of the Budapest memorandum vis-à-vis Ukraine led to certain inevitable actions. I suggest to him that exactly the same may happen if the Government appear to be so relaxed about signing up only to bits of international law that they rather like and not enforcing obligations internationally elsewhere, particularly as a UN Security Council member.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I totally refute the noble Baroness’s suggestion that we are not being robust in our response in defending human rights. The actions of the United Kingdom Government have been very clear. I repeat that the biggest response to the introduction of this law in Hong Kong was the facilitation of BNOs coming here, and we are making the strongest possible representations. I also refute the idea that we have not used sanctions; we have, and I could go into examples of upholding international humanitarian law and human rights. I do not accept for one moment that we failed to show a robust response. But we are living in a global world and we face global challenges, not least as one of the biggest economies in the world. We have to co-operate with China to address our biggest threat, which is climate change. That is what I hear from people when I attend international fora. I refute the noble Baroness’s suggestion.
Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering on the Statement. We on these Benches, like many in this country, are shocked and appalled by the grooming gang scandal—there is no other word for it. The abuse and exploitation of children by these predatory gangs represent some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, and the trauma inflicted on victims and survivors, many of whom were children at the time, is immeasurable. Let it be absolutely clear that we stand with the victims and survivors of these abhorrent crimes, and we call for the strongest possible action to bring perpetrators to justice and ensure that such atrocities are prevented in the future.
However, I must express our profound disappointment on these Benches that His Majesty’s Government have not commissioned a national statutory public inquiry into this matter. Only through a thorough, independent examination of the facts can we hold all responsible parties to account, learn the lessons required and ensure that justice is delivered. So I repeat the point I made to the Minister during Questions: will he agree that a national statutory public inquiry is crucial, not only to deliver justice for the victims but to rebuild public confidence in the ability of our institutions to protect vulnerable children? Further, will he clarify why the Government have chosen not to pursue this route despite the scale and severity of these crimes—and, above all, to provide justice for the victims?
The Minister outlined measures that the Government intend to take. Although these are welcome steps, they must go further. Can the Minister provide more specific details on how these measures will, first, ensure that the systemic failures within institutions such as police forces, social services and local authorities are identified and rectified; secondly, prevent the abuse and exploitation of children in the future; and, thirdly, offer meaningful and sustained support to victims and survivors, many of whom continue to suffer lifelong trauma?
The survivors of these horrific crimes deserve to be heard, believed and supported at every stage. This includes access to specialised mental health services, legal support and protection from further harm or intimidation. What additional resources will the Government provide to ensure that all survivors, regardless of where they live, can access the help they so desperately need?
Finally, we urge the Government to recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in addressing this issue. A piecemeal approach risks further undermining public trust. A further statutory public inquiry would not only bring clarity and justice but signal a resolute commitment to ensuring that no child in this country is ever subjected to such horrors again.
Let us be clear that these crimes are a disgrace to British society, and every effort must be made to ensure that they are never repeated. We owe it to the victims and survivors to act decisively, comprehensively and with the utmost compassion and resolve. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to these specific points.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the Minister for the Statement. From these Benches I also thank the Government for the progress that is finally being made on the acceptance of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The victims—not just victims of criminal exploitation and grooming in gangs but all the victims covered in IICSA—were ignored at every level for far too many years, except by a small number of people, including women and including Jess Phillips, now a Minister, whose work has been absolutely outstanding in this area. Even so, it has taken us many years to get to this point where we can actually formally move forward. We can move forward, but many of the victims’ lives are still affected—not just then but now—and many are feeling victimised again because of the debate currently going on in the wider world.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked again for a new inquiry—I recognise that he and his colleagues are doing that. I sat in this Chamber on 24 October 2022 when the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, was the Minister responding to the publication of the report. The words the Government said at that point led one to believe that things would move ahead with speed and that most, if not all, of the recommendations would be accepted and implemented at speed. That has not been the case. It may be only two years on, but it has been very slow. The only recommendation that I think has been implemented is on the toolkit, which is a helpful practical tool—but none the less it is not enough.
From these Benches I wonder whether, given the tone of the debate at the moment, it would be helpful for the Government to publish a list of all the inquiries that have happened, not just IICSA but also in relation to children being groomed in towns and cities around the country, as well as the inquiries that the inspectorate of policing has held—at least two—along with links to them so that we, the public, can check them, in addition to the recommendations and action plans. Some of those were published some years ago—Telford in particular—and it might be helpful if the Government could have a brief look at the reviews of those action plans, ask people involved in them to mark progress, and re-energise those issues that require more work. Are the Government planning such a move? It might be salutary, not just for the Government but for everyone.
During Questions earlier today I spoke about one of the issues I was utterly confused about: the IICSA recommendation on providing mandatory aggravating factor sentencing when a child was exploited—that is, controlled, coerced, manipulated or pushed into sexual activity by two or more people. That is exactly the territory of the gangs that we have been hearing about in the past few days. I am concerned that the written response from the previous Government was very clear that it absolutely did not need to happen—they absolutely refused to do it. Yet now they are saying that it must be done. In fact, Robert Jenrick MP has gone further and said there should be a mandatory life sentence, which is a bit of a jump from an aggravating factor in sentencing. I hope the Government move speedily ahead with the aggravating factor in sentencing, because that will send a very clear message about the unacceptability of this sort of crime by the communities. The focus that many of us have also had is not on the perpetrators but on the failure of the public services, which is why I am particularly keen to see whether there is any further information from the inspectorate of policing on the recommendations it has made to see whether they have been picked up in further inspections.
Many noble Lords will know that I have a particular interest, as does my noble friend Lady Walmsley, in mandatory reporting. Recommendation 13 in IICSA on mandatory reporting was not the standard mandatory reporting style that has been accepted by scores of countries, including some states in America, Canada and Australia, where it has worked extremely well.
The most important thing about this model of mandatory reporting that has been adopted abroad is that it entirely changes the culture in every organisation working with children to think safeguarding because it is safe to report it, and it is only ever used as a criminal response where there has been deliberate negligence by somebody not to report. Interestingly, it has also changed the methods of training on safeguarding for people who need it. I hope that the Government will consider the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which has its Second Reading a week on Friday, because it reflects the international model of mandatory reporting. I highly commend that to the Government.
In summary, I hope that the Government will be able to give us a timetable on which of the recommendations might take slightly longer to implement than others. The Minister may be able to give us an indication today. He made a reference in the Question earlier today about concerns expressed by another noble Lord on the lack of recompense. Can he outline the current thoughts on the timescale for that recompense to be available to victims?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the two contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I start by simply echoing what the noble Lord and, by implication, the noble Baroness, said: child sexual abuse and exploitation are the most vile and horrific crimes and include rape, violence, coercive control, intimidation, manipulation and deep, long-term harm. It is our duty in this House and Parliament as a whole, and as a Government, to make sure that we take steps to eradicate that abuse and ensure that those who commit it face the full force of the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked why the Government have not commissioned a national inquiry. I understand where he is coming from and the reasons why he is asking for that. I simply say that I hope he can recognise that, in one way, we have had a national inquiry already. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, who, as Home Secretary, established in 2015 the inquiry that has produced recommendations under Alexis Jay, to whom I also pay tribute. It has set a framework for action in this Parliament and beyond to deal with this issue of child sexual abuse as a whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, commissioned the inquiry in 2015; it took seven years and an extraordinary amount of witness presentation and examination of issues, looking also at all the wider inquiries that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned. It produced a series of recommendations, which were delivered to the noble Lord’s Government in 2022. His Government responded to those in early 2023, and he will know that the general election took place in July 2024. When we entered office, progress and delivery on the recommendations were very scant. I say that not as a point of political argy-bargy but in recognition of the fact that we are now trying to lift those recommendations and put them into practice to meet the objectives set by the original commission by the noble Baroness, Lady May.
As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said earlier this week in the House of Commons, we will, as a starting point, undertake the first three major items. The first is a mandatory reporting mechanism, which means that any individual who has child abuse reported to them, either by a child or indeed a perpetrator, has a statutory duty to report that for investigation by the police and criminal justice agencies. That is an important first step to commit to. The second important step is on legislating to provide an aggravating factor in sentencing. That means that if a leader of a gang and an accomplice is doing this, they know that they will face not just a charge on the criminal offence that they have undertaken but an aggravated offence of the sexual grooming of a child. The third element that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary brought forward is the question of cracking down online, because child sexual abuse has evolved and will evolve, there is a large online presence and we need to look at the mechanisms for that, including artificial intelligence and grooming online. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that those three issues—mandating, aggravating factors and online abuse—are serious issues.
Again, we could have a national inquiry. It might well take four or five years and might well cover the same ground as the inquiry commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May. What we are interested in is action on the issues that are brought forward, and we will look at the remainder of the recommendations over time to see whether we can bring some energy and action to them, including many of the issues that have been mentioned. That includes the issue of compensation for victims, because victims deserve compensation, but, again, that is a complex, difficult issue to work through.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has helpfully supported the Government’s approach to date and raised a number of key issues which I hope I can address. First, I say to her that I really welcome her support for my colleague Jess Phillips, the Minister responsible for safeguarding of children. She has had a lifelong commitment to tackling child abuse and a lifelong commitment to supporting victims of domestic violence, and she now has the ability, as a Minister, to put some of those lifelong convictions into real government action. She is doing that, and therefore the criticisms that have come her way in the last few days are unfair. She has already been working with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the issues that we brought forward on Monday to ensure that we put in the public domain this Government’s commitment to tackling those issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very helpful suggestions about potentially collecting the elements of the reporting mechanisms and inquiries that have taken place. Telford has taken place; the Mayor of Manchester is undertaking inquiries; there are police inquiries; there is the inquiry I mentioned that has been commissioned. Hers is a helpful suggestion, and I will take it back and discuss it with my colleagues accordingly.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, a week on Friday, to which I will be responding. I will be meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and Jess Phillips next week to discuss the contents of the Bill. I have to say that my initial assessment is that the Bill is similar to what the Government will bring forward and therefore it may well be better to ensure that we have a Government-tested Bill downstream, but the principle of the Bill is one that we accept, and it is an important issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also mentioned the issue of wider government action. One reason that we announced the three particular policy issues is because some of the other 16 or 17 policy issues require a wider government consideration and response, and it is important that we get that right over time. That is one of the reasons we will consider the recommendations in due course.
The noble Baroness asked about timetables. I would love to be able to give them to her, but it is important that we do this right and I do not want to hoist ourselves by our own petard by setting a timescale that does not meet the objective of doing this right and responding in the right way. We have a commitment to secure compensation, and we will commit to review all the recommendations over and above the ones we have made. Again, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will report back to the House of Commons, and I will report back to this House, in due course on those matters.
I hope that those issues are ones on which we can have some co-operation and agreement. We have a disagreement on a national inquiry; that will pass this week. That political discussion and cloud will blow over. What will be left, however, are serious recommendations from a serious report that took seven years in the making and that demands responses with the consideration of time. That is the Government’s main focus: we will bring back proposals in legislation in this Session and will report back on other proposals in due course. I hope I will have the co-operation and support of both Front Bench spokespeople when those moments arrive.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the references he has made, on this occasion and on others, to the action that I took in relation to setting up the inquiry on child sexual abuse.
Child sexual exploitation takes place online and physically in the real world. Children are also groomed online, with a view to them then being abused physically —exploited, abused and raped. What representations are the Government making to the owners of social media platforms to encourage them—or request or require them—to take action to ensure that their platforms cannot be used for child sexual exploitation online, or for the grooming online of children, by either gangs or individuals, with a view to physical abuse and exploitation taking place?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, for establishing the inquiry in the first place. She was right to do so, and in due course I want to do justice to the recommendations that have come out of that inquiry.
She raised an extremely important point about companies, because online grooming material, the deepfake stuff now coming out and a whole range other material are extremely worrying and perturbing. Social media companies must have responsibility for that as well as society. The Government will introduce a requirement for companies to report online child sexual exploitation and abuse identified on their services to the National Crime Agency. This requirement will be underpinned by regulations which will ensure that companies provide high-quality reports with the information that law enforcement needs both to identify offenders and to help support and safeguard victims. In-scope companies—and we will have to determine which those are—will have to demonstrate that they already report under existing mandatory or voluntary overseas reporting regimes, which will ensure that they are exempt from this recommendation and avoid duplication of companies’ efforts.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness completely that online companies have a real responsibility. They cannot just host material; they must have responsibility for some of that content. The steps that I have outlined, which are underpinned by the first three elements of the response to the report, are ones which the Government will take forward with some urgency.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and I want to make it clear to the whole House that I am speaking in a personal capacity today.
I want to ask the Minister about the proposal in IICSA for a single core dataset, which the Government say in the Statement that they are planning to implement. Would this be an accessible dataset, open and transparent? Or would journalists, or others seeking information on that dataset, need to go through the inevitable delays that freedom of information requests and appeals entail? This is particularly important because, as he will know, the other recommendation of IICSA is that a national public awareness campaign be mounted. National public awareness will work only if we call out people, particularly those who are now, we are told, for the first time going to be described by ethnicity in that database.
As, I think, the only person in the House who grew up within those communities, having grown up in Pakistan, I want to refer to deportations to that country. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are planning to take to seek deportation of those who are convicted and who then seek to thwart that through renouncing their nationality—I refer particularly to Pakistan in this regard? Will he call in the Pakistani ambassador and open talks with the Pakistani Government to ensure that those who have dual nationality are not permitted to renounce it once they are under police investigation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those questions. There is a significant amount of detail in the points that she has raised, and I hope she will understand and bear with me when I say that the Government are working through the broad objectives that we have set. The first three objectives I have mentioned are on mandatory reporting, the grooming aggravated offence and online work. These are the three major priorities.
I note what the noble Baroness said about the database. If she will allow me, I want to reflect in detail on that point. It is an important way in which information is put into the public domain and I do not want to commit today to things that we find are impractical or counterproductive downstream. I will note that point and follow up on it.
The noble Baroness made a point about convicted individuals from a particular nation. From the Government’s point of view, people who commit child abuse—whatever their race, ethnicity, background, sexual orientation or other things—should be held to account by the forces of the law and prosecuted accordingly when evidence is brought forward. In the event that she mentioned, of someone who has been convicted who has a nationality which is not British and has served a sentence in a jail in this country, the Government always reserve the right to deport that individual back to their home country in due course. The noble Baroness raised dual nationality issues. If she will allow me, rather than commit today on the detail of that extremely technical and complicated issue, I will take it back and discuss it, but it is an important procedure going forward.
I say to the noble Baroness and to all in this House that I want to focus not just on the nationality of any particular or potential groomers or offenders but on people who undertake grooming and offending and to make sure that we tackle that across the board. Individuals of whatever nationality should be held to account for their criminal actions.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that I get very angry about this issue, and I hope the House will forgive me. I have worked for most of my life with this sort of activity. I started in Newcastle in 1970 in the then new children’s department as a family social worker. I have worked with victims of sexual abuse and of other forms of abuse in different ways, now through the voluntary sector. I really resent this issue now being used as a political football.
I am absolutely shocked at the Official Opposition and at people I have always regarded as good colleagues on the Front Bench opposite for the way they have been doing this. The reality is that all of us over the last 50 years have not done enough at each stage to make sure that we protect, particularly, young girls and women. The idea that the previous party that was in power for all that time is better than everybody else on it is shocking. We all have to accept that we have not done enough. In this House last year, I spoke about sexual exploitation at the Second Reading of a Bill and was seen as weird for doing it.
I really hope that the Government are going to take hold of action now. Those young women—I have been talking today to some of the organisations that are working with them—are still angry that not enough has been done to support them. We have to support them, and I hope the Government will do that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and for her persistent campaigning on this issue. It is important that we focus on the issue: how do we better protect children and survivors, how do we give them victim support and how do we prevent future criminal actions by individuals, whatever their race or ethnicity? We must also seek to prosecute individuals, whatever their race or ethnicity.
While I can make points about the review commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May, the seven years afterwards, the response and what has happened since then, I want to try to look forward. That means taking forward the three recommendations that we have agreed to and looking at the work we have done since July on the child sexual exploitation police task force. That was established by the last Government. We have now put some energy into the acceleration of its activity and saw a 25% increase in arrests around child sexual exploitation between July and September of last year.
There is much to do. I appreciate that history is worth looking at, and there are lessons for us all—including me, as I was a Home Office Minister a long time ago, in 2009-10. My hope is that we can use this to find common ground to tackle the issue. In doing so, let us make sure that we protect children and bring perpetrators to justice.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, when I last tried to introduce a mandatory reporting duty for child abuse, in an amendment on Report to the Serious Crime Bill, on 28 October 2014—a long time ago—the Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, responded by announcing the inquiry, which later became the IICSA inquiry established by the noble Baroness, Lady May, as well as a public consultation. However, he said:
“Research is inconclusive in determining whether mandatory reporting regimes help, hinder or … make no difference to child safeguarding outcomes”.—[Official Report, 28/10/14; col. 1083.]
He also said that the duty to report might “divert” services from the task of safeguarding children. Is the current Minister convinced that the research is clear that a mandatory reporting duty will help the task of protecting children, rather than hinder it? The clarity of the evidence will be very important when we come to debate the Home Secretary’s proposals, which we want to make sure go through.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government believe that a mandatory reporting mechanism will help the system, which is why we will introduce it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I fully agree with the decision not to hold a full statutory inquiry. Does the Minister accept that we have already had sufficient relevant inquiries? Does he accept that they are very expensive, go on for a long time and very often stand in the way of appropriate action? What is actually now required is the urgent implementation of the existing recommendations, on which there is widespread agreement.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Viscount must have read my notes, because I agree with him fully.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government are presenting this as an either/or issue? I do not get it. Yes, we should implement Professor Jay’s proposals—great action—but the reason why victims are demanding a specific inquiry looking at the Pakistani heritage grooming gangs is—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
What do the Government think about the fact that state agencies knew about the industrial rape of girls who were considered to be white trash? Social workers, teachers and police officers looked the other way. That is what we need an inquiry into. It is a specific problem; we cannot just say that there was “child sex abuse”. As for those who say that this is a political football, when I raised in this House the Telford report, people tut-tutted and shouted, “Shameful”—and they meant me, not the rapists. This has been made a political football by others. There is a specific issue here—can the Government address it and respond to the Jay inquiry?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government are cognisant of the fact that there have been failures by individuals who should have had a responsibility for safeguarding children. We will look at that and put in place the lessons learned. But I do not think—speaking personally, as well as on behalf of the Government—that a four or five-year inquiry will add to the sum of knowledge that we have, for the very reasons that the noble Viscount outlined. What we need to do is to implement action to ensure that we prevent further child abuse. That is what this Government’s main focus will be.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I chaired the Catholic Council for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. My role there was to ensure that the Catholic Church co-operated fully with the inquiry. The CCIICSA still exists, because the recommendations have not been implemented. In that role, I sat through much of the inquiry, and I heard an enormous amount of evidence from victims. Many of those victims were visibly retraumatised by the very experience of giving evidence to IICSA; their pain was very often palpable. It also seemed to me, as I watched, that they were traumatised by listening to others who were giving their evidence as witnesses—but they had to be heard; there is no question about that. The Minister has said that there was a module in IICSA that effectively dealt with organised crime. The people who participated in those hearings, and all the other hearings of IICSA, do not need a further inquiry; they need action. We spent £186 million on IICSA, and it was money well spent. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to finding ways to implement the recommendations now to protect all our children for the future.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for that support, and for her support for the Government not reinvigorating or starting again a national inquiry. She makes an extremely important point about victims. Victims are victims and, whatever has happened, they are being traumatised and have been traumatised, and will carry that with them for many years, if not for life. Therefore, the Government recognise that we need to support victims and survivors. We will look at the issue of compensation in slower time now, but we are doing that. We also recognise the significant impact that funding for support services can play in helping victims. The Home Office, my department, is continuing to provide funding to voluntary organisations for survivors of child sexual abuse. We will continue to work across government to ensure that we put a proper victims package in place to help support them.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I compliment the Minister, unusually, on his balanced approach, which is commendable. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong—again, I do not do so that often—that this should not be a political football. But it has to be said that the Prime Minister, yesterday or the day before, made it a political football by saying that anybody who criticised him was being right-wing. I do not know if the Minister has read the article in the Times today on an interview with Andrew Norfolk, who investigated this scandal and exposed it some dozen years ago. In it he defends the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, when he was DPP, and we should note that absolutely. The article also reports Andrew Norfolk as saying that,
“the national inquiry shied away from investigating the causation of grooming gangs, ‘probably for not dissimilar reasons why left-wing academics still attack me … It is very difficult to talk about this stuff without being accused of being Islamophobic’”.
He then adds that,
“everybody is still too scared”.
I do not think we should have a seven-year inquiry but the Government need to focus very much on the idea that the grooming gangs were not generally white English people, as everybody knows. The Government need to look at that closely.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has said what he said. I have heard it and do not agree with much of it. The Prime Minister has a strong record, as DPP and as a political leader, of tackling this issue, and a strong record of supporting my honourable friend Jess Phillips, who has a strong record of tackling this issue. Why this is being politicised is that some people are using it to attack the Government for a range of reasons. I want to focus on the issue at hand, and that is how we prevent child sexual abuse. The measures in the recommendations of the report to date will be looked at. We have already said what we are going to try to implement, and that is the important thing to focus on.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of the issues that arises in this long and sad saga is the difficulty of arriving at truth and the associated possibility of false accusation. Indeed, the IICSA inquiry was set up in the first place on, in one sense, a false premise—a whole load of utterly untrue accusations against prominent people. That was why it began. Operation Midland showed the accusations against Ted Heath, Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan to be absolutely untrue. There are many such occasions on which false accusations are made.
The reason this is relevant is that, first of all, it is a terrible thing to accuse people falsely, and, secondly, it can produce an extraordinary waste of time, effort and money, instead of finding out what really is true. In this respect, I very much endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said about mandatory reporting. We need to work out what it would actually do and what effect it would have. It is proposed by Professor Jay in the IICSA recommendations, where she says that, on the disclosure of child abuse, reporting is mandatory. But what is the disclosure of child abuse? Is it simply somebody saying that somebody has behaved badly? Is it a direct accusation? Does it exonerate the person receiving that from investigating themselves and thinking hard about it? Do they exercise judgment? Are they just complying rather than exercising their conscience? These are serious questions that need to be asked about this subject.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am conscious of the time, but I will try to give the noble Lord a response to that. On mandatory reporting, we are focusing on two specific issues. First, if a person, whoever that person is—a teacher, social worker, police officer or whoever—has a disclosure from a victim to them, they have a mandatory duty to feed that in to the law enforcement agencies for investigation. That creates a dynamic, first and foremost, that if a child goes to an adult who is in a responsible position and says, “I have been abused”, the adult does not make the judgment of “Yes, you have” or “No, you haven’t”, the adult says, “I have to report that now to an appropriate authority”. Secondly, and this is a more difficult side of this case, if somebody who has committed abuse goes to their MP and says that—I had a case once where that happened to me as a Member of Parliament—or they go to a priest or another individual and confess to a crime, they also have the statutory duty to report the issue to the authority at hand.
I think that is an important issue. It is about disclosure, it is about action. I withdraw what I said about the priest: I may have overstepped the mark there, and I wish to keep the House embedded in truth and fact. The essential point is that if an individual—a child or an abuser—reports that, the person they report it to has the ability to disclose that information to the police, who will then investigate and action it accordingly. I think that will help a dynamic of reporting and surfacing of information. I note the noble Lord’s points on historical abuse. We have had much discussion in this House, and I am willing to have further discussion accordingly when it is raised.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 8th January 2025
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, before I come to the Bill, I will pay my respects to Baroness Randerson. Since being appointed to your Lordships’ House, Baroness Randerson served as a Government Minister and spent almost 10 years as her party’s transport spokesperson. During this time, she showed a mastery of the transport brief, making important contributions to wide-ranging debates and holding successive Governments to account.
After becoming a Minister in July, I enjoyed exchanging views over the Dispatch Box and in private with Baroness Randerson. I was very grateful to work closely with her on the recent Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill—now Act—the first Bill I have taken through as a Government Minister, and she showed her characteristic attention to detail, inquisitiveness and determination to ensure that the legislation left this House in the best shape possible. I know she was enthusiastic about the Bill in front of your Lordships’ House today and would have wanted again to make sure that it left this House in excellent shape. On that, I will do my best.
As your Lordships will be aware, Baroness Randerson had a distinguished career prior to her introduction to the Lords, serving in the Welsh Assembly, now the Senedd, as the Member for Cardiff Central for 12 years and holding a ministerial post in the Welsh Government. I am honoured to have had the opportunity to work with her, and I know that her commitment to public service will be long remembered. I send my condolences to her family, friends and colleagues in this House.
Moving to the Bill, I am pleased to present the Bus Services (No.2) Bill for Second Reading today. It is not to be confused with the Bus Services Bill, which was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the other place. I declare my interest as a licensed PCV driver and that the charity of which my wife and I are trustees holds a number of community bus service permits used for the Imberbus service, which raises money for charitable purposes.
Buses are the most popular mode of public transport and are essential for growth, jobs and housing. However, we have seen in England that passenger numbers and bus service levels have been in decline, with 1.8 billion fewer annual bus journeys outside London in 2023-24 compared with 1985-86. The Transport Act 1985 radically changed the bus industry by privatising the National Bus Company companies and deregulating services outside London, restricting the powers of local leaders to decide what is best for their local area. This Government intend to reverse this.
In London, passengers have long benefited from public control of the bus network, with lower fares and frequent and reliable services. The 1.8 billion passenger journeys made in London in the year ending March 2024 demonstrate how critical the network is to London. This figure accounts for over half of all bus journeys in England. Outside London, two of the existing local authority bus companies, in Nottingham and Reading, are ranked second and third for the highest number of bus journeys per head in England. The success of London, Nottingham and Reading is not a coincidence. Passengers will use good services. It is therefore only right that these options are available to all local transport authorities.
As a Government we are committed to delivering better buses. In the 2024 manifesto the Government set out a clear plan to improve bus networks. This Bill marks an important contribution to supporting the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth and break down the barriers to opportunity. Changes that the Bill makes will enable safer, more reliable, inclusive and accessible networks that provide the connections that passengers need. This, as I said, is essential to accessing vital jobs, education and healthcare in cities, towns and rural areas across England.
The Bill is about providing local leaders the ability to choose the best way of running services in their area, a choice not currently available everywhere in England. Local authorities should be able to decide how best to run their services, choosing the right operating model that works for their communities. This will help improve bus services and grow usage, meaning that it will be passengers who benefit. The Bill is focused and narrow in scope. Its measures apply primarily to local bus services in England. School services are also in scope due to the single clause relating to enhanced criminal record checks for drivers of school services.
We have already taken a first step in reforming bus services. We brought forward the Franchising Schemes (Franchising Authorities) (England) Regulations 2024. These came into force on 18 December and enable all local transport authorities in England to franchise their bus services. These powers had previously been limited to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral county combined authorities. The Bill builds on these regulations and marks the next step in our ambitious plan towards a better bus network. The need for reform is clear—to reverse the decline in passenger numbers and services that have been depleted over many years, and particularly recently.
Transport for Greater Manchester’s journey to bus franchising has shown the potential benefits of greater public control. It is timely to be presenting the Bill during the week in which its journey has been completed. Manchester has already seen patronage increase by 5% since public control began to be rolled out in 2023. Elsewhere, local authority bus companies such as Nottingham City Transport have delivered award-winning services to passengers. There are also great examples of local transport authorities working in partnership with the private sector to deliver excellent services, such as in Brighton, Norfolk, Bournemouth and Poole, and Wiltshire. Sadly, there are also examples of towns and cities with little or no evening or Sunday services, and rural areas with no services at all. There will be no one-size-fits-all approach. Different cities, towns and rural areas have different needs. The Bill is about ensuring that local areas have all the tools they need to improve bus services for their communities.
Bus services are the lifeblood of communities. They carry people to hospital appointments, to school and to their jobs. This is especially true for women, those who are young, those on low incomes, ethnic minorities and the elderly, all of whom rely on buses more. Given the strong case for change, the principles behind the Bill should, I hope, receive cross-party support. The manifestos of all three main political parties acknowledged the importance of buses. There is also strong public support, so I sincerely hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House can get behind the Bill as a vital step towards fixing our fragmented and variable bus networks.
I know from speaking to many noble Lords that they believe in improving the bus network for the better, whether that is improving accessibility or rural services, or protecting routes. The Bill seeks to address all these issues and keep passengers at the core of its aims. It is a government priority. The ambition is clear, and it is hoped that the Bill will deliver greater consistency in bus services across the country. Its objectives include protecting passengers from anti-social behaviour and violence, reducing fare evasion and expanding powers to local authorities on bus funding.
I am sure that some noble Lords will question how the Bill moves forward from the last fundamental shift in bus legislation. It is true that the Bus Services Act 2017 gave new powers to local transport authorities to create enhanced partnerships and allowed mayoral combined and mayoral combined county authorities to pursue bus franchising, but these franchising powers did not extend more widely. New local authority-owned bus companies, formerly referred to as municipal companies, were also banned by that Act.
This Bill builds on the 2017 reforms, while also reversing the ban on local authority-owned bus companies. This will help deliver a wider set of options for local areas. Local transport authorities—LTAs—know the needs of their communities and they are best placed to decide what shape their bus services should take.
I will briefly enumerate what the Bill does. It is split into 11 areas. First, while the recent franchising regulations removed the limit on which local authorities could franchise, the clauses on franchising in the Bill will streamline the process, including by removing the Secretary of State consent requirement. The intention is to introduce flexibility and to reduce the amount of time it takes for LTAs to franchise their bus services if they choose to do so.
Secondly, a provision in the Bill will require LTAs to specify requirements which must be followed where bus operators under enhanced partnerships wish to vary or cancel a service that has been identified as a socially necessary local service.
Thirdly, for local areas where enhanced partnerships remain the best option for local services, the Bill will strengthen these partnerships, allowing for improved working between LTAs and bus operators.
Fourthly, the Bill will repeal the ban on establishing new local authority bus companies, giving local authorities the chance to use their local knowledge to run services in their area and opening up powers currently limited to the five legacy local authority bus companies.
Fifthly, LTAs will be given the power to design and make grants to operators of bus services in their areas. They will have greater freedoms to decide where that money is directed.
Sixthly, provisions on bus registration will improve the availability of information for passengers. This includes new statutory powers to require LTAs in franchised areas to provide information about local bus services with the aim of helping to improve reliability for passengers.
Seventhly, the Bill includes measures to improve safety on buses by giving powers for LTAs to bring forward by-laws to tackle anti-social behaviour and powers to enforce fare requirements.
Eighthly, it is important to increase the safety and accessibility of stopping places, so there is a measure giving the Secretary of State the ability to set out expectations for bus stops and bus stations in statutory guidance.
Ninthly, the Bill closes an existing loophole through the inclusion of a safeguard for school services. This requires the operator of a public service vehicle to check an enhanced criminal record certificate for drivers who carry out closed school transport services more than three times in any 30-day period.
Penultimately, there is a power in the Bill to mandate training of bus staff, including bus drivers, on tackling crime. This is intended to tackle incidences of violence against women and girls, as well as anti-social behaviour. There is also a measure for training on disability awareness and assistance.
Finally, to meet the commitment to move towards sustainable travel, there is a measure on zero-emission buses to accelerate their rollout by introducing a restriction on the use of new non-zero-emission buses on registered local bus services. But, in recognition that the industry will need time to adjust to this change, this will not come into force before 1 January 2030.
This is a comprehensive and focused Bill that reforms and develops critical aspects of bus services. Stakeholders, including the bus industry, have been engaged throughout policy development to ensure that the provisions are fit for purpose and address the key challenges that the industry faces.
The Bill’s application is largely to England only. This is the case for the critical measures relating to bus operating models, such as franchising. Certain clauses will also apply to Wales and/or Scotland where necessary, but the Bill as drafted will not require any legislative consent motions from the Welsh Senedd or Scottish Parliament.
Before I conclude my opening remarks, I reinforce that reform does not end with this Bill. This journey has many stops. Following Royal Assent there will be further regulations required, including on franchising, bus registration, fare evasion, staff training and zero-emission buses. These are needed so that that which the Bill has enabled can be set out clearly for industry stakeholders and local authorities to follow. My department will continue to engage with all parties.
I recognise that franchising is a choice, but that this route is not currently well trodden. My department is therefore developing guidance to increase capability and capacity in those authorities that are striving to franchise, and this guidance will follow the Bill.
While the Bill does not introduce new funding, I am sure that noble Lords will wish to debate funding through the parliamentary process. It would be remiss not to mention the Government’s Budget commitment to over £1 billion of funding for buses in 2025-26 to support and improve services and keep fares affordable.
To conclude, this Government will reform the bus network to deliver improved services for passengers across England. This supports our growth and opportunity missions, providing a clear strategic direction for buses and proper integration and co-ordination. The Bill presents an unprecedented opportunity, learning from the 2017 Act, to create a safer, more reliable and transparent bus network, with local leaders having more powers to decide what is best for the local area that they represent. This will be a step forward in reversing the decades of decline that have become synonymous with bus travel in this country. There is much to be done and this will not be an easy journey, but industry stakeholders and local authorities alike are invested in creating an improved bus network that users can be proud of. This Bill is a vital component in our plan to reform buses. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. We look forward to working constructively with him to improve this Bill, alongside my noble friend Lord Moylan, who will be leading for His Majesty’s Official Opposition.
I hope noble Lords will allow me to say this. Given that this is the second bus services Bill introduced in this Parliament so far, it seems right that you wait a while for one, and then two come along at the same time.
The Bill’s primary goal is to deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to give new powers for local leaders to franchise local bus services. It gives local authorities the ability to run and own their own bus companies. In the manifesto, these measures are presented as a reaction to higher fares, routes disappearing and unreliable services. It is therefore only right and proper that we hold the Government to account on exactly how these new powers will address those issues directly. We have concerns that the Government are taking an ideological approach to public transport reform without considering more pragmatic ways to deliver the improvements that are needed. We will also seek to explore whether local authorities have the skills and experience in place to franchise bus services effectively and the appropriate funding to do so.
There is also the question of oversight. In government, we retained the Department for Transport’s oversight of local bus franchising, and we will seek to understand why the Government feel it necessary to remove these existing oversight mechanisms.
The Bill includes a whole range of measures changing the way our bus services work nationally. Whether it be zero-emissions buses, safeguarding rules for school bus services or mandatory training for drivers, we will scrutinise the provisions of the Bill closely to ensure that it will really deliver the improvements we need to see for passengers who are reliant on their bus service.
The previous Conservative Government had an excellent record of backing our bus services and we have long recognised the importance of bus services for poorly connected rural communities, as well as the crucial role the services have to play in the growth and prosperity of cities such as Manchester.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Can he tell us all the great advantages to the bus industry brought about under the last Conservative Government? Can he give the House the figures of the decline in passenger carrying in the bus industry over the 14 years they were in power?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
If the noble Lord, Lord Snape, will allow me to continue, I can tell him that under our watch we invested a record £3.5 billion into the bus network to support the post-Covid recovery with that critical lifeline. In answer to his question, we delivered the fantastic “Get Around for £2” scheme, nationally backed by hundreds of millions of pounds. That scheme is a testament to the previous Conservative Government’s commitment to support our bus network as it recovered from the dreadful effects of the pandemic.
Let me also tell the noble Lord that it is impossible for us to hide our disappointment that this Government announced last year that bus fares would increase by 50% as of 1 January this year. That was a choice by this Government that will hit millions of hard-working people across the country.
We also led the way on bus franchising, taking a pragmatic approach while retaining the appropriate government oversight. Our Bus Services Act 2017 gave many local authorities the power to adopt a franchising model, as well as establishing enhanced partnerships.
It was the Conservative Government who gave a mayoral authority area such as Greater Manchester the go-ahead to establish its own bus services, which are now part of the Bee Network. It was the Conservative Government who provided more than £1 billion of central government funding to support the establishment of the Bee Network.
In contrast to our approach, the current Administration have tied themselves to a position in the manifesto that we would summarise as, “There are problems with our bus network; franchising will fix it”. We disagree. While franchising may be appropriate in areas such as Greater Manchester or Greater London, it may not be appropriate elsewhere.
The Bill reads as though it has been written by individuals who are not entirely familiar with rural and non-metropolitan areas. Given that franchising is not appropriate in every case, we believe there must be oversight and will seek to explore this in Committee.
Under the Bill, the key players in the Government’s bus policy will now be local authority executives. We pay tribute to every single one of the excellent councillors who work tirelessly for their communities across the country. But many of those councillors will tell you that their authority does not have the skills or necessary funding to run its own bus company. Speaking in the Local Government Chronicle last year, Andrew Carter, the chief executive of Centre for Cities, welcomed franchising powers for cities but flagged that having money to run the bus services is “crucial”.
As we have already highlighted, Greater Manchester received more than £1 billion of central government funding to set up the Bee Network. The bus funding announcement at the end of last year delivered just £1 billion for the whole country.
During the passage of the Bill, we will scrutinise the resources and skills that local authorities have at their disposal to establish whether the Government have put the right measures in place to help those authorities deliver the promised improvements in services. We are also keen to hear the government plans for bus services in areas that decide against taking advantage of franchising powers. Local people deserve better-value services, regardless of the model of provision their local leaders have chosen. The issue of local government funding links into the cost of franchising. We know from areas that already operate franchising models that this is a costly business, with London subsidising its bus network heavily. My noble friend Lord Moylan will speak about that in more detail than I can here, but it is critical that the Government accept this and put the right level of financial support in place if their “franchising first” approach is to be successful.
The Bill includes measures on transparency and accessibility of data on services and performance, enforcement powers on fare evasion and anti-social behaviour. It also seeks to improve bus stops and bus stations for disabled people. By what date will the Minister commit to improving bus stops? Surveys suggest that almost a quarter of people are put off taking the bus because shelters are inadequate.
The Bill mandates enhanced criminal record checks for drivers on school services, as well as regular training for bus drivers and other staff on disability, tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.
The Bill includes provisions to restrict the use of new non-zero emission buses on registered local bus services at some point after 1 January 2030. How can the Minister ensure that we will not see a recurrence of the recent report of electric buses in Glasgow grinding to a halt as the cold weather drains their batteries, or the almost 1,800 electric buses recalled from fleets in major cities last year because of fears they could catch fire if unattended?
The above items are not manifesto commitments for the Government, and the scope of the Bill is wide in these areas. We intend to probe the Government’s plans surgically because we want to ensure that local authorities, bus operators and the public at large can hear more on exactly how the Government intend to proceed. Where issues arise, we will seek to improve those elements of the Bill as part of a collaborative and constructive approach to its scrutiny.
As I said at the start, His Majesty’s Official Opposition have long recognised the critical nature of our bus services. We will do everything we can to deliver improved services. We will approach the Bill with a one team ethos, challenging the Government where it is logical and sensible and, crucially, where the passenger benefits. We will probe the plans as fully as possible so that together we can send an improved Bill on to the other place.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
As I rise to speak, I first want to acknowledge the great contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made to this House over many years, not least on transport legislation. I thank the Minister for his tribute. She was such a good friend to me and had acted as my mentor ever since I joined this House last year. Although the time I had with her was so much shorter than it should have been, I benefited greatly from her guidance and wisdom over the last few months and I will miss her wise counsel.
Lady Randerson was the transport spokesperson on these Benches from 2015. and established herself as a strong champion for passengers and for improved and accessible public transport. She was a much-respected Minister in Cardiff Bay and Westminster and held many other posts, including the chancellorship of Cardiff University. Her humour, wisdom and intellect will be hugely missed by the Liberal Democrat family, by the wider House and in the political life of Wales and the UK. On these Benches, we are already feeling her absence deeply—not least right now, when she should be sitting next to me and taking part in this Second Reading debate. The House will miss her contribution today; she was working on it only last week. We will do our best to continue that work.
More than 1.6 billion passenger journeys were made by bus across England, outside London, in 2023. As we have already heard, buses are essential for people to get to school, college, work or appointments and to have access to shops and leisure. A good bus service provides wider economic and social benefits for local communities, businesses and public services.
In its independent bus user survey, Transport Focus found that the timeliness of bus services is one of the key factors for a good experience for passengers, as is the quality of the bus driver in providing the service. I hope that this legislation will help deliver the quality bus services that passengers desire and protect lifeline bus services, which serve rural communities in particular.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome this legislation, which looks to improve bus services across England, grow the number of passengers using buses and ensure a more reliable network connecting people and places. We recognise that bus services in many communities across the country fall far short of the required standard and level of service. In particular, we welcome the aims to empower local leaders to choose the bus operating model that works for their local area and to provide powers to underpin those models. There is no one-size-fits-all approach given that, on the one hand, we have places such as London—although it is excluded from this legislation—working with a franchise model, and, on the other hand, we have urban towns and cities operating a decent bus network in some places and, in others, less so. Then we have rural areas with different needs and costs associated with running even a very basic service. Each area will want to adopt an option that suits its geography and community.
Rural areas remain severely underserved when it comes to bus services, with provision often unreliable and inadequate. In North Shropshire, an estimated 63% of bus miles have been cut since 2015. These reductions are having a significant impact on communities. Too often, elderly people are forced to rely on family members for transport when what they really need is a dependable, accessible bus network that allows them to travel independently. Without this, many struggle to reach vital amenities such as shops, health services and hospitals. An extraordinary example is the local campaign to establish a bus route from Fleet in Hampshire to the local hospital, as no such service currently exists. With a population of 40,000-odd people in Fleet and its neighbouring towns, the hospital car park often experiences a 45-minute queue, yet there is no bus service.
Adding to the challenge of infrequent bus services is the lack of adequate technological infrastructure. In many rural constituencies, real-time bus information is either unavailable or inaccurate. Bus apps, which could help the user experience, are rendered useless by poor mobile signal, and basic bus information at bus stops can be non-existent. This situation must change. Reliable public transport is not a luxury; it is a necessity, especially for those who are most vulnerable. By addressing these issues in this legislation, we can ensure that rural areas are better connected, thus supporting residents and improving their quality of life.
Alongside empowering local leaders, we also welcome the provision to devolve powers to local transport authorities to design and pay grants to bus operators. Yet new Section 154A provides the Secretary of State with a delegated power to issue statutory guidance on the exercise of the payment and design powers that are to be devolved. This seems contradictory. Can the Minister clarify whether this is genuine devolution or local authorities simply implementing what the department requires?
As noble Lords will be aware, current bus funding is complicated, with different funding pots across the country: from bus service improvement plan funding, BSIP+, Network North BSIP, zero-emission bus regional areas, ZEBRA 2, local transport funds, BSOG and so on. There are so many areas. As we have seen, Portsmouth has a strong enhanced partnership: through bidding, it has managed to secure £235.76 per head of population for its bus services. This can be compared to places such as Swindon, which has secured a mere £3.98 per head. The Campaign for Better Transport highlighted these discrepancies in its recent report on bus funding. For greater clarity, can the Minister say whether funding will be provided alongside this devolution, with local transport authorities able to decide how best to support financially their local bus services rather than being directed from Whitehall? Genuine devolution to ensure that local bus services meet the needs of local communities, with funding to make it happen, is absolutely essential. Powers with no funding will not transform our bus services.
An unfortunate area that is missing from this Bill relates to fares. The final-stage impact assessment states:
“There may also be benefits associated with increasing bus usage through lowering fares”.
It also states:
“Increased fares, unreliable services and fewer routes would likely drive more people away from buses, further reducing passenger numbers”.
This is critical as many of the most financially vulnerable people rely on bus services to access key amenities in their community. The increase in the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 creates real issues for passengers, particularly those on low incomes. Many rely on buses for daily essentials and a £1 rise per journey adds up quickly, straining already tight budgets and forcing difficult choices between transport and other essentials. For rural communities where alternatives are few, the impact is even greater. Without addressing this in the Bill, we risk isolating those most in need and deepening existing inequalities.
This must include cheaper bus travel for young people, making education, training and job opportunities more accessible. It would reduce the financial strain on families and encourage independence, helping young people to engage fully in their communities. Affordable transport also promotes greener travel choices, cutting carbon emissions and easing road congestion. I hope that the Minister will be able to advise us how affordable fares will be addressed going forward. As this Bill progresses, we will want assurance that it fully addresses the needs of remote rural areas, assists the transition to net-zero buses, and includes strong and improved accessibility provisions for disabled passengers.
I am pleased to see that the Bill responds to the experience in Manchester, which has re-franchised its bus services. It has taken a considerable time—more than six years—to get there and there were a lot of bureaucratic hoops to jump through, but I am delighted that the Bee Network is now going from strength to strength. Although many of these issues are addressed in this legislation, going forward, there may be room to tighten the wording in some areas to ensure that it is clear. We will pick this up in Committee.
We are also pleased that a safeguarding loophole is being closed where drivers could drive school buses without an enhanced criminal record certificate. That is absolutely essential. It is extraordinary that we have such loopholes today.
Finally, an issue I have been interested in for some time is demand-responsive buses, which have been trialled successfully in places such as Sutton and have the potential to help deliver a good bus service in some areas. Can the Minister clarify that these services can be supported by this legislation and that a local authority could run such a service if it desired?
Overall, we welcome many of the changes proposed in this Bill and look forward to debating it in more detail in Committee.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, in recent years I have chaired two transport commissions for the Welsh Government. The first focused on congestion issues in south Wales, while the second explored the challenges faced in having an effective public transport system in largely rural north Wales. During these investigations, I learned a great deal about the problems bus passengers encounter with the current bus network and I fully support the way forward set out in this Bill.
From the perspective of users outside London, the current bus network is plagued by numerous issues. These include inadequate coverage, inconsistent service frequencies, a lack of user-friendly information, and poor reliability and punctuality. In Wales, I found there was strong demand for a network of effective bus connections between key origins and destinations, including transport interchanges and railway stations. This is particularly important for access to people’s places of work, local hospitals, and higher education. In rural areas, journeys to and from local towns and villages are also crucial.
However, in practice, co-ordination of timings and routes often falls short of what is necessary. This hinders connections to other buses and train services that people look for and renders many journeys impractical by bus. Bus services are frequently confusing and difficult to use, resulting in longer journey times compared to cars. They also have a reputation for poor value for money.
Several factors contribute to these concerns, but, in essence, the problem is the absence of a well-managed and integrated network. Outside of London, generally but with some recent exceptions there is an absence of a guiding authority overseeing the coverage and integration of routes, timetabling, ticketing, and information. I am afraid that the current privatised model has prioritised popular and profitable routes. The resulting unevenness in services means insufficient attention is paid to the needs of those without access to a car.
For these reasons, I have been attracted by the potential benefits that could be achieved through extending the franchise model outside London. This model offers the opportunity for an effective bus network to operate within an integrated public transport system. The benefits can be realised in both urban and rural areas. A well-functioning bus network can significantly help people by facilitating journeys that cater to their travel needs and making bus travel more convenient, rather than simply dealing with the issue of the popularity of particular routes.
As more good jobs become available in city centres and large towns, it becomes ever more important that they are accessible to outlying areas without the need for a car. The franchising model opens the possibility for authorities to design efficient systems that maximise the network’s value by integrating timetabling and ticketing. It also ensures that the network and services appeal to a diverse range of potential travellers and are much better adapted to people’s needs.
The present Bill addresses these issues and I welcome that, but I would like to emphasise some aspects that I found to be important in the work I was doing. At its heart, there must be a data-driven analysis of the journeys that are currently being undertaken by car, whether they are for work, hospital trips or recreation. We now have access to mobile phone data that tells us a great deal about movements of people in an area. Analysis can show the opportunities that are currently unavailable to individuals without access to a car. Often, this shows how people in this position miss out on good jobs or career advancement, or hospital visits. It also provides a picture of where more frequent services and better connections could be used to tempt drivers out of their cars.
It is also crucial to ensure continuous access to open data on bus service performance and to make this data available in a useable form to help people plan their journeys. This data should be easily accessible and available in a single location. Effective data is vital for potential bus passengers to plan their journeys efficiently, as well as for those evaluating the success of route and timetable decisions taken by the authority.
Another important aspect is a ticketing system that enables people to move between services with a single ticket, preferably with a daily cap on ticket prices. I am afraid that complicated fare structures are another significant disincentive to travelling by public transport.
Of course, as has been mentioned today, funding for franchised bus networks is a significant concern. Current bus subsidies are already under pressure, and I suspect an improved bus network will also require some additional funding. Multi-year funding would help provide stability and certainty for the travelling public and operators.
The Bill will allow local authorities to manage their own bus services. While this can be successful, and I understand why there is pressure for it, my own view is that it is also crucial that private operators can bid for contracts awarded by the authority. This maintains a vital level of competition within the system. Evidence suggests that bidding for routes might be a more effective way of producing genuine competition than the present deregulated bus system.
Finally—and this is something that applies very much in north Wales—many important bus journeys involve moving between local transport regions. For these journeys, we need the option of longer-distance, limited-stop regional bus services. This is especially important in areas without a local railway network. Regional bus services in those circumstances are crucial and should be seamlessly integrated with local bus networks. Where possible they should be routed through transport interchanges and railway stations. This integration is essential if public transport is to remain competitive in terms of timeliness compared to the motor car.
I am pleased to say that the Bill touches on each of these issues. In many ways, it addresses many of these real issues and recognises their importance, and I wish it well.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I reiterate the regret, expressed by the Front-Bench speakers from all parties, that Lady Randerson is not with us. We shall all miss her. Another person I shall miss is my noble friend Lord Prescott, whose funeral comes in a few weeks’ time. I served as a Transport Minister with him, and he would have some firm views on this Bill, I am sure.
As the Minister has indicated, buses remain, despite everything, the public transport form used most in this country, but the difference between the bus service in London, where I spend half the week, and the rest of the country, including the rural area in which I live, is stark. We need to extend some of the aspects of Transport for London, which the Minister is familiar with. I had occasional complaints about London’s transport during his time there, but in general it is much better than the situation in the rural areas of the south-west and many other areas of England and Wales.
That is wrong and this Bill begins to change it. The fact is that successive regimes have not taken the opportunity to improve the situation significantly. I acknowledge that the 2017 Act, to which reference has been made, made some improvements in franchising; on the other hand, it effectively closed down the scope for direct ownership of municipal bus companies, which this Bill, thankfully, revises.
I emphasise my support for the Bill and my respect for the Ministers—the previous Secretary of State and the current one—who have got the Bill into the legislative programme at a very early stage. That means we can work it through, address the secondary legislation that will be required and get a good bus service operating in most areas of the country within the lifetime of this Parliament.
I agree with the framework, although it will need some tinkering with, the relationship between franchising and local authority ownership, and the role of the Department for Transport. The framework is right—though like the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and others, I would have preferred to see more substantial support, and definitely multi-annual long-term funding and some rationalisation of the form in which funds come from both local and national government—and, in general, the Bill is moving in the right direction. However, I wish to raise three issues which are not significant in the Bill, and might well require yet another Bill—the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, has already used my joke in that respect—but which need to be part of the reformation of the bus system in the country outside London. Broadly, they involve the passenger relationship, in particular the ticketing system, the workforce and environmental provisions. I will take those quickly, one by one.
Concerning the passenger system, the majority of passengers outside London—certainly in rural areas and in many of our smaller cities—travel for free because they are old-age pensioners or students. People are not attracted to getting on the bus, so they use their cars in areas which would, objectively, be much better served by them taking the bus to the shops or to work. Among the reasons for this are the unreliability and frequency of the bus, and the interchangeability of the bus on routes that they have to take.
I referred to my time as a Transport Minister. I had one achievement that I have been very proud of: I was the very first person to use an Oyster card. I think it was in 1999, at St James’s Park station. We introduced that and extended it from the Tube to the buses and suburban trains. We need a similar system in other parts of the country, so that you would buy one ticket that you can use for a month or a year, and buy it at whatever regularity you feel fits your purposes, and then move from one bus to another without any difficulty. The cost is relatively small. Many of us will have realised that, once we have an Oyster card, we use it and use the car less, and probably walk less as well. We need something similar for areas outside London, particularly outside our cities.
A couple of years later, I introduced another system: the over-65 pass—or the old gits’ pass, as I used to call it, though I do not use that phrase so frequently these days. We introduced in a transport Bill in 1999 that these passes would be valid throughout the country. Although I occasionally face consternation from bus drivers when showing them my Dorset pass, it allows me to travel anywhere in the country for free. We need the same for those who do not qualify as students or old-age pensioners. They would have to pay for it, but the convenience that results would be a big attraction. We could regain the millions of bus passengers who have been lost over the last 40 years since deregulation and the growth in the use of cars.
We also have to ensure that we have an adequate workforce. The workforce has declined by 25%, in line with the usage of buses. The key factor here is that most of the drivers are relatively old and will retire relatively soon, while new drivers coming into the trade are relatively few. We need a system that attracts younger and newer drivers, as well as getting other drivers back into the bus trade. That is essential if we are to expand the whole range of services, which I hope the Bill will lead to. As far as this Bill is concerned, the only reference to training relates, rightly, to the safeguarding and protection of passengers. That is important, and I am glad to see it in the Bill, but we need a provision to ensure that there is adequate training across the country for drivers, mechanics and other staff, so that we have an adequate workforce for this service.
The third area, the environment, is mentioned in the Bill but not sufficiently. It is interpreted explicitly and specifically in relation to having zero-emission buses. That is an important aspect of the environment—it is right that it should be in the Bill and I agree with the timescale—but it is only one aspect. It will be important to see on our streets, as we are beginning to see in London, zero or near-zero-emissions buses, but that is only part of it.
Another serious issue is that buses contribute to congestion and pollution, particularly on our urban streets. That requires a rather better system of traffic management, which preserves and extends bus lanes, rather than what is happening in many of our cities at the moment. That is partly because of the extension of cycle lanes—I see my noble friend Lord Berkeley sitting here—but these should be introduced at the expense of motoring lanes, not bus lanes. The result, in London and elsewhere, is buses being delayed in traffic in what were previously free-flowing bus lanes. We need to make sure that traffic management in the towns and cities in which our buses have been constricted gives priority again to the introduction and sustaining of bus lanes.
Those are some of the things which I hope the Minister will assure me can be introduced within the framework of the Bill by secondary legislation, rather than in an additional Bill. They are essential to attracting people back to using buses, and to ensuring that buses are not idling in their lanes because of traffic jams, polluting the atmosphere, as well as holding up the rest of the traffic. We need to make buses much more attractive in this respect, so that they are quick, reliable, clean and healthy. If we can do that, and get at least a significant proportion of people back into using buses, then this Bill represents a very good start. I congratulate Ministers on it and will support it.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, first and foremost, I declare my interest as chairman of Transport for the North, as set out in the register. I very much associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on Baroness Randerson, who was a formidable transport spokesman. She never missed the opportunity to make the case in this House for better transport links, both in her area and in the world. The House will be the poorer without her presence.
Much reference has been made to the last buses Bill, which was in 2017. I had some responsibility for that, as the Secretary of State when it was introduced to the House of Lords in 2016, but I was not around as Secretary of State by the time it completed all its stages. I accept a responsibility for its birth, but I am not sure that I am quite responsible for its final framework when it passed.
The background to how that particular Bill came about is quite interesting. It was partly a Bill promised in a deal done by George Osborne, Sir Richard Leese and Howard Bernstein on the whole way in which devolution and mayoral powers were to be introduced and eventually transformed. We have had a lot of reference this evening to the Bee Network in Manchester, which really was the trailer, and that Bill allowed it to happen. We see it now in operation, with clear leadership from Andy Burnham as to what he wants and expects, leading a drive to see more people use public transport. It is worth remembering that a double-decker bus can take something like 70 cars off the road, and possibly be quite effective in reducing congestion.
I also think it is important—it has come through in today’s debate—to think about what we do not require. We do not need a straitjacket, because we need to allow local flexibility. I remember my mother’s life being transformed when a bus started to run around the estate. It enabled her to go into town, do her shopping and get back on a small bus that ran through the estate. That was not a community bus, but community bus transport is an area in which we can see possible improvements, particularly in rural areas.
When I was Secretary of State, I brought in a scheme to support community buses. They had to be small organisations; the larger ones could not take advantage of the scheme because of certain competition rules. Those were partly EU rules. We are free from those rules, so I urge the Minister to look at that scheme and see whether it can be resuscitated, because I think it is important.
There is no doubt as to the important role that buses can play, both in local economies and, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said, in the opportunities for employment prospects. There is also the fact that it is still one of the most used forms of transport today—not the train but the bus. I have seen the figure of 11 million journeys a day. The Bill extends bus franchise powers beyond metro mayors to all places and accelerates the franchising process, so there will need to be some very specific guidance.
In reading the debate on the Bill in 2016, which became the 2017 Act, I was interested that there was some criticism that it gave the Department for Transport a few too many powers as far as delegated legislation was concerned. As chairman of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I read with interest some of the attacks made on that Bill about those delegated powers. But there are some areas where delegated powers are absolutely essential, because things change and we should not be forced to wait for further primary legislation.
Buses remain the most used form of public transport in England. However, bus journeys have been in decline for many years in most of England. They dropped from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024. Journey numbers are also yet to recover to pre-Covid levels. In the year ending March 2024, bus usage was around 12% lower than in the year ending March 2020. It is important to remember that public funding accounts for 44% of all bus industry income. That is with the overall concessionary bus pass, other allowances and grants given by the Department for Transport. The rest of it comes from fares. This is similar to pre-pandemic funding levels.
Bus mileage is used as an indicator of how many bus routes there are. In England outside London, bus mileage in the year ending March 2024 was around 29% lower than in 2005. However, bus mileage in London has remained fairly stable over the same period, so London has managed to keep a level of service that the rest of the country has not seen. As far as the north is concerned, the latest figures for 2024 show that the north has 33% less bus mileage since 2010, including a 22% reduction since 2019, the last full year prior to the Covid pandemic. Bus patronage in the north grew to 703 million passengers in 2024, 8.1% more than in 2023, but was still some 18% lower than in 2019.
As we see more devolution, with more powers going to metro mayors and a growth in the number of metro mayors, they will take much more interest in how these services are being run and the opportunities there will be. I hope we can look at what happened in Manchester and understand some of the difficulties it faced, but also give guidance as to how the other areas can take forward their plans. We should not give a straitjacket saying that this should happen in all areas, because some areas will be different, particularly rural areas and county areas. What you can do in Manchester, Leeds or Sheffield is not the same as what you can do in some remote parts of Lancashire or Cumbria. Those areas need to be addressed as well, and opportunities in those areas need to be found.
I was encouraged by the way in which the Minister said that it was not one size fits all. On that, we are speaking the same language. We should give mayors—where there are county mayors or mayors of combined authorities—a good chance for the grants that will be available. We should also encourage different solutions in different areas, remembering that a journey does not necessarily stop at a county boundary. How you overcome that county boundary, so that workplace areas become much more important, will be one of the vital challenges.
For us to meet some of our environmental requirements and targets, public transport will need to play a very important role. I very much regret that the Government felt they were unable to continue with the £2 bus fare cap, but that decision has been made. We still need to find ways of encouraging more people to use the bus service, by giving them the confidence to use it and making it a reliable service. One of the most important things for public transport is for people to know it is reliable. If they know it is reliable, they will use it. If they think it is unreliable, they will not use it.
I wish the Minister well in his task. We are right to hold the Government to account on where the money will come from for future schemes, and exactly how that money is going to support a better public transport overall for the people of this country.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and join the widespread tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that we have heard from the Minister and around the House.
Noble Lords may be a little surprised to see me as transport is not usually my territory, but I can reassure them that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb is recovering very well from her hip operation. She will hopefully be back on Monday. I expect that she will take forward later stages of the Bill, but in the meantime your Lordships get me.
Introducing the Bill, the Minister reflected on the fact that three parties had promises about bus services in their manifestos. I will have to add to that and say that the Green Party put bus services absolutely front and centre of its manifesto. I will highlight two things from that manifesto. One was a focus on village bus services. It promised a service to every village in the land. The second thing was free bus travel for under-18s. I point noble Lords to the success of the Scottish Greens. From their place in government, they were able to bring in free bus travel for under-22s in Scotland. That has seen a real step forward in introducing young people to bus services and building it into a standard part of their lives. That free offer has been really successful, really useful and really valued.
Quite a number of noble Lords have said, “Well, there’s the cities, and they can do these things, but we’ve got to be realistic about what rural areas can do”. It is important not to underrate the capacity of rural bus services and rural institutions to oversee them. I will give a practical example. After the shock of the Covid pandemic, the Green-led Herefordshire county council made all buses free at weekends and put on extra weekend services. They used £1 million from the Covid recovery fund to do that. Of course, we are talking about Herefordshire, a heavily rural area, with towns and villages. Nearly 170,000 journeys were taken on the 12 new Sunday bus services and, after the scheme ended, five of the most popular services continued to run seven days a week. So, if you provide the services and give people the real cost benefit of those services, they will adopt them and make them a regular part of their lives. That is as true of rural areas as it is of city areas.
Coming to the broader picture, I will revisit a figure that I suspect several people have already cited: in 2023-24, there were 3.6 billion passenger journeys. Buses are how people get around. But this figure has seen a massive decline. The mileage for the year to the most recent March was down a quarter since 2010. We have heard a lot of hot air over recent decades about the claimed “war on the motorist”, but, instead, we have actually had a butchering of the buses. I started with the figure from 2010, because I am afraid we know where the responsibility for that butchering of the buses lies: the party that was in control at the time. Behind that has been an ideological position where bus services, particularly outside London, have been run for private profit rather than for the public good. This is one more privatisation disaster that has absolutely failed. To a limited degree at least, the Bill is, happily, finally undoing that loss of local control and local democracy that was represented by privatisation.
Like a number of noble Lords, I will briefly focus on how buses are particularly important to lower-income households, jobseekers, women and older people. They are crucial for public health—I do not think anyone has used that phrase yet—because we have a widely acknowledged loneliness epidemic. If we think about one prescription to tackle that, bus services being readily available to people is an important part of that measure.
On that, I want to pick up a particular point with the Minister. We are coming back to funding, and I understand that this may not be central to the Bill, but it is an important and relatively cheap point. The statutory concessionary bus fare for free travel for pensioners and disabled people runs on weekdays between 9.30 am and 11 pm. We all know about medical appointments that may require travel before 9.30 am, and we know that many older people often provide childcare to enable family members to take paid employment. They may well need to travel before 9.30 am. Will the Minister look at making what would be quite a modest investment to ensure that that concessionary free travel is available to everyone, which would surely have a high level of public benefit?
Many people have raised the rise in fares from £2 to £3. It is worth highlighting that the £3 level is, under current government arrangements, due to end in December this year. That does not give people a long-term sense of planning. Surely, the sensible thing to do would be, ideally, to go back to £2 but at least to provide long-term certainty—for operators, local councils, communities and individual travellers—that the £3 bus fare will stay.
Like many noble Lords, I received a large number of briefings and will highlight those from the Green Alliance, the Campaign for Better Transport and the Urban Transport Group. The Green position, and that of those briefings, sets out that the Bill is heading in the right direction but is not going nearly far or fast enough. One thing that is missing is the failure to encourage the recovery of lost routes. Local authorities need to be able to identify where the holes are and to fill them in, but the Bill does not provide for that. Absolutely rightly, there is also a call for a bus service guarantee, to guarantee that all communities have a minimum level of bus service. That comes back to the village point that I started with.
Noble Lords would expect me, as a Green, to focus on the need for a firm date for zero-emission buses. This is such an obvious step both for public health and for reliability and certainty. For new buses, high levels of reliability are really important, as well as clean air.
Finally, we have talked quite a bit about bus stops. I will jump on a favourite little hobby horse of mine: the assumption that everyone has a mobile phone that will give them reliable information about bus arrivals. That is not true in London; it is not true at the bus stop that I use most mornings. Having signage at bus stops where possible, or at least proper guidelines and timetables, is crucial to enable people to use buses.
I have to highlight the situation in South Yorkshire, which has been terribly hit by that butchering of the buses. We have seen a bus mileage decline of 42% across the region. The bus services in South Yorkshire have got close to what you would have to describe as collapse. There is a plan to take franchising forward, but it will take a very long time. The Bill will possibly assist, but I would be interested in anything that the Minister can say particularly about helping South Yorkshire to put back those crucial services, in an area where people really need them to get to work and get around.
I will raise a point that I do not think anyone else has raised specifically. Some noble Lords may know about a campaign—it is starting in London but should apply around the country—for a London bus driver Bill of Rights to be included in the TfL framework bus contract. I am aware that this Bill does not cover London, but the issues that this campaign raises none the less apply for bus drivers around the country. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out that bus drivers are an ageing group of people, and we need to make sure that this career appeals to people coming in for the future.
I give noble Lords advance notice that, on 29 January, a march will start from Victoria station, where, a year ago, a pedestrian was killed by a route 13 RATP bus operating under contract for TfL. At least 87 other victims have been killed in preventable bus safety accidents in London since 2016. Of course, this is of great concern to the drivers, given the conditions of the contract, which they feel are dangerous. I note that the drivers will be marching to Parliament Square, so look out for them on 29 January.
The Bill does not have any of the data transparency or safety reporting requirements that the House of Lords tried to incorporate in the Bus Services Act 2017, so my noble friend will very likely bring up that issue in particular at further stages of the Bill.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I share the remarks made by a number of noble Lords about my late noble friend Baroness Randerson. I was her Whip. Her loss to us is incalculable. She was an exceptional politician and a great friend to us all. She will be greatly missed.
Although the Bill does not specifically mention home-to-school transport, it does touch on a vital part of that provision: the transport needs of children with special educational needs—SEND. They, along with many other children in North Yorkshire, will be affected by the changes proposed by my local council over the next seven years.
At present, there are 10,000 children across North Yorkshire who are entitled to free home-to-school transport. The majority of these are what we call mainstream children, but 2,500 of them are the most vulnerable SEND children. That is a quarter of the total, and it uses more than half the whole school transport budget. Most of these 10,000 children live in villages and hamlets scattered round the vast rural area of North Yorkshire. Up until now, they have all been entitled to free home-to-school transport to enable them to attend any suitable school within their catchment area. The vast majority choose to support local schools within North Yorkshire’s boundaries, rather than travel to our neighbouring counties of West Yorkshire, East Riding, Cumbria or Durham.
In July last year, the Government published updated guidance on helping SEND pupils to travel safely. NYC decided, very quickly, to use this as an opportunity to revise its school transport policy in an attempt to save money. It modelled various scenarios, but the model that it chose had a fundamental flaw: it predicted savings of around £4.2 million over seven years, but that was based on 100% of children opting out of home-to-school transport entirely. Until then, NYC had paid transport costs for children, including SEND children, to attend any suitable school within its catchment area. That changed in July last year, when it decided that, for the majority, it would pay transport costs to their nearest school only. That is seemingly a small change, but one that ignores the geography of North Yorkshire and fails to factor in the disruption it would create for families.
The implications of this decision are simply massive. Families may be forced to send their children out of the county to be educated, causing disruption to North Yorkshire schools, which will lose pupils and funding. We are already losing too many of our small schools, and our larger schools could be forced to cut teacher numbers and reduce curriculum choice. In vast rural areas, such as the Yorkshire Dales, many children will be required to travel on remote, high roads, often not gritted in the winter. North Yorkshire prides itself on having good, often exceptional schools. If it decides to send its children out of county to be educated, it will soon find itself struggling to maintain this quality.
In addition, this policy change will result in siblings being forced to attend different schools over the seven-year implementation period. This will cause upset for those children and practical problems for their parents, who are already finding life difficult enough without the added worry of managing different school uniforms, different term times, et cetera. The disruption caused by this policy is giving real heartache and distress to thousands of parents. Rural communities are worried about what this means for young families, a concern shared by the chair of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, which is working hard to keep young people in the dales. Ten parish councils have written in objecting to the policy change, as have teachers, school governors, parents, councillors and two of our county’s MPs.
Yet the irony is that there are no savings here. Indeed, the council will have to find even more money. More vehicles would be necessary over the next seven years to cover the increased number of routes. Children who previously would have been going on the same bus now will have to attend different schools based on the nearest school to their home. Indeed, depending on where they live, half the children in the same village may go to one school and half to another. It just does not make sense. This decision has been made without consideration for the geography of North Yorkshire and without a thorough impact assessment of costs and impact on families. An urgent rethink is therefore required.
The previous Government presented guidance, leaving it to each individual council to decide how best to implement it based on local considerations. North Yorkshire Council has, so far, failed to do that to a level that works for rural communities. Will the Minister consider firming up the guidance so that all councils have a clear idea of what is expected of them and implement their policies accordingly?
All Governments, be it local or national, want to save money, but no one should be doing that on the back of children’s safety and education.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I join the tributes paid earlier to Baroness Randerson, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on transport. As someone who has taken an interest in transport matters for many years, in my career in this House and the other place, I know that she was always knowledgeable and helpful. We agreed on so many aspects of transport policy.
I have spent much of my life involved in the transport world. More than 50 years ago, as a local councillor I was appointed to the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. I was a Front-Bench spokesperson on transport in the other place for a decade or so under John Prescott, to whom my noble friend Lord Whitty referred earlier. It was a fascinating experience, I might say, for anyone who knew John Prescott as well as I did. He is much missed, and I will be attending his memorial later this month.
Let us take a short canter through the history of bus services. The 1985 Act was brought into being by Nicholas Ridley, a man who had a high opinion of his own ability—I do not wish this to sound like any sort of attack—and not without justification. But he was a somewhat controversial figure, and when he introduced the 1985 legislation, he made it plain that he felt that the private sector could play a much greater role in running buses than the municipal one. He portrayed an image of lots of entrepreneurs with half a dozen buses or so introducing new routes throughout the country, particularly in the rural areas. The reality, of course, was somewhat different. The new routes that were introduced were invariably on the busier routes of the major bus operators. I became a non-executive director of a then employee-owned company in the West Midlands, called West Midlands Travel, and I was fascinated to see some of our former employees, one or two of whom had been dismissed on disciplinary grounds, acquiring elderly vehicles, which they then ran on the busiest routes in the Birmingham and West Midlands conurbation.
The 2017 Act referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, and others was an admission of the failure of that 1985 Act, for much of the country. It was not a failure, in that it was a success in this city. London was singled out as the place for bus franchising, whereas the rest of us were left pretty much to our own devices. Bus franchising is still an expensive business in London; the latest financial figures that I have seen indicated that, up until April last year, TfL was paying around £840 million for bus service provision in this city. I do not complain about that, but it indicates that franchising, whether in London or elsewhere, is not a cheap operation. While I welcome the Bill, my concern is that local authorities, particularly the ones outside the big cities, will struggle adequately to fund any franchising operation, should they wish to do so in their area.
Mention has been made, including in the Bill, of zero-emission vehicles. I have to say that they do not come cheaply either. I realise that the Green Party wants them to be introduced sooner rather than later, although the Bill makes provision for them to be introduced after 1 January 2030. The fact is that a new electrically powered double-decker bus costs in the region of £500,000—imagine buying a fleet of those in the short term. Cash-strapped local authorities—in and out of the major cities—will have great difficulty in paying the franchising bill, essential though it may be. If we are to have a fleet of zero-emission buses, we have to recognise that the Treasury will need to look a bit more kindly on some of the applications for funding so far as the financing of those vehicles is concerned.
My noble friend Lord Whitty referred to the provision of cycle lanes in some of our major towns and cities. Like him, I share an admiration for cyclists, though I cannot say that I have ever had a great desire to join them—indeed, watching the way that some of them behave as they go round Parliament Square, I can honestly say that my views have been somewhat coloured by their attitude to pedestrians and other traffic. But it is nonsense that we provide cycle facilities in many of our towns and cities at the expense of bus lanes. You have only to see the congestion on the Embankment since cycle lanes were provided there. They are, by and large, not particularly well used at this time of the year, for understandable reasons, yet buses carrying over 100 people on many occasions are trapped in traffic because of the lack of proper provision for them.
I have to say to my noble friend that it is about time that we had the courage to look again at the money we allow the car lobby to avoid so far as the fuel tax escalator is concerned. As a Labour Government, so far we have not managed even to restore the 5% reduction, let alone see that the fuel tax escalator is increased on a regular basis, in the way that it was designed to be. Of course, if we demand such provision and for that money to be spent on public transport, we will be accused of being anti-car. We hear a lot from the party opposite about the war on the motorist—“Hear, hear”, says the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Let me just remind him that this war on the motorist, if that is what it is, was started in 1993 by no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He introduced the fuel tax escalator in the first place, and it is only in recent years—I say “recent”, but it has been some 14 years—that is has been frozen, and indeed reduced by Rishi Sunak when he was Chancellor. That is not a war on motorists. Like most noble Lords, I drive a car but, if we are going to properly finance public transport, we must have the courage to say that freezing fuel duty for a decade and a half is not the way to do it.
We will discuss the ins and outs and intricacies of the Bill in Committee but, while I welcome its provisions and intend to participate—my noble friend may groan at the prospect—in Grand Committee when the Bill comes before us, I must say that the good intentions as far as future franchising is concerned are all very well, but unless it is properly financed, it will be no more a success outside London in future than it was in the past.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is a poignant moment as I reflect that our deliberations on this Bill will be done without our wonderful colleague, Baroness Randerson. To Jenny, public transport was not a theoretical consideration but a public service on which many depend. Her passing is an immense loss to our Benches and to the many causes that she espoused.
I have relevant interests to declare as a councillor in West Yorkshire and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. There is much in the Bill that is welcome. It is a genuine attempt to revive bus services across the country. It is positive that there is an inherent acceptance in the Bill that the 40-year experiment with privatisation has not resulted in a reliable bus network and that significant change is essential. However, the unanswered question in the Bill is whether the Government view the local public bus network as an essential public service to which all residents should have access, albeit at different levels of service. My first question to the Minister, therefore, is whether the aspiration of the Government is to provide such a widely available, reliable local public bus service.
All recent Governments have had policies to encourage a modal shift to cycling and walking. The policy has been supported with regular streams of government funding for cycle lanes—as we have just heard—and improved pedestrian routes. Do the Government intend in the medium term to have an equivalent policy to support a modal shift towards bus travel?
Despite these questions—criticisms, perhaps—the Bill does contain some important steps in the right direction. Local authorities, in the form of local transport authorities, are at the heart of this change. Outside London, as we have heard, bus services have been deregulated since 1986. Local transport authorities have very limited means to influence, or achieve change to, what is provided by commercial operators, or indeed to have the funding to support non-commercial services. The powers in the Bill for LTAs to adopt one of the new models of provision are positive and welcome.
However, this raises questions about local democracy. With enhanced powers should come enhanced accountability for decision-makers. In mayoral devolved authorities this is limited to a single person, the mayor, supported by the leaders of the councils in the area, and a transport committee to advise. As the decisions on local transport are very limited at the moment, this level of public accountability is probably sufficient. However, does the Minister agree that, as LTAs have increased responsibilities, including those of grant-funding powers, more elected councillors need to be involved? Given the government proposals for combined county authorities, does this mean that there will be delays in establishing new local transport authorities in these areas? For these largely rural areas, does this also mean that there will be delays in these authorities taking advantage of the measures in the Bill?
That brings me to the thorny question of funding. If the aim is for local bus services to be more frequent and more reliable, and to reach many more communities more often, this is unlikely to be achieved within the existing funding levels. Providing a bus service to remote villages will almost certainly rely on subsidy. The question to the Minister, therefore, is: will there be increased funding for LTAs to achieve these aims?
As has been said in this debate, better bus services are inextricably linked to economic growth. They provide affordable access to jobs, for example. I despair when I hear from residents in my council ward that the bus service is so unreliable that they have been threatened by their employer with losing their job. The result is that they buy a cheap car, which does not help their bank balance and nor does it aid the environment or congestion. To achieve reliable, affordable bus services relies not only on sufficient funding but on the efficiency and effectiveness of bus operators.
In my experience in West Yorkshire—I could tell the House of my waiting an hour in Leeds bus station at the end of a Friday afternoon, so in a peak period, for a bus that should come every 15 minutes but never came—too many services are cancelled without notice. On occasion, this is the result of road traffic congestion which so delays buses that they are unable to keep to the timetable. Does the Minister agree that achieving better bus services will involve improving reliability, and that that means addressing areas of traffic congestion? Bus lanes are only part of the answer, and not a very good part either. It would be good to hear what the Minister has to say.
Finally, I come to bus stations and bus stops, and the opportunity for by-laws to control behaviours there. Clause 21 has much to recommend it, as passengers are deterred from using buses by poor or intimidating behaviour. I welcome that Clause 21 seems to enable by-laws to control bus stations and bus stops. Clauses 23 to 26, on safeguarding and training, are very important. Too many drivers are on the receiving end of abuse. Equipping them to deal with it effectively will help to retain drivers and keep the public safe.
The Bill recognises how vital safe and reliable bus services are to many in our communities who do not have access to their own car. The reforms proposed in the Bill go some way to shifting the balance in favour of the public who need these services, and that is a good start.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff sent me a paragraph from an email from a member of staff in memory of Baroness Randerson, which I will read:
“Baroness Jenny Randerson was a dear friend since I started at the Millbank House Cafeteria in October 2011. I met her sister, husband and grandchildren from Brussels. She supported me when I had my hand surgery. She checked up on me by email. We joked and laughed and she was always positive. I did also send her emails to complain about the number 3 bus”.
So it is to buses we turn, with Baroness Randerson very much in our minds.
I must declare an interest: I love bus travel. The majority of my daily travel to your Lordships’ House is by bus and, as such, I welcome the Bill. I thank all those who sent me briefings: Tom Kearney, of LondonBusWatch; Kevin Mustafa, of the London Bus Drivers’ Bill of Rights campaign; and, as ever, the excellent House of Lords Library. I also thank the Minister and his team for the excellent collaborative briefing of yesterday, which was incredibly useful all round.
I always tell a visitor to London that the best place to see London is from the top of a bus. The 76 route is difficult to beat, particularly the view from the top deck when travelling over Waterloo Bridge at night. The Minister must take a lot of credit for the improvement in bus services in London. When I first came to London in the late 1980s, I used to wait a long time for a number 1 bus, then five would arrive at the same time. This is now unusual. We can look at bus times on dot matrix at bus stops or on our phone. London buses are iconic and work very well, but we need to take care before we send that model around the country.
As the Explanatory Notes say, and as the Minister repeated:
“The passenger should be at the heart of any process”—
but what about pedestrians and other road users? In the Bill, safety is about only crime on buses, and our thoughts are obviously with the family of the teenager killed on a bus in Woolwich yesterday. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has alluded to already, according to TfL’s own figures, in London, an average of three people a day are hospitalised after a bus safety incident, at least one of which is a collision. About every five to six weeks, someone is killed in a bus safety incident—again, mostly from collisions. We know this because TfL is the only bus authority that publishes its safety figures. As we talked about in the briefing yesterday, the Bill mentions data usage but does not mention types of data. I urge the Government to put a necessity to publish quarterly bus safety performance data, as TfL has done since 2014, into the Bill. If we are to learn from accidents, we need to know where and how these incidents happened.
We also know how important drivers are to the services. The Bill mentions staff in relation to training, but not driver safety and well-being. What about drivers who are under increasing pressure to keep on time, handling radio and text messages while on the move, especially in the new 20mph zones? Should driver welfare not be enshrined in the Bill? As someone who knows better than anyone how to drive a bus, perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
I quote the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, in Oral Questions:
“Bus companies sharing their data has been an enormous problem—anyone in the north of England knows that that helped prevent us bringing in an Oyster-style ticketing service across the north. It is crucial that we get this right and that all companies are obliged to share the information”.—[Official Report, 7/10/24; col. 1824.]
It is not clear from the Bill what information is to be reported. I have already talked about safety, and, as we discussed in the briefing, the difficulties of introducing Oyster-style ticketing—or the Oyster-style ticketing of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—in other regions. I urge the Government to encourage this, as it has been revolutionary in terms of travel in London. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rebuild England’s bus network based on the excellent London model. Let us just make sure that that model is as good as it can be.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I join other Members of the House in remembering Lady Randerson. It was with shock and sorrow that I learned of her passing at the weekend. I was fortunate enough to work with her on numerous Bills over the past decade and it was a privilege to be able to call her a colleague.
As this is the first time I have legislated with the Minister, I put on the record my thanks to him for everything he did to make the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games such a success. Transport was critical to the success of the Games. You had only to look at all the media coverage from the moment we won the bid to see that journalists believed that transport would ruin the experience of London 2012. It did not, and, more than that, it was one of the most successful Olympic and Paralympic Games from a transport perspective, and the Minister can take so much credit for that in the team he led at the time. Again, from my perspective, it was a privilege and a pleasure to work with him.
Turning to the Bill, I would like to talk about inclusion and accessibility. As currently drafted, the Bill leaves Clause 22 to do more than heavy lifting in this respect. I intend, with colleagues in Committee and on Report, to do my best to put a lot more power into Clause 22 to enable the task it has at hand.
I would like to talk about the core principle of inclusive by design. What does this mean? It is simple: from the first moment of conception of a service, product, vehicle, computer program or whatever it is, the needs of every potential user are taken into account, so that when that product or service lands, everybody in our society and our community can avail themselves of that good or service. When it comes to buses, much excellent work has already been undertaken, not least through audio-visual announcements and prompts—a clear example of something good and enabling for disabled people that also, as is always the case, benefits all people. For example, an international traveller in London or somebody not from a particular area benefits from those AV announcements. It was an honour to launch the Manchester talking buses almost a decade ago. We have great provision in London but, as has already been rightly mentioned around the House, we should always be conscious and cognisant of the situation right across the country, not least in our rural communities.
Those are the buses, and there is still much work to be done. What is the purpose in making buses accessible if accessing the bus itself is made unreasonably difficult and potentially impossible? This brings me to the whole question of so-called floating bus stops. What are floating bus stops? They are not bus stops at all, as you would know them. They are, if you will, pieces of foundation separated completely from the pavement by a cycle lane, rendering that potentially accessible bus completely inaccessible to board or alight. In reality, floating bus stops are not a great creation or a great enabler of transport and mobility across our society. They are a planning folly, an overly simplistic solution to resolving competing transport needs, inevitably resulting in performance and outcomes that are anything but inclusive by design.
As has already been rightly mentioned, buses can often be a lifeline, providing social as well as actual mobility and economic opportunities, enabling people into the labour market or to go to medical appointments —a bus can potentially play a part in any aspect of our society or economic activity. So-called floating bus stops completely sever that lifeline. Can the Minister explain the point in making buses accessible if it is nigh on impossible for huge swathes of the population to access those buses? Will the Government commit to a moratorium on all new so-called floating bus stops until there has been a clear review of all existing provisions—a key piece of research right across the country where all these floating bus stops have been installed—and a piece of work to set out the retrofitting of all those so-called floating bus stops to bring them back to inclusive by design, on a timeline that does not leave huge swathes of our population excluded from the public realm?
I have spent my life trying to enable buildings, the public realm and services to be accessible if they have not been designed as such—for example, the many buildings designed hundreds of years ago, when people had no sense of inclusion or accessibility. This very building in which we are debating is now pretty accessible, as is the 15th-century college where I studied, as a result of interventions. So much more frustrating is when something previously accessible and inclusive is made not so for the want of having in place the thinking that considers all members of our communities and society, which is ultimately all that “inclusive by design” is: just being considerate of everybody in our communities. I propose a moratorium on all new floating bus stops, a review into all existing sites and retrofitting all of them on a reasonable timeline. Does the Minister agree that a cardinal principle of any bus stop is that you can access the bus and alight directly on to the kerbside?
In conclusion, we do not yet have public transport in this country. We have transport accessible for some of the people, some of the time, but not if you are blind, a disabled person, an older person, someone with young children in a pram, or indeed someone who just does not want to have to run the gauntlet of a live cycle lane, with no assistance provided for them. We have transport for some of the people, some of the time. Can the Minister tell us when the Government will be able to say we have public transport “inclusive by design, accessible by all”? Now that would be something well worth the prefix “public” transport.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with the many noble Lords who have paid wonderful tribute to Baroness Randerson. I used to work with her very closely when we were in opposition, and we learnt so much from each other. She is a real loss, and I am so pleased that so many noble Lords have recognised this and spoken about it, because she is almost unique. We shall really miss her.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for taking the time to meet with me, and no doubt others, before Second Reading of this Bill because it is quite complicated. I have a few questions about it, most of which he will have heard already. We have had the opportunity of going down a good dose of memory lane, particularly with Lord Prescott’s integrated public transport, which many of us thought was a wonderful thing. Something has happened, but let us focus on the fact that much of it was needed to improve co-ordination and the passing of information between trains, buses, trams, minibuses—and we would probably include cycles these days, but I am coming on to that later.
On fares, most important is the emphasis in the Bill on community leadership and control, which we probably did not have before. When I opened the Bill, as I mentioned to my noble friend the Minister, I thought it was all very interesting. Clause 1(2) defines a franchising authority but, as I asked him, what is the definition of a bus or a bus service? We had an interesting little discussion about that. It clearly does not include trains, but we have to think about why. Is it because they use steel wheels as opposed to rubber wheels? What about the new tram system being developed in Coventry, a lightweight tram that has enormous potential? Is that a tram or a bus service? How much of the content of the Bill should apply to whoever is running that tram service? So many of the things in the Bill would apply to them as well, and I suspect many of them would accept it.
My noble friend has quite rightly been focusing on the community aspect. This is about local control, local flexibility and giving local leaders, as it says in paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes,
“the freedom to take decisions to deliver their local transport priorities. This is through … Empowering LTAs and reforming funding”—
that is an easy one, or not—
“Allowing every community to take back control of their buses … Accelerating the bus franchising process … Ensuring that the provision of socially necessary local services is considered appropriately”,
and encouraging public ownership.
I hope the Government will stick with encouraging local authorities to provide better local services, which is particularly important in the country. When the Secretary of State launched the Bill on 17 December, she stated:
“The introduction of the Bus Services Bill marks the next step on our journey to overhaul how bus services operate, delivering on our commitment to improve living standards across the country”.
The most important part is the bit about living standards across the country, and I hope my noble friend can give me some comfort that the Bill will include the capability of applying these things to the public transport services that people rely on across the country. We can go into services in much detail, but I do not think it is the time to do that now.
On devolution, there is a certain amount of uncertainty about who can be a local transport authority and the difference between what we would call the LTA, the franchising authority—if it is the same thing—the enhanced partnerships and even service agreements. This will probably all end up in debates about money, but also about who is actually in control. One of the questions put to the Minister was: Is it all very well that we have some local authorities around the country that are doing well, as we have heard about Manchester, and other places that, frankly—we have heard a few examples—are doing pretty badly?
A year ago, I had to go to a funeral in Dorset, so I thought I would catch a train to Sherborne, which seemed to be on a good timetable. The trains go every hour, quite happily, but the connecting bus to where the funeral was came every one and a half hours, not every hour. Conveniently, it left the station at Sherborne five minutes before the train arrived. I do not know whether Dorset Council—which is presumably responsible for that—knew what it was doing, or whether it just hoped that more people would drive their cars, but that is the kind of rubbish that I hope the Government will get a grip on. They must make sure that there is some integration and that the passenger, frankly, gets something they want.
On the money side, paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to grants and says that the Bill will provide the LTA
“with a power to make grants to operators”.
It is probably very naive of me, but where is the LTA going to get its money from, who decides what it is, how much control will it have over what it asks for, and will they get it? In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, mentioned that multi-year funding is a wonderful idea, but it is a question of whether it will happen or not. One has to ask, where does the revenue risk come in these different scenarios if the operator then decides it does not want to do it?
I feel that one or two of my colleagues have been getting at me about bicycle lanes—which is quite reasonable. The share of road space between these different needs is part of work which I hope my noble friend will be looking at. I was cycling around Germany about a year ago on something called a cycle lane. There was a bus lane next to it and a footpath on the other side. The cars ended up in one of four lanes and they were quite happy with that. People were obeying the law. Of course, the other side of it was that there was some enforcement, but this needs to be looked at again.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, talked about buses going down the Embankment. I do not think there has ever been a scheduled service on the Embankment since they took the tramlines out. There are lots of buses on it, but they are full of people who are looking at the sights. The cycle lane is fantastic. It is so heavily used that it is actually becoming slightly frightening in the rush hour.
This is a great Bill, and I am sure we are going to have lots of issues to talk about in Committee. My final question to my noble friend the Minister is: what happens if people living in the countryside manage to create a local transport authority from their local authority and it does not do what they think it should do? The easy answer is that people can get back in their car, if they have one—which is a very stupid statement; pardon me. However, they could elect a different group of people from whatever party at the next local election: people who actually subscribe not only to the bus Bill but to some of the other issues we have been talking about—such as lower fares, greater frequency, and reliability—and try to get timetables for buses and trains that actually talk to each other, and try to make it work. This is what Lord Prescott and my noble friend Lord Whitty were trying to do 20 years ago. Then, hopefully, people will leave their cars at home and use public transport.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I want start by echoing the many tributes to our friend and colleague Baroness Randerson, who died so suddenly last weekend. She and I came into your Lordships’ House at the same time, but we had known each other through Liberal and Liberal Democrat politics and gatherings for many years before that. Her commitment to her roles as a Minister in the Welsh Assembly/Senedd, then as a Minister in the coalition Government and, more recently, as a transport spokeswoman for the party was always evident. Her research was broad and deep, her contacts enviable and her knowledge of her topics revelatory. She combined all that with a delightful, practical way that always made working with her a pleasure, whichever side of the House you came from. She is already sorely missed. I want to send love and support to her family and many friends.
It was typical of Jenny that she was working last week, having various conversations with those of us on these Benches speaking today. Thus we are, despite our grief, well prepared because of her as our team leader. It is a pleasure to echo my noble friend Lady Pidgeon’s opening comments—of which I think she would have approved—that, while there is much to commend in the Bill, there are matters that we want to question the Minister about, and we may want to lay some probing amendments in Committee to enable us to have a fuller debate.
I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and thank those who sent us briefings, including the Library. I also thank the Minister for meeting some of us to discuss the Bill.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He raised the question of what a bus is. I notice that he omitted rural postbuses. I used to love my Highlands postbuses; they were not very frequent, but at least you knew when they would come past in the most rural communities. I have seen some of them in France, too. I want also to raise the issue of guided buses. I was on Cambridgeshire County Council when the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway was planned, and some—ahem—years on, it is successful, using part of a disused rail line. It is always full, with people using it as a fast way to commute into Cambridge because the busy roads around it are quite difficult.
My noble friend Lady Pinnock reminded us of the history of deregulation of the bus services. What is happening here is also a delayering of the complexities, which is helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, and others talked about the problems of rural bus services. The rural model is absolutely not the same as the urban. If the Minister takes one thing away from this Second Reading debate, it should be that, because so many noble Lords raised it. Can he say how the Government plan to deal with that problem? The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was right to focus on universal Oyster-type cards. As they are becoming rather old hat these days, I wonder whether new technologies might be a route to doing that. They might also be able to help with concessionary cards, which tend to be quite limited in areas for very particular specialist local types.
It was good to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of the Green manifesto commitment to bus services. I hope that she is encouraged that, from all parts of this House, we have all aspired to much of what her party’s manifesto said.
On Clause 9, can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that an “approved person”—which will replace the word “auditor” in the Transport Act 2000—has the right qualifications and membership of a regulatory body, if appropriate. We are talking about public money here—I think that the Minister talked about large grants going to either local government or via other routes. The “auditor” had a well-known and understood qualification and level of skill, so will there be any other deregulatory actions that will result in unintended consequences? He knows this, because I raised it with him when we met, but one of the unintended consequences of deregulating and changing the qualifications relating to fire protection inspections was that fire doors failed during the Grenfell Tower fire—and many others—because the standards had gone with the deregulation. This is not a safety issue, but, where public money is being spent, it is very important that the Government and the public can be assured that it is good value for money.
Can the Minister confirm that Clause 11—the amending of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023, SI 2023/1369—complies in its entirety with the Procurement Act 2023? Clause 11 simplifies the direct award of bus contracts to incumbent operators. I understand that this is only a temporary arrangement, but it could last up to five years, and that is a long time to have something that may not comply. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.
My noble friends Lady Pidgeon and Lady Pinnock raised the important issue of how real devolution is to local areas. The latter asked a very key question about the ambition of government. Is it universal across the country? If so, will enhanced resources come with enhanced partnership plans? I suspect that this is one of the areas that we may return to during the passage of the Bill. Powers with no funding are not real powers, and they will fail. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is also right that a multiyear funding settlement is absolutely essential. Local government has been asking for that from Governments of many political colours for many years.
Noble Lords mentioned the increase of the fare from £2 to £3, and affordable fares are certainly vital. Travelling in Vilnius recently, it cost me less than €1 for 60 minutes on the bus system. You can get 24 hours for €3.50, and for 240 hours it was €12. Technology tells when you check in and check out, so it is not an elapsed time; it is the actual time that you are travelling, and it stops calculating it when you stop travelling. Why does that work in Vilnius? The roads are empty, because the buses are so cheap and so reliable that everyone relies on them. I do not think that the UK bus market is anything like that now, but would it not be good if we could aspire to that?
Clause 19 adds provisions to the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. From these Benches, we welcome the publication of bus statistics to mirror those used in the rail sector. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked whether that would include safety information. That is an excellent idea, because it is amazing how behaviour changes when data is collected. I suspect that driver training, by being refreshed, would improve, too. I also want to know whether assistance data—easily obtainable these days because of the assistance apps that rail staff now use—can provide a lot of that data, including the mode of assistance required.
I am so delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wants Clause 22, on floating islands and bus stops, to be strengthened. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, omitted to mention that there are also problems for disabled people in his list of the problems with traffic islands between cycle lanes and the main highway. One joy I have on an island that I get off at regularly is that there is some random street furniture. If the bus driver does not line up exactly, when I am on a steep ramp coming off a bus, I cannot stop at the bottom. So I have to try to whizz round to the side of the street furniture to avoid crashing into it. Frankly, much more worrying are those islands where, if you keep whizzing, you can go straight into the cycle lane, which is a danger to you as well as to cyclists. A moratorium would be good until we can work out what should happen.
Clause 22, on guidance for the safety of bus stopping places, is not strong enough. In subsections (1), (2) and (3), the word “may” is used. A Secretary of State may choose not to do it, and the guidance appears not to be statutory, so bus franchisees could choose to ignore it. Can the Minister explain why “may” is used here, and why the Government would not want the safety of disabled people to be stronger?
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised the important point about accessibility at bus stops. While they are not as dangerous as islands, it is very frustrating being unable to use a bus shelter because there is not enough space on the pavement for a wheelchair to get into the bus shelter. As my noble friend Lady Harris said, children with special educational needs and disabilities are being affected in North Yorkshire. The statistics she cited were shocking. In addition to the question she asked the Minister, I ask: will he agree to meet his education counterpart? It seems that what she described is an absolute breach of the Children and Families Act arrangements for making statements for children with special educational needs. It was always intended that those travelling to and from special schools and special provision would not have to pay for it, because it is often so far away.
Clauses 24 and 25 cover the rights of bus and coach drivers, but only in the context of ensuring that staff are trained. Clause 24 deals with anti-social behaviour. I was somewhat surprised at the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, deeming it unnecessary, along with other oversight mechanisms, saying that he would come back to this and that it would be good to have a debate in Committee about this. Disability awareness is not the same as the rights of disabled people under the Equality Act 2010. That is clear from this Bill and from the Supreme Court judgment in 2016, brought and won by the wonderful disability campaigner Doug Paulley, where the vehicle to ensure accessibility—I do not mean vehicle in the sense of with wheels; I mean the legislative vehicle—for disabled people was enacted through bus driver regulations. They are not the same thing. The entire power rests with the bus driver, and I am afraid some of them treat disabled people raising issues as anti-social behaviour—I have had it in the last couple of weeks—because anti-social behaviour is part of the same regulation, and therefore I suspect it is part of the same training as driver training.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, referred to audio on buses. We need to remember that it is not yet universal, even in London. There is one bus route I use regularly, where I have to sit in a wheelchair space in reverse and there is no audio. It is potluck if you get off in time. Can the Minister say why the Government have not chosen to follow their own example in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill that your Lordships’ House debated in the autumn? I hope that they are prepared to consider that the Equality Act 2010 is added specifically.
In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was right in saying that we need a revolution in bus services in rural areas and towns. It is important that we address accessibility and rights—including, by the way, the drivers’ rights, which other people have spoken about. We need to make sure that the new franchise systems are value for money, truly accountable and truly devolved. From these Benches, we are looking forward to the next stages of the Bill and to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult—in fact, impossible, really—for me to add meaningfully at this stage to the many personal and emotional tributes that have been paid by noble Lords to the late Baroness Randerson. I knew her since I entered the House, but only rather distantly as a figure who spoke authoritatively and compellingly from the Liberal Democrat Benches on the subject of transport. But over the last few months, as I have taken on this role, I have had the opportunity of getting to know her better. Indeed, if I may say so, I developed over that period a degree of affection for her rather shrewd sense of humour. Others know her a great deal better than I ever achieved, and I regret that I shall not have the opportunity to develop the growing personal regard that I had for her. We shall miss her very much.
I thank the Minister and his officials for the time that they have given to briefing me on this Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
I turn to the Bill itself. Over Christmas, I had a message from a foreign friend asking me what it was like living in a socialist paradise, which led me to reflect a little on the nature of the Government. What strikes me about the Government, and it is present here again, is not really their socialism, though there is a degree of that; it is the fact that they are a Government who are almost solely and utterly focused on the public sector. The public sector is the solution to everything, and of course the policies of the public sector unions are determinative. So it is that we come to what is, in essence, a public sector Bill that is fundamentally driven by a rather narrow ideological approach. It is statist and anti-enterprise. It is also mildly nostalgic and backward-looking—a sort of return to the Attlee Government is essentially what we are being offered today.
Our first objection to the Bill, therefore, is that it is bureaucratic. It is anti-enterprise and, through franchising, it is likely effectively to snuff out a number of private sector businesses, which will be reduced to becoming not entrepreneurial entities at all but merely agencies of the state, operating to a fee and doing what the state instructs them to do in terms of routes, services and charging the fares that the state, through the local transport authorities, has set for them.
The Minister knows, from his time as the owner of a private bus company, the benefits to passenger service of private businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, and my noble friend Lord McLoughlin drew attention to the decline in passenger numbers, and the implication that certain noble Lords appear to draw is that it is a consequence of private provision. The same noble Lords, however, do not give credit to the private sector for the massive increase in usage of railways under privatisation. In that case they are probably right as well, to some degree. The point is that both bus and rail demand are subject to stronger fundamental forces. That is the fundamental problem that the Government have in trying to revive the sort of 1950s vision of bus services that we see in this Bill.
The fact is that in the case of rail, the Government hope to benefit from a secular rise in demand for rail passenger services. In the case of buses, they can hope only to prop up what is in fact a secular fall, a decline, in demand for bus services. A number of noble Lords have pointed out that that is very expensive to do. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, gave some illustrations of how expensive it might be. It is a random example and many examples were developed, but one of the first examples given in the debate was by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who referred to North Shropshire and the cuts in services there. Does anyone really imagine that those cuts can be reversed and restored without heavy public expenditure?
The Government’s chosen case studies, of which they are so proud, include London and Manchester. Going back to November 2024, shortly before her political demise, the former Secretary of State, Louise Haigh, wrote in the Sunday Mirror about London:
“This represents record capital investment to the majority of places and a once-in-a-generation reform plan that aims to deliver London-style buses to every corner of the country—including those areas that are usually overlooked”.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, said it would cost £850 million a year to sustain London buses. The figure I have is £738 million a year in 2024 but we are in, as the Americans say, the same ballpark. If I may be so bold as to disagree with such an experienced transport commentator as my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, there has in fact been a reduction in bus mileage in London of approximately 5% under the current mayor. There was a plan to reduce it by 7%. I do not think the full 7% was delivered, but it was certainly of the order of 5%. This is palpable to those of us who live in or close to central London in particular. In the case of Manchester, the Bee Network celebrated its first year of franchised bus services in September 2024. Passenger journeys in Greater Manchester grew by 5% in the first year of franchising.
By contrast, however, in the year ending March 2024—I agree this is not exactly the same period, but it is the best overlap I can get—national bus passenger numbers grew by 7%, and those figures are taken from the Department for Transport’s official statistics. I might say also in the context of secular decline that that also illustrates how little can be learned from simply looking at one year’s figures. The idea that Manchester demonstrates a huge success—outstanding, apart from the rest of the country—because of franchising needs to be substantiated. It is not necessarily very persuasive on the numbers given. As my noble friend Lord Effingham pointed out, the establishment of the Greater Manchester Bee Network required over £1 billion of central government investment. If you are spending the thick end of £1 billion a year sustaining the London bus network, you might regard a one-off payment of £1 billion to Manchester as mere small change, but replicate that around the country and you will eventually be looking at real numbers. The upshot is that any promise by the Government to give London-style bus services to the whole of the country is essentially a chimera. It is a bogus offer that the Government cannot afford to deliver.
Let us turn briefly to passengers, which is my next topic, if we move away from costs. We argued forcefully when we debated the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill that the focus of the Bill, its overriding purpose, should be to improve passenger services. It was, after all, a Bill—now an Act—about passenger services on the railway. However, the Government resisted that and overturned it in the other place. Similarly, this Bill makes no commitment to an improvement in services for bus passengers. It simply hopes that by making structural and procurement changes it will somehow achieve that. It has no overall duty on the Secretary of State to seek to improve passenger services. It says simply that perhaps the Secretary of State should.
Is the Bill going to work? In its manifesto, the Labour Party committed to reform the system for procuring bus services and to give local leaders new powers. The reality of the Bill is that the Government are not really giving local leaders new powers, but simply removing the Department for Transport’s role in confirming the appropriateness of franchising in other areas. It is our view that the Government’s decision to remove the Secretary of State’s discretionary power to grant franchising powers to local authorities risks too much, and we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to intervene where a local authority’s franchising model is failing, as a safeguard to protect services for local people where local leadership is poor.
It is essential to understand the differences between large concentrations of persons living in an urban area and the structure of a market that exists in rural areas. That was the logic behind the 2017 Act, which gave powers to certain conurbations, in effect, to franchise or take more control of their own buses but to deny them elsewhere. Extending that power throughout the whole country is, I am afraid, to take a chance and offer a bogus prospectus to the public. The vast majority of local transport authorities will not have the skills to plan routes, assess demand, set fares and introduce a ticketing system, No doubt we will be told that the Bus Centre of Excellence will be deployed to help them. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when he responds how many people are employed by the Bus Centre of Excellence. As other noble Lords have said, the consequence is that the Bill has no answer to the needs of rural communities.
We believe that some subsidiary elements of the Bill are welcome—for example, closing the loophole in the safeguarding of children who are being transported to school on independent school bus services—but we have other concerns, which I will briefly run through, because we will have an opportunity to discuss them further in Committee.
The first is the relative silence of the Bill on ticketing, which is remarkable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is always ahead of the game, said—to the rather older Members of the House, perhaps—Oyster cards are not where it’s at any more. Contactless payment, at the very least, is what one should be looking at, rather than a bespoke Oyster card-type system. But it is remarkable how little the Bill has to say about that and, as she said, about the ability to deploy that payment method outside a particular local transport area. Where is the Bill taking us on that; what do the Government have in mind?
Data collection is very important, but more important is its dissemination. In London, the data collected by Transport for London is available free to all app developers. Do the Government intend the same with the data collected nationally; or is it, heaven forfend, the secret plan of the Department for Transport to develop its own app to disseminate this on an exclusive basis? I think we would like to know.
The training of bus drivers in relation to disability in particular is very important, but as the Minister knows, because I have expressed this to him privately, I am concerned about the implications of the passage in the Bill on drivers being trained to tackle anti-social behaviour and potentially violent activity. It is my very clear view—and I suspect it is, on reflection, his—that it is not right for the public to expect bus drivers to put themselves at risk in order to confront incidents that the police would tackle by deploying two, three or four uniformed officers. We have to be very realistic about this, and we will want to explore the issue when the Bill is in Committee.
Safety is of course terribly important, as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, made clear. It is worth asking to what extent the franchise model contributes to a sort of aggressive bus management that might lead to buses being driven less safely than might otherwise be the case. I said earlier that the Bill has a sort of nostalgic “back to Attlee” flavour to it. One way of illustrating that is that it completely fails to mention anything to do with demand-led transport. The Bill very much envisages a fixed-route, traditional bus service but in fact, in many rural areas demand-led transport might well be and is already proving to be a much more effective way of providing affordable services to communities. The Bill as it stands contains almost no provision for that and makes no reference to it; it will be interesting to see how that fits with the franchising system.
I will conclude. This is an ideologically driven, backward-looking, bureaucratic and expensive Bill. We, for our part on these Benches, shall do our best to improve it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who have engaged in today’s lively debate on the Bill. I have listened carefully and with much interest to the excellent points being raised across your Lordships’ House. I will attempt to respond to some but not half as many questions and concerns as I would like to because of the time. We also have Committee, in which we can explore many of these issues in greater detail. In the meantime, I will follow up where I can as soon as I can on some of the issues that I cannot mention now.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his introduction, much of which was covered by what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just said, but I will say one or two things to him in passing. First, on the notion that bus fares increased by 50% from £2 to £3, it is of course a calculation that bus fares of £2 increased to £3, but many passengers do not travel on individual tickets. Also, as the industry trade body said, for the 26% of passengers who travel on individual tickets many fares for shorter journeys remain below £3. The cost of franchising in Manchester is not £1 billion; it actually cost, on a one-off basis, £135 million, much of that paid for by Greater Manchester itself. One of the reasons why it cost so much money is because it took six years, as the process was so convoluted. A clear aim of this Bill is to make franchising easier.
Also, as a point of issue, it is not only electric buses that get recalled by manufacturers. As a bus operator, I can tell your Lordships of many circumstances in which buses have rightly been recalled for safety reasons. I think it is inevitable that zero-emission buses will take over in future, and the Bill seeks to ensure that the industry recognises that. However, he is right in referring to a one-team ethos; I am not entirely sure that that sentiment was reflected in what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, just said, but we will do our best to get a good Bill out of this, I am sure, and I welcome that sentiment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her really helpful remarks. The devolution of funding and the statutory guidance given by the Secretary of State, under new Section 154A, we will debate in Committee. It is not the intention to apparently devolve funding and then put on such rules that in fact it is not really devolved. The intention of the Bill is to allow a much greater level of freedom for local transport authorities than they have had. It is also the intention of the Government in due course to streamline the funding streams above that. I recognise that point completely. Frankly, I am as confused as some noble Lords about how many streams there are. The noble Baroness mentioned some of them, and that would be better, but actually the result of this Bill is that to make it much easier at the point at which the money is distributed, which must be the right thing.
I recognise the points about young people’s fares. There are already local transport authorities that give concessions to young people, and nothing in this Bill will prevent that. The wider point, which we will come to again and again with this Bill, is that this is designed to give local transport authorities more freedom. A number of noble Lords have referred to that this afternoon and this evening. It is the right thing to do because buses are a local service, not a national service. I will come back to the specific remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the end, but the clear intention of this Bill is to allow local transport authorities to decide what methodology of providing a service is best for them and then to do it.
I was much heartened by hearing that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, a former Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, welcomed multiyear funding. I will reflect with my colleagues in government on what his experience is of that. We have to wait for the Spring Statement to know what this Government are able to do in the straitened financial circumstances that they find themselves.
The noble Lord and other noble Lords have referred to open data, and I can certainly commit to the fact that open data is the intention of this Bill and of the Government. The intention of open data, reflecting the recent point by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is that it should be free. That is the right thing to do. If you want public transport usage to increase, the data should be available. I have a rather good story to tell the House about open data. At Transport for London, we searched for the person who developed the best open data app for the Underground. I said that I would like to see that person. It turned out that they worked for a bank in Melbourne, and it was not immediately possible for them to turn up in my office. However, it is a really important point.
The noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Hampton, and others, referred to integrated ticketing. I will write to them about that. It is obviously the intention to have integrated ticketing. One of the attractions of franchising is that it enables that to happen. One of the weaknesses of commercial bus provision outside London is the degree to which individual operators would rather offer that technology but only on their own buses, whereas the public and passengers want it to be available on every bus. I know that my noble friend Lady Blake has some experience of that from Leeds and West Yorkshire. It is obviously desirable for passengers, particularly in urban areas, to be able to use any bus and for the ticketing system to be consistent.
A number of noble Lords referred to training. There is already mandatory training for bus drivers. The intention of this Bill is to specify further mandatory training but to deliver it within that regime, which I think is absolutely right. A number of noble Lords referred also to the roads on which buses operate. It is quite right that the reliability and indeed the economics of bus operation are vastly altered by the existence of congestion and the ability of buses to get through traffic, whether through bus lanes or other things. One of the most notable things about the Manchester franchising is that a consequence of putting some of the bus service into the control of the Mayor of Greater Manchester, then to be reflected in the local transport authority, was that a vastly increased focus was immediately available on, for example, getting rid of temporary traffic lights and straightening out traffic management. There have been references this afternoon and this evening to what help can be given to local transport authorities that wish to engage in franchising. The Bus Centre of Excellence has been mentioned. It does not need full-time employees but for advice to be available when needed. One of the features of that is to give advice on traffic management so that buses can take their appropriate place in transporting passengers in local areas.
It is always a delight to hear from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin. He has made some excellent decisions in his time, including appointing me as the chair of Network Rail, though my wife was not similarly impressed by that appointment. Many of the points that he raised are obviously germane, in particular on the very sharp decline in passenger numbers in the north of England. He said that one size does not fit all, and he is absolutely right—I think that is much more to his point. This Bill enables local transport authorities in cities, towns and rural areas to choose the best way of going forward. It is not necessarily franchising. Even if it is franchising, it is not necessarily on whole routes. Some of it is about franchising in particular areas where a franchise mechanism might produce better public services. The Government do not want to dictate whether you should have a franchise; they want local transport authorities to use the best mechanisms that they can.
It was a delight to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and even better to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is recovering. I look forward to seeing her in her place. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a number of questions that will have to be answered either in Committee or in correspondence. She referred particularly to recovering lost routes. One of the real sadnesses of the last several years is that some bus funding has been available to start new bus routes when the old ones ceased, because they were not able to be funded through that arrangement. But it is better if routes are not stopped and then started again because, in the course of that, you can lose a lot of patronage.
The noble Baroness mentioned South Yorkshire. I can tell her that the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority has completed a franchising assessment, and the consultation on its scheme closes on 15 January.
I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I had an exchange with her previously about the circumstances in North Yorkshire that she raised, and her concerns are known to the Government. I am also aware of a petition tabled to Parliament from a Member for the area in the other place, and my colleagues in the Department for Education will respond to that shortly. I note, out of interest, that North Yorkshire is a Conservative council.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, referred to matters including the cost of zero-emission buses. One of the reasons for the Bill proposing both an effective ban on non-zero emission vehicles and the date of 2030 is that, as he knows as an experienced bus person, the cost of zero-emission and hybrid vehicles has gone down. The intention is to support sales, which this and the previous Government have strongly supported through funding to bring down the cost of those vehicles, such that they will be available and economical to run when that time comes.
A lot of points were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about bus services, many of which were germane. I have no doubt that we will discuss them in Committee. She asked whether I agree that, as local transport authorities have or will get more responsibility, more councillors should be involved. I am not sure that it is my job to decide that but, as has been mentioned before, help might be needed with some of these arrangements. I know—actually, it is quite well known—that the quality of passenger transport in local transport authorities depends on their having expertise. On that matter, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. One of the purposes of the Bill is to set out the choices, and the department is putting money and resource aside to help people make the right choices and institute them successfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised several issues about safety. I will consider the points that he and others have raised about whether safety data should be collected. I will certainly write to the noble Lord and I have no doubt that those matters will be raised in Committee.
I do not drive passenger service vehicles in service very often now, but my technique in keeping time was always secondary to road safety. My belief is that that is still widely true in the bus industry, if only because of financial reasons, because bus operators, and for that matter local transport authorities that choose to operate buses, will always be subject to the costs of insurance. We will have a further look at driver welfare and will no doubt discuss it. The noble Lord also raised data sharing, to which I have already referred.
It was extraordinarily kind of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to refer to London 2012, which now seems quite a long time ago.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It was a long time ago; the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and I completely agree. I wanted only to say that I do not claim particular credit for it; if you lead a team, you should give credit to the team that you lead and not take it all yourself.
The noble Lord’s more important points were about inclusion and accessibility. I absolutely recognise the points he made about the accessibility of the bus service to people with disabilities. I note his contention that Clause 22 does not go far enough, but I promise—and I am sure we will discuss it in Committee—to look at the degree and extent to which this clause can answer his points. He must be able to see that the intention of Clause 22 is to improve bus stopping areas and for the Secretary of State to give some guidance, which ought to be mandatorily taken into regard by local transport and highway authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised points about community control and who is in control. As I said, the point of this is to return control to local transport authorities. He also raised a question, which he largely answered, about what happens if local transport authorities do not do their job. One would hope that the citizens of the local transport authority would vote them out for not doing their job. That is the remedy. I do not think that the Secretary of State coming down on local transport authorities like a ton of bricks is a satisfactory alternative; we want to return control to the people who should rightly have it.
Incidentally, there have been bus routes down the Embankment since the trains went. I used to travel on route 109, but it does not go there any more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also raised some important points on the Bill. She raised Clause 9 on approved persons, which we will discuss in Committee. The intention is not to deregulate approved persons but to widen the range of them. I completely agree with her that they should have some qualifications. An unqualified person should not be able to make a judgment about whether a franchising scheme is right.
The noble Baroness asked whether Clause 11 complies with the procurement regulations. I am advised that I am able to tell her that it does.
The noble Baroness welcomed Clause 19 and referred to assistance data. I will take that away and see what can be done. Bringing data on bus service usage into the 21st century is quite important and I am sympathetic to the idea that, as long as it is not a burden to bus operators, or indeed local transport authorities, collecting data is the right thing to do, so that we know what is going on.
I note very clearly the noble Baroness’s comments on Clauses 24 and 25, that diversity training is not the same as the rights for disabled people, and on what we did, with her great assistance, in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, referring to the Equality Act. I will go away and reflect on that.
Lastly, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has some extraordinary views about socialist paradises and returning to the era of the Attlee Government. I find it particularly extraordinary because I know that the noble Lord has such a strong view about the autonomy of local authorities. The Bill intends to return bus services to the autonomy of local authorities and for the Secretary of State not to intervene so much in the provision of services.
I have to tell the noble Lord that there is currently a huge disparity in the provision of bus services across Britain. I was not only responsible for the bus service in London, as he knows, but, for a measurable length of time, I was responsible for the bus services in what was laughingly called south-east England but apparently included Norfolk, Northampton, Leicester and Southampton. Even within one bus group, 20 years ago, there was an extraordinary variation in the provision of services and the extent to which bus operators sought to maximise the network and the return on it, or cut off individual journeys, to the extent to which some towns and cities in Britain find themselves short of or even without bus services after 7 pm and on Sundays.
I think I know roughly how to run a bus network, and one of the things you should do, which is the feature of the best bus services run by the private companies outside London—I can mention some places, but I will not—is to seek to service the network and to take people to school, hospital, work, leisure and home. It is in those places where those services have drifted away that something else needs to be done.
That is also true of rural services. The noble Lord alleged, quite wrongly, that the Bill does not deal with demand-responsive transport. It very much does—that is one of the remedies open to local transport authorities, as it should be. It is not a particularly cheap methodology but it is there to be used and, in fact, there are some startlingly good examples of it. He refers to it as though it is an urban feature but his own Government instituted an experimental regime in Cornwall, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, knows, has produced rather a good bus service in Cornwall by having features of Cornwall Council’s activities that amount to franchising in the same way that the Bill will allow to happen.
I have come to the end of my allotted time. There is a limit to what I can answer here. As I set out earlier, the Bill is primarily about empowering local leaders wherever they are. It is a privilege to bring this forward to your Lordships’ House for Second Reading. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s debate. I welcome the support of those who have spoken in favour of the Bill’s measures and look forward to continuing the debate on the Bill in Grand Committee.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule, Clauses 11 to 31, Title.