Death of Ann Widdecombe

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Today is a dark day in our political life, but we must also use it as an opportunity to celebrate Ann Widdecombe’s memory. She was a unique figure in our politics: a distinctive and devoted public servant, the likes of whom we will rarely, if ever, see again. Ann had a profound faith. Her journey in this life has ended too soon, but may she now rest in eternal peace. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, no 78 year-old woman deserves to be bludgeoned to death in her own home. The whole House will wish that the search for anyone who may have incited or abetted her cowardly killer will be far-reaching and remorseless and their punishment unbending. To those who sneered about Ann Widdecombe after the news of her death or, worse, welcomed her death, I say that to try to unsay such things when you learn of the manner of her death does not make it okay. Your shameful words are indelible, and their stain lies not on her but for ever on you. There is too much easy hatred in politics today. We must confront all its perpetrators and root them out.

There was no hatred in Ann Widdecombe. Strong principles? Yes, you sure knew where you stood. Convictions expressed with clarity? Certainly. A zeal to serve her community? Absolutely. Readiness to debate fiercely and then make up with a drink and a laugh afterwards? Very much so. People who knew her in the House of Commons say there was never a harder-working constituency MP. She worked for the causes in which she believed day in, day out, right to the very end. Her killer found her after one engagement, and he took her as she was preparing for her next one.

The response from her own community in recent days has shown how dearly she was loved by her neighbours and those with whom she so faithfully worshipped her divine creator at Buckfast Abbey. She was one of those rare politicians that non-politicians, real people, related to and liked. Yes, she was a character. She loved her country. My goodness me, how much she loved this land. Eccentric, maybe, but how English is that? My party leader, Kemi Badenoch, spoke simply and eloquently, as a woman of a woman, of the shock that we in the Conservative Party feel at the loss of a dear colleague of decades. Like Kemi, I reach out to the members of Reform, to whom Ann lately hitched her redoubtable wagon. Her loss is a loss, in my judgment, to the whole of public life, and it is another darkening of the happiness and the cheerful innocence of things.

I thank the Minister for the kind words that we have heard from the Government and from so many in the party opposite. Sometimes, we know that we are all brothers and sisters under the skin, on the same journey, for the same purpose of public duty. Ann’s death is another reminder of the real threats to many in public life. We remember David Amess, Jo Cox, Ian Gow, Anthony Berry, Robert Bradford, Airey Neave —all slain by terrorists while serving MPs.

I know that there is a limit to what the Minister will be able to say about the ongoing investigation, but the announcement that counterterrorism police are now leading the investigation has only deepened concern felt here in Westminster and across the country. The Home Secretary said that the suspect was not known to Prevent. Can the Minister give the House any update on latest information that he can share?

Understandably, there was much in the Statement about the advice available to MPs and new provision that may be made at the other end of this palace. Can the Minister say anything about what provision may be made for Members of your Lordships’ House, who are not free from daily threats of violence? We must never, ever close the gates of democracy, but we must safeguard all those, Members or not, who come to Parliament to serve their fellow countrymen and women.

Surprise has been widely expressed about the haste with which the Devon and Cornwall Police downplayed any idea that there was a political motive to this killing. Is the Minister satisfied with protocols for releasing information to the public in high-profile cases in this social media age? Will he commit to reviewing the handling of this case so that the right lessons are learned?

That is for the future. For now, all our thoughts and prayers should be with Ann’s family and friends. I know that the whole House will join with me in expressing our deepest sympathies to them all.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, we join others in extending condolences for the death of Ann Widdecombe. The reaction to this tragedy has rightly included tributes from every party and from all sections of society. That is a reminder that, under fierce disagreement, there is a shared commitment to our democratic institutions and a shared vulnerability when violence enters political life.

Like every Member of this House, we were shocked and saddened by her death, the circumstances of which are subject to an active police investigation. The police have been clear right from the outset that they are treating this as a suspected murder. However, they have not yet established a motive. The situation seems to change constantly, and I suspect that it will continue to do so, as they uncover more and more evidence.

They have also asked us to respect their request not to speculate and to allow them to do their work. If only we could have the same lack of speculation on the internet and on social media. Would that not be great? Unfortunately, however, it is never going to happen.

Ann Widdecombe commanded widespread respect for her commitment to democratic debate and public services, first as a councillor, then as an MP for two decades, then as a Government Minister and, finally, as a Member of the European Parliament. This tragedy is a reminder that those who serve in public life should be able to do so safely.

We depend on people from all parties and none to put themselves forward and speak their minds without fear or favour, but my personal experience suggests that younger people, in particular, will not even consider the possibility of making politics their life. When you ask them, even though they are highly articulate and very happy to tell you what the Government should and should not do, they say, “We are not going to put ourselves forward to be shot down”. I honestly think that we all ought to work together to change this system. They should not be feeling like that. They should want to serve and realise how great it is to do so.

From these Benches, we send our sympathy to Ann’s family, her friends, her former colleagues, her constituents and her community, who will all be grieving her loss. Our responsibility now is to continue our arguments, definitely with seriousness but also with civility, and to give the police the space they need to establish the facts of her very sad death.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

With those brief remarks, I will finish by thanking again the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his courtesy and all the Government Front Bench in the Lords. The Bill will now go forward, and the Prime Minister will no doubt read at great length in the papers tomorrow—he has briefed some of them already—how he got his way with the House of Lords and how he pushed aside those who sought to obstruct the elected will of the people. He will know, as will the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and many others here, that that was never the intention of His Majesty’s Opposition, but we will no doubt read in the papers tomorrow that it was. That is not a great reflection on the way Parliament operates, and reflecting on the good way that it is operating should be the headline tomorrow.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, if I might intervene briefly and ask my noble friend for indulgence, I should say that the noble Lord opposite made important remarks. This House has a major and abiding role in asking the elected House to think again. But as he said, we are now four times into this process. This House is at its best, as he again implied, when we have dialogue, understanding and tolerance across the Chamber. We have heard the words “patriotism” and “morality” used—not by the noble Lord opposite. In my experience as Leader of this House, this is a patriotic House, whatever the party and whatever the person. This is a House where people of different political views, with a high political morality of public service, have different ways of seeking to achieve the same end. The party opposite wishes to repeal this Bill; I hope it will, shortly, be passed.

I have said this before on other occasions, and I am sorry; I crave the indulgence of the House at rising at this, but it is an important point. It is important that we have a discussion about what are the limits and what is the place of your Lordships’ House in scrutinising and indeed challenging legislation put forward by any elected Government. However, he embers of the passage of this important Bill, which I understand was controversial in this House, are not the occasion. I do not think this is the place, but this is a matter that we might debate in an open forum and privately, and I hope that we can do that.

I appreciate the gentle way—in the sense of gentlemanly, if that word is allowed to be used in this way—in which the noble Lord has put the point. I appreciate his tribute to my noble friends and others on the Front Bench, and indeed to all the people in this House. There have been spirited and good debates, in the best traditions of the House, but in the weeks and months ahead we must reflect on whether sending something back to the elected House four or five times is the best way to enable the King’s Government to be carried on.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Perhaps the Leader might reflect on the point that my noble friend Lord German made. The Minister, this evening and previously, has said that the Government currently are not in a position to ratify the Rwanda treaty because they are not in a position to state that the conditions that would be required to ratify the treaty are yet in place. That assumes that a process will have to be under way for the Government to ratify that treaty, of which we are currently unaware.

The Leader speaks very sincerely about our ability to scrutinise and to hold the Government to account for decisions that they make, especially when it comes to international agreements. Given what the Minister said—I repeat, that the Government are currently not in a position to ratify the treaty—will the Leader ensure, through the usual channels, that there is open discussion about facilitating time in this Chamber for us to discuss what the Government’s statement would be when they come to the conclusion that those requirements for the treaty are in place? Surely that is simply an open way for us to scrutinise the decision that would be made if the conditions are met.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I hope it is in scope for the Leader of the House to interpose his body, particularly when the noble Lord is active and spirited, as he is at this hour. I will say two things. First, we have had many hours of debate on this legislation. I think the doubts about the Bill, and we believe the beliefs and proprieties about it, are entirely clear. So far as further discussion and the development of events are concerned, we in the usual channels are always open to discussion with other parties about when or in what way further discussion can be made. I apologise to the House for my intervention but these are important things which we need to reflect on. Perhaps this has been a prolonged process, but I would like, in the immortal phrase of the Senate of the United States of America, to yield the floor to my noble friend Lord Sharpe to conclude the proceedings.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention. He put his points across extremely eloquently, and I agree with all of them.

I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the Bill does comply with international law. It is profoundly moral and patriotic to defend the integrity of our borders, and it is profoundly moral and patriotic to prevent the needless loss of life in the channel and to put the criminal gangs out of business.

I also ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, why the Green group is currently a solo act. Where is her partner?

Net Migration

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I am not quite sure what the problem is.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I think the House is asking if we can come to a question point. We must respect the noble Lord. Not everybody agrees with his contributions, but I think he must be heard and he must ask a question.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I am so sorry; I got that in the wrong order. My question is to ask His Majesty’s Government why net migration rose to 745,000 in 2022, according to data published by the Office for National Statistics on 23 November; and what plans they have to reduce it.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I ask the noble Lord to bear with me for a moment.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, if I may, I remind the House that it is not required for a Minister to give way. However, your Lordships may like to recall that we are in Committee, and the normal procedure of Committee is that someone can intervene again. However, I think it is always helpful for the House to allow the Minister to complete his remarks—and then, doubtless, the noble Lord may wish to comment on them.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I say, this will not advance our negotiating position—quite the contrary. This amendment could well make such negotiations harder. It does not help the UK’s negotiating position to be setting out its negotiating strategy in public. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

National Security Bill

Lord True Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the National Security Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Clause 14: Foreign interference: meaning of “interference effect”

Amendment 1

Moved by

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment to which I have added my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to decide what other local authorities, along with mayoral authorities, may have franchising powers. The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee states that it is,

“puzzled by the implication in the memorandum that mayoral combined authorities have expressed an interest in pursuing a franchising approach, given that there are currently no combined authorities with a mayor”.

Although an order has been made preparing Greater Manchester for this situation, its mayor will not be elected until 2017. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on exactly what the provision in the Explanatory Memorandum refers to. Does it refer to Manchester or other areas? Even more fundamentally, why should a mayor be any better at running bus services than a designated executive member within a transport authority? After all, the previous Mayor of London did not have a glorious record when running the buses. A great deal of resources were wasted on the “Boris bus”, and the fact that London buses run very well is down to the experience and expertise built up over many years by Transport for London. Compare the record to which I have just referred with that of Reading, which has an excellent municipal bus service run on a traditional civic structure, and has had the wisdom to invest well in its bus services over the years and maintain its municipal service operating at arm’s length from the council.

I give another example: the Mayor of Liverpool, in his wisdom, shut all the bus lanes. I do not think those are examples of mayors’ wonderful wisdom trumping other forms of local government organisation. I am puzzled about the position in which this Bill puts Cornwall, because, as the noble Lord said, Cornwall was promised franchising as part of its devolution deal but now, according to the Bill, has to get the Secretary of State’s permission to go ahead with franchising. Previously in Committee, My noble friend Lady Scott referred to Jersey as an excellent example of how franchising can work, even with small authorities. Jersey has 80 buses and a population of 100,000, but has increased bus passenger usage by 32% since it had franchising, saved more than £1 million a year in public subsidy, added five routes and increased the frequency of its buses. That is an example of franchising working in a very small locality. Therefore, I very much hope that the Secretary of State will accept our arguments, agree to look at this issue and consider whether the need for the Secretary of State to intervene can be removed from the Bill. I hope the Minister can give us hope in this regard.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have given notice to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I strongly disagree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Attlee and strongly support the principle of Amendment 21. I spoke on this matter at Second Reading. I declare an interest as an elected leader of a local authority. I suggest to my noble friend that if I were suddenly told that I had to become an elected mayor overnight, I would be no better or no worse at my job than I am now. I do not understand why this obsession—and it is an obsession—with mayoral authority continues.

I venture to suggest that, in the light of recent events, whatever else has happened—and one does not know from hour to hour what is going to happen next—it is the idea of imposing mayors that many of us object to. If local authorities wish to come together, have combined arrangements and do things together, that is fine; we have recently agreed a shared staffing arrangement with our neighbouring authority in Wandsworth. But it is a denial of local democracy in any place to insist, from the centre, for whatever reason, that a local authority, or group of authorities, may only have something on the condition that they do the bidding of central government and have a mayor whom nobody wants. This had led us to the absurdity of a Conservative Government proposing and requiring that there should be a mayor of East Anglia. Not even Mr Edward Heath suggested that. It may be that the local authorities in East Anglia will come together and say that it is a great idea and that they want it. That is fine; let them do so.

However, this is just a small example of a wider policy. Let us not beat about the bush: this policy is coming down from Her Majesty’s Treasury, where it is being actively encouraged by my noble friend Lord Heseltine. In the light of changed circumstances—in the next few months we will have a new Prime Minister and many other new Ministers—I hope that the next Government team will take a look at this policy of imposing mayors. I concentrate on the word “imposing”. It has been done by a form of blackmail from the centre: you can have more money if you do what we want. I dislike that: we want dispersed power in this country, dispersed choice and dispersed opportunity, not single models handed down from above.

This is a small example of a policy which I believe to be wrong democratically and in principle. I could not sign the amendment because the Marshalled List was full, but unless I get some assurances from the Front Bench that the Government will think again about this principle, I might be tempted to support such an amendment on Report. I see absolutely no reason why competent authorities that come together should not be treated in the same way as competent authorities that come together with a mayor on top. The first version might actually be rather cheaper than the second, given all the stuff that comes with a mayor.

I am very sorry to speak in these terms; they are addressed not to my noble friend on the Front Bench, but to rather more senior people in government than him or me. This is one stage too far in the policy of imposing mayors on unwilling communities and authorities. I suggest that the policy should be paused, then stopped.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jones for setting out the arguments so clearly as to why we do not need the Secretary of State’s approval for any authority that does not have a mayor. Let us be clear about Cornwall. It is not mentioned by name in the Bill, but we have heard lots of statements from Ministers that this one authority—which does not have a mayor and probably never will—will be allowed to have a franchising service. This is quite surprising. Devolution for Cornwall has involved a lot of proposed changes in health and social security. There is no money there, but they are going along with it. However, as I mentioned on the first day in Committee, they are going ahead now as if they had a franchise, but on a voluntary basis. The bus companies concerned are fully supportive—I talked about integrated ticketing, timetabling, routes and so on—but they are doing it without the need to apply for franchising because it is going to happen anyway. That is the impression I get. So why do the Government believe that they have to impose this ridiculous approval process, as the noble Lord, Lord True, outlined, for authorities that do not have mayors? It seems a complete waste of time. Since it is being done on a voluntary basis, at least in one county, to achieve what I believe will be a very successful outcome, I will be interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of why mayors are good and everybody else is bad. It is a bit like Animal Farm in the early days but I will not go on about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am, of course, grateful for what my noble friend has said about competent authorities. I know that he has a great knowledge of, and esteem for, local government. My problem remains, although I have studied carefully what he said. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that I have no vested interest in this, because my council is a London area council and we come within the London arrangements, although I will have some points to make on Clause 21. In his opening remarks, my noble friend talked about the advantage of mayoral arrangements; there is a centralised decision-making element—I think that probably came in guidance or advice he had received. This is the problem, because, as I said in my previous intervention, this is a small part of a wider policy; there are certain people inside government who wish to create centralising models. It is an idea of managing the country by larger functions, which are responsible to, and look upwards to the Treasury and the Government for guidance—we see it in education, with the emergence of regional schools commissioners. That is not the philosophy I believe in, as a Conservative; I believe, as I said earlier, that we need more dispersed authority.

My noble friend is right that it is clearly open to any sort of authority to go ahead; however, there are more obstacles put it in the way of other authorities, whereas the mayoral authority can leap forward. My noble friend Lord Horam must be right: the Government cannot keep taking on these functions to take all these decisions. I do not want to stray into education, I know we are in Committee, but can the Government and their institutions make every decision for every school or group of academies around the country? We do not have enough civil servants to do that. We do not have enough civil servants with the competence to take decisions about transport in different counties all over the country. Devolution is a marvellous idea, which I strongly support, but what creeps into legislation time and again is not devolution but control masquerading as devolution. So when I hear talk of centralised decision-making, I believe that I am looking at the tip of the iceberg of a philosophy of government which is not one I share.

Although I am extremely grateful for what are in many ways the reassuring and typically courteous remarks of my noble friend, I would still find it very difficult to support any legislation that gives an advantage to a putative mayoral authority, not just an existing one, above any other form of authority. It would mean that someone in a department somewhere can say, “Look, you guys. You can have what you want if you do what we say”. Power should come from the people through local government and through local authorities coming together. I give notice to my noble friend that I am still uneasy about these proposals.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Of course I will reflect on the thoughtful remarks made by my noble friend, but let me reassure him that from my perspective and indeed of those within the Department for Transport, the view is very much based on all authorities having access if they have not only the governance models but, as I said, the other criteria on geographical coverage as well to ensure that they can make franchising a success. Ultimately the Government’s intent behind this enabling Bill is to ensure that bus services work for local people.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I have tremendous sympathy with many of the points made by her and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and I am sure we will look at these matters very carefully during the course of the Bill. I declare an interest as a leader of a local authority who rides the 33 bus to work every morning. Generally a very good service it is, I may say, including exactly the kind of information that is so helpful to passengers, and which I hope will be extended from London and Manchester to many other areas under the Bill.

I am very struck by the point about audio-visual. I remember that when I used to go to Berlin in the old Cold War days—it was a fascinating place, quite extraordinarily liberated and alternative—when you got on to public transport it was absolutely rigid and regimented, and you noticed that a voice announced “Nollendorfplatz” and so on. That was so long ago— 30 to 35 years—and I thought then that audio-visual was a good idea, but it still has not come in universally across this country. Let us hope that that will happen.

My authority is not a passenger authority, although we have nearly 90,000 households. Our services are provided by Transport for London, about which we have heard a little, and which does many good things that we are recommended to imitate. The trouble is that TfL is a very large, almost impenetrable and, in many cases, unaccountable body about which, I confess, I have not always been polite in your Lordships’ House. However, I had the great pleasure the other day of sharing views with its new top man, Mr Brown, who I thought was a breath of fresh air. I might have expected that, on remuneration three times the whack of the Prime Minister—a benchmark that I hope will not be followed by the other authorities that might emerge under the Bill. Although Transport for London does a good job, in its structure it is not always as accountable to local people as it might be—I will return to this a bit later. I hope that in these new arrangements we will not replicate the defects as well as the strengths of that.

Generally, I support the Bill. Increased bus use in London has been hugely welcome, and bus use must be encouraged further, which we all hope the Bill will do. It is therefore great to see the Bill before the House, and I thank the Minister. It will open up new possibilities to improve bus services across the country, and as was fairly said from the other side of the House, give us the chance to learn both from the successes and the failures of the system as it has evolved over the last decades. Learning on the job is what we are about in public administration, and we should do that candidly, recognising the good and the bad that there is in all systems.

I do not want to upset my noble friend on the Front Bench but, funnily enough, I have no ideological objections—noble Lords will not be surprised, as I am the leader of a local authority—to local authorities running buses or running anything at all, if they can show that they can do it economically and effectively. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will explain, as others have asked him to do, the rationale of Clause 21, which, I remind the House, says that, “A relevant authority”—that is, a local authority—

“may not, in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service”;

that is, a transport service. It goes on to say that that applies,

“whether the relevant authority is acting alone or with any other person”.

Even as a partner, the Bill sets out to slam the door on local authority innovation.

That takes us a long way from the power of general competence, which I so welcomed when our last Administration brought it in. Does that mean—I read out the words, which sound very hard—that a local authority would be prevented from promoting or participating in a small, energy-efficient, seasonal shuttle service to improve links between a station and tourist attractions or parks: the kind of service which will not be provided by commercial bodies? It would be a pity if such small-scale innovations were forbidden by what reads as rather leaden language in the Bill. Perhaps we will be able to explore that further in Committee.

I have great affection for the old buses I used to go to school on, which were run by a local authority: West Bridgford Urban District Council, which was the only urban district council running buses then, which it had done since your Lordships passed a Bill in 1913. I can still see those brown and buff buses coming along. They described the livery as crimson lake and cream but we knew it as “choco and custard”, two of our favourite foods. We did not have anti-child-obesity rules in those days. Those were local municipal services, run by a small local authority, and they were profitable, decade after decade. The council ran them at a profit, and I do not see why that should not be possible or not allowed.

In the 1960s, when buses were challenged by the rise of car use, which we now want to prevent, profitability became more difficult and the local authority wished to change to coaches and a one-man operation, but sadly, that was blocked by the trade unions, as so many things were in the 1960s. The result was that the service was sold off to Nottingham City Council, which still runs buses. I can tell noble Lords, from my experience last week, that it does it rather well. I hope that we can at least have a better explanation as to why that ban should be in the Bill.

To go back to where I was on London, the moral of my reflection on the dear old West Bridgford buses is that public bodies can run services, and public services can inspire great affection, but transport must be responsive to its customers and able to innovate.

With regard to being responsive, I referred to London, as did the Minister. What influence will lower-tier local authorities within the planned new authorities have over decisions relating to buses? By the way, I agree with those who said that the obsession with elected mayors is completely ridiculous. We are all for devolution and so on, but can someone stop sending Bills to my noble friend Lord Heseltine before they come before Parliament? We can do things well locally without elected mayors.

Within the TfL area, TfL has exclusive powers over, for example, the placing of bus stops and the design of street furniture. To give one example, securing the moving of a bus stop in one of our town centres took over a year due to bureaucracy, with the proposal going back and forth between the person at the top—the commissioner of TfL—and all his people and the local authority. It was completely ridiculous. I do not know whether the Public Bill Office will say that the Bill does not apply to London but it looks as though the Long Title of the Bill will allow that. However, let us hope that it does not come to that.

With regard to the delay in moving bus stops, we recently had a case where bus shelters, which provided shelter, were removed, without consultation, by the superior authority—TfL—and passengers got drenched. When we raised an objection, we were told by the people at the top that they were worried that their bus drivers might drive into the larger shelters, so they had replaced them with smaller ones. Perhaps the bus drivers could have been trained not to drive into bus shelters. Can we be sure that, in these new co-operative arrangements—with or without mayors—that are emerging in other parts of the country, lower-level authorities such as Richmond Council will have slightly more say in local design and activity than is the case in London? I hope that will be carefully considered.

I hugely welcome the improvements in accessibility for disabled people, and I very much agree with what the noble Baroness said. Sadly, too often I have seen selfishness from people with buggies on buses. My dear old grandmother would have called it “heathen” behaviour. It is a great pity that one has to resort to the law to get decent civility in giving priority to those in need.

I hope that these new, emerging arrangements will allow more choice and more public and local involvement. Let us have a bit more input into the design of buses. I am sorry that the hop-on, hop-off bus did not go forward. I thought it was great during the first few days of its operation, but then we were not allowed to hop on and hop off any more. When we have these franchising operations, will local authorities be able to say, “Please give us buses where we can have windows that open”, and, “Can we have buses on which people can sit looking forwards instead of backwards through the back window of the bus, where the ordinary passenger can’t see anything?”? Design is very important and I hope that there will be some influence over that in the franchising arrangements.

Finally and briefly, what is the definition of a bus in the Bill? I cannot find it. It is probably in the original statute but does it include a river bus? To me, that is a bus. One problem that we had in London in the early days was that there was no bus integration between water transport and land transport in the original plans for joint ticketing and so on. In other areas of the country, the River Trent in Nottingham, for example, is very wide, and there are places with seaports and harbours. If we are looking for these kinds of arrangements, it is important that we integrate water transport from the start.

With those reflections, overall I think the Bill will extend choice. Despite my remarks, we have so much in London that is good and which I hope we will see exported. I am delighted that my noble friend has brought the Bill forward and I very much look forward to giving it strong support in your Lordships’ House.

Airport Capacity

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I think I have been clear in saying that it will be by the summer. If the noble Lord is asking me to specify the year, I do mean the summer of 2016.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as leader of a London borough council. Like hundreds of thousands of other Londoners, I welcome this stay of execution on Heathrow, although I see two nooses still hanging in the yard. The Minister referred to air quality and noise. A bigger Heathrow would fail on those. I put to him also the issue of security—it would be foolishness to fly another quarter of a million flights over our capital—and that good old Conservative principle of competition. How on earth can it be in our national interest to load more, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, on to a single monopoly airport owned by foreign interests and hedge funds—our fair-weather friends in China and Qatar? Is not the truth that the Prime Minister took the right decision in 2010 with “no ifs, no buts”? Perhaps we should have got on with building the alternative then, and we should certainly do so now.

Davies Commission Report

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I do agree, and the challenge now is to make decisions that are reflective of what has been a very well-balanced report and are also, as I have said, in the best interests of the country. I assure the noble Lord that the Government will carefully consider the commission’s extensive report without delay. By the autumn, I want to get to a stage where we can set out a position to Parliament on the way we want to take forward this work.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, unlike many noble Lords, I have the honour of being elected. I was elected as leader of a council and represent many of the people who will be most affected by this report, so perhaps I might intervene. As I walked around the streets this morning, I sensed anger, dismay and cynicism, but no surprise. I deprecate my noble friend’s comment that implied that people in west London are nimbys. They already put up with 40% of the noise pollution from airports in Europe and with air quality that breaches European standards. Whatever position we take in this debate, I would be obliged if the people I have the honour to represent were not spoken of in that way.

My erstwhile noble friend mentioned the Prime Minister’s statement,

“no ifs, no buts … no third runway”.

Will he forgive me if I thought I heard an “if” and a “but” in his response? That statement was made by David Cameron at a PM Direct event. It was clear and was heard clearly. Will my noble friend use his influence to make sure that that statement is kept before the Government in all deliberations on this question?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I reassure the noble Lord that, when he gets a chance to read the commission’s report, he will find that it has addressed all the concerns that he has highlighted, and it will be a significant part of the Government’s decision. With regard to the statement made in 2010 by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, the proposal that was in front of him at that time, including some of the concerns that the noble Lord has just highlighted, merited what the Prime Minister said. However, we are quite clear: the commission has now produced its report; it is well balanced and has looked at many factors that the proposition in front of us in 2010 did not consider; and the Government will come back with their view in the autumn.

Child Abuse

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I can take it from the sentiments of the House and from the support that the Home Secretary’s Statement received in this House that if I felt the House needed to be informed I would not hesitate to seek the opportunity to do so.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I speak as leader of a local authority which has premises which have been the continuing subject of police investigations, with which, obviously, the authority is co-operating and has co-operated. I welcome the Statement and agree with many of the things that have been said in this House. Fundamentally, my noble friend has said that the police investigations will not be prejudiced. At one point he said that they were less likely to be prejudiced. Can we be assured that the investigations in train will not lack for resources at any point and will not be suspended and will be pursued relentlessly in every case where they are currently underway? People want to see perpetrators brought to justice.