MP slams local bus services as 'unreliable'
A Labour MP has slammed bus services in her constituency as "unreliable" and "inaccessible".
Cramlington and Killingworth's Emma Foody surveyed hundreds of constituents which found broad dissatisfaction with services in the area.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Foody said the government's upcoming Bus Services Bill needed to put passengers "back in the driving seat".
Leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell, said the bill would devolve more powers locally to improve transport options.
"The villages and towns across my Cramlington and Killingworth constituency rely heavily on our bus services," Foody said.
"Despite this, my Big Bus Survey that I've been running recently shows that local people too often have found buses to be unreliable, inaccessible and they don't take them to the places they need to go."
Powell replied the Bus Service Bill will give local areas the power to have "affordable and reliable bus services".
The bill will give local authorities control over routes, timetables, connections and fares, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
It will also lift the ban on councils establishing their own bus companies and ensure that lifeline bus services cannot be removed or changed without councils reviewing their ability to serve communities.
"I have seen what happens with local areas like mine in Manchester having those powers," Powell said.
"It has massively increased the number of people using bus services and has brought in extra funding from doing so."
The Conservative Party has previously called on the government to explain how local authorities would fund the proposals.
Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Bus cuts will leave nurses stranded, union says
Mayor 'pressing ahead' on public control of buses
Department for Transport
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trade bill could trigger 'race to the bottom' in health standards, health groups warn
OTTAWA — Anti-smoking groups are warning the Carney government that its legislation to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers could undermine health standards unless it's amended to add new safeguards. The legislation, which the governing Liberals intend to push quickly through the House of Commons next week, looks to do two things — break down interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility and speed up approvals for major industrial projects, such as mines, ports and pipelines. The bill would allow provincial standards to displace federal ones to make it easier to sell Canadian-made goods within the country. But Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society, said the current wording could lead to unintended consequences since provincial rules are sometimes weaker. He warns that, for example, it could prompt the return of products banned by federal regulation, such as those containing asbestos. "There's a federal measure banning asbestos in products, but provinces allow up to a certain per cent of asbestos in products," he said. "So that would mean that despite asbestos being banned in products for some years now, you could have asbestos return to products. That's not good." He also suggested the legislation could give tobacco companies space to bring back menthol or flavoured cigarettes, something that "shouldn't be happening." Cunningham said the bill should be changed to exempt federal health and environment standards and noted multilateral trade agreements typically contain such clauses. 'We are worried the tobacco (and) vape industry could take advantage of a less strict provincial standard to erode a stronger federal regulation that is protecting the health of Canadians across the country,' said Manuel Arango, vice-president of policy and advocacy at the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Ottawa could still create an exception for health through regulations after the bill is passed. It has not yet indicated it will do so. Cynthia Callard, head of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, said she worries about the bill being rushed through Parliament since the devil "will likely be in the details in the regulations." "If these are not well constructed, there is a decided risk of health protection becoming collateral damage of a push for greater economic activity," she said. "Provincial and federal governments share jurisdiction for (health and environmental) issues, which is why it is important that there is a legal shield against a race to the bottom when it comes to protective regulations. I do not see this in the bill." The Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party are accusing Prime Minister Mark Carney's government of trying to ram the bill through Parliament too quickly without sufficient study. Carney promised to eliminate federal policies that act as a barrier to interprovincial trade by Canada Day. The Liberal government has not yet responded to requests for comment. On Friday, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc laid out the economic case for the trade aspects of the bill during debate in the House of Commons. He said the bill will remove "useless costs" and "regulatory confusion" that "hobble Canadians' ability to trade, connect and work wherever opportunity calls across our country." 'If a good is produced in compliance with provincial standards, it can move throughout the entire country without again having to go up against federal standards,' he said. He pointed to various levels of energy efficiency requirements that can stop products from being sold across provincial lines. He said an Ontario-made product that meets the province's "stringent energy efficiency requirements" could still be blocked from being sold in Quebec or Manitoba if it also does not meet federal standards. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 13, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Corbyn and McDonnell to face no action after rally
MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell will face no further action after being interviewed by police following a pro-Palestinian rally. McDonnell said the pair had been questioned by officers after taking part in the demonstration in central London in January. He told MPs: "It was alleged that we failed to follow police restrictions on the protest. This is untrue, and at all times we followed police instructions". Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused the Metropolitan Police of "picking on us two as members of Parliament". A rally involving several thousand people took place in Whitehall in January after police blocked plans to hold a march from Portland Place, near the headquarters of the BBC. Police had imposed a condition on the organisers of the rally under the Public Order Act that prevented them gathering outside the corporation's headquarters because of its close proximity to a synagogue and a risk there could be "serious disruption" as congregants attended services. A further condition required the rally to be confined to Whitehall. Speaking in the Commons on Friday, McDonnell said: "We can now report that the police have dropped the case against us, and there will be no charges". He added that in correspondence with their solicitor, the Met had "informed us that our case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service because as MPs we were to be held to have, and I quote, a 'greater culpability'". "This is an unacceptable practice that flies in the face of the principle that we are all equal before the law," he added. "I wish to place on record my concern about this behaviour by the Metropolitan Police". Speaking after him, Corbyn said: "I saw this whole effort as being a means to try and silence the democratic rights of everyone in our society by picking on us two as members of Parliament". Former Labour leader Corbyn was re-elected as an independent MP for Islington North after losing the Labour whip in 2020. Hayes and Harlington MP McDonnell currently sits as an independent, after Labour suspended the whip from him for in July 2024 for voting against the government over child benefit rules. In a statement on social media, the pair also called for charges to be dropped against Christopher Nineham, 63, of Tower Hamlets, and Benjamin Jamal, 61, who are facing trial next month on public order charges following the protest. A Met spokesperson said: "No further action will be taken against nine people who were interviewed as part of an investigation into alleged breaches of Public Order Act conditions during a protest on Saturday 18 January. "The decision in two cases was taken following a review of the evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service, while the remaining seven cases were decided on by police officers. "Two men have been charged with breaching the same conditions as well as inciting others to do so. They will stand trial next month. A further two individuals remain under investigation." A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said: "Following a thorough review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have decided not to bring criminal charges against two men, aged 76 and 73. "We have concluded that the case did not meet the evidential test to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against the two men."
