Highways (Financing) Bill
Order. The right hon. Member knows very well that it is at the Minister’s discretion whether he gives way.
What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Order. The right hon. Member knows very well that it is at the Minister’s discretion whether he gives way.
In December last year, I met one of my constituents, Julian, whose wife has cared for their daughter since birth. Their daughter was born with spina bifida and walked until the age of seven, but has been confined to a wheelchair since then. She was later diagnosed with hydrocephalus, which requires a shunt to drain excess fluid from the brain. Julian’s wife has devoted her life to making sure that their daughter is looked after, putting her needs first and sacrificing the opportunity to build a career and her own pension provision, so she will very much recognise the picture set out by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) in her brilliant opening speech. The caring responsibilities of Julian’s wife have not come to an end because she has reached state pension age, but the financial support available to her has very much changed. Julian put something to me that I thought was worth sharing today. He compared his wife’s situation with an employer paying someone for 35 hours of work a week but expecting them to carry on working, without pay, once they reach retirement age, arguing that that is fine because they are being paid their pension. Now, caring for a family member is not the same as employment, and all sorts of things need to be considered. I appreciate the rules about overlapping benefits and the system not paying both in full for the same period, and I know that the state pension can be topped up by pension credit if it is lower than the carer’s allowance. I am not here to say that the answer is simply to pay both the state pension and carer’s allowance to everybody caring for a loved one, but speaking to Julian left me feeling that we should take a closer look at the circumstances of older carers and whether the support available to them properly reflects the realities of their lives. While preparing for today’s debate I spoke with Carers UK. Its research shows that around one in five carers of state pension age are living in poverty, compared with 13% of non-carers in the same group. It also reports that more than 600,000 older carers provide at least 50 hours of care every week. Those figures stood out as a reminder that caring in older age is a lot more than a few hours here and there; it is an enormous and lifelong commitment. There might be some practical steps worth considering too. Carers UK has highlighted that some carers entitled to pension credit are not receiving it and has called for simpler processes and checks when carers reach state pension age. I am encouraged by the Government’s ambition on social care and by Baroness Casey’s review, as that will help us finally realise a system that better supports people who draw on care, their families and the people who care for them. I hope that the experiences of older, unpaid carers and the particular challenges they face when they reach state pension age are being considered as part of that work. As Julian said to me, “Carers are the nation’s unsung heroes.” Many of us will recognise that sentiment, and I hope we can agree that respecting carers means much more than just acknowledging how much they do. It also means asking ourselves whether the support around them is enough, particularly when the alternative is social care, which costs the state much more. I would be grateful if the Minister could take this issue up and consider if there is scope to review the support available for older carers, whether through simpler access to existing entitlements, a closer look at the additional financial pressures they are facing or further work on how their contribution can be recognised. I am not asking for a simple answer to a very complicated policy question today; I am just asking whether we can keep looking at this matter, listen to people like Julian and his wife, and make sure that carers who continue to give so much as they grow older are not overlooked. The need for care does not stop at retirement age, and the people providing that care should not feel that their contribution has stopped counting either.
When I visited Alpro and Navara Oat Milling over the summer, I heard how rising energy costs are putting pressure on food manufacturers, with knock-on effects for their supply chain and, ultimately, food inflation. Given the importance of these energy-intensive industries to our economy, how is the Department helping British manufacturers remain competitive, attract investment and mitigate rising food production costs?
Avid readers of The Sun may have already seen some of my comments on the situation with SFI. I could ask many questions, but I will limit myself to just one. Many would-be applicants once again experienced technical issues, and those who phoned the Rural Payments Agency reported hours’ long wait times—I hope the Minister’s team are looking into that. The Department has said that there will be a further, very limited window for those who had technical issues, but could the Minister tell the House whether that includes only those who were able to speak to someone and report such issues, or whether it will also include those who, frankly, gave up when they knew that they would have to wait hours to speak to an RPA agent?
Everything my Department does—from industrial strategy, small business support, trade and exports to innovation and science—has the creation of good jobs at the heart of it. In the UK, there are challenges around jobs for young people, no doubt, but youth unemployment has shown to be outperforming that of comparable economies such as France and Italy, and the Government have a further agenda in this area.
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. This subject has come up with me before, both on a constituency basis and as the Secretary of State. There is the potential to look at the regulations in this area. I do not think it is about exploitation; it is about providing reasonable opportunities that young people desire. I promise that I will go away and look at this issue, and write to the hon. Lady with further information.
No one in this Government is complacent about the challenges of youth unemployment, but there has been no spike in the figures since 2024. The rise has been consistent since 2022, in an entirely linear fashion. The hon. Gentleman will know that employers do not pay national insurance for under-21s, or for apprentices under the age of 25—it is important to be clear about how the system works. On the challenges in his constituency, there is a further agenda coming in this area through the Milburn review. It has an exciting set of proposals that I believe employers in the hon. Gentleman’s area will get behind, if we make them a substantial offer.
I commend my hon. Friend for the work she is doing. One of my first jobs as a young person was in Foster Menswear in Sunderland city centre—my performance was mixed, to be honest, but it was an important set of skills to learn. The retail sector is known for the opportunities it provides for young people. My hon. Friend will know that there is already a set of proposals from the Government on not just national insurance, but incentives to take young people into employment if they have been out of work for a period of time, or into apprenticeships if they are in that age cohort. There is more we can do in this area, but there is an offer there and she is doing the right thing by highlighting that to businesses in her constituency.
Obviously, the immediate activity is supporting the affected employees throughout the consultation period. My hon. Friend will know that the use of the powers of Government—the powers of the state —to make sites available quickly for inward investment to the UK has always been a priority of mine. He is right to say that the National Wealth Fund has already made a nominal allocation to Grangemouth. Other programmes in the industrial strategy, such as the strategic sites accelerator, are all about trying to improve the pace at which we can take advantage of the investment opportunities the UK is presented with. I promise him that I will remain in close consultation with him, and of course with the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero.
I notice the hon. Lady did not go first on British Beauty Week to me, but to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that is fair. British Beauty Week is an important moment, not least to celebrate the contribution of the sector and the, I believe, over 5,000 new apprentices starting in the sector in every corner of the UK this year. The hon. Lady in effect asks what the big economic story in the UK is, and I would say that the hope comes from the fact that, despite the challenges that exist in the global economy around the world, the economy under this Government is clearly performing more strongly than it did for 14 years under the Tories. My proof points for that are that wages are rising faster than prices and, crucially, that GDP is rising not just overall, but per head, as opposed to the modest increases under the Conservatives, which were really from population increases and large-scale immigration. An economy performing more strongly is in the interests of every business. On the opportunities for young people, there are the tax and fiscal incentives I have mentioned, with the further agenda coming through the Milburn review.
The Lib Dem spokesperson raises a few issues, but I would say first that doing a job like this, or any job in government, means acknowledging the trade-offs. The simple truth is that the things we will be talking about during this session and that everyone in the House wants to see funded were not funded in the plans that we inherited. Yes, it is always difficult to raise the tax burden on anyone in the UK, but priorities promised to the British people—for this successor Department, the money for the Port Talbot steelworks transformation and the compensation for the post office sub-postmasters—were not funded, so the Chancellor at the time did have to raise or find the money to fulfil the existing pledges that had been made. However, I promise the hon. Member that the aggregate impact or the balance for business—whether it is on employment rights or on taxation—is something this Department always fights very hard for in Government, because we are aware that the only way to fulfil the true ambitions of the British people is with an economy that is performing strongly, employing more people, and giving them hope and opportunity for the future. I do believe that this new Department, with the extra things that have come into it, has a genuinely exciting opportunity to bring a more coherent story to these interventions from Government, and that is the best way to a stronger economy.
I welcome this question from my constituency neighbour, and I am grateful to her for raising it. The Prime Minister and I have been clear that Jodrell Bank has a secure future. Just to be clear with the House about what is happening, the primary radio astronomy project will move from the e-MERLIN radio telescope to the Square Kilometre Array observatory in March 2028. That was a science-based decision, but we are exploring the long-term options for the sustainability of Jodrell Bank.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I recognise the strength of feeling that she talked about in her question. She will know that, on a clear day, you can see Jodrell Bank from Matley Lane in Tameside and it is a wonderful sight. It is important, given that we have a very significant research and development budget in the UK, that scientific decisions are made on the basis of the science, but that still does not mean there is no future for Jodrell Bank as an asset. That is consistent with making sure that we are making science-based decisions on the prioritisation of that funding. I met the University of Manchester just a few days ago on this issue, and the local MPs for the area have been incredibly supportive in finding a solution. I hope to have more to say on that soon.
It is good to see the shadow Minister and I thank him for his question. Let me be clear with the House. If we take the UKRI budget in aggregate for the spending review period, it is nearly £39 billion. If we take the overall R&D budget for the UK in the spending review period, it is £86 billion —record levels of funding making a difference. It is absolutely crucial within that that we make sure the decisions on the prioritisation of funding are science-based. The issue the hon. Gentleman identifies, the tension between research projects and subscription projects and their funding, is one I am familiar with, and he is making a serious point that has to be explored. As for who made the decision, the process runs through, I think, 30 different meetings of the research council. It has a process where submissions are taken from a very wide range of areas. There will always be more people wanting more funding than is available, no matter how big I make the spending pot, but as a House we should be clear that we want these decisions to be made primarily on a scientific basis.
As we have heard, this new Department brings together a range of essential policy areas to back industries, technologies and jobs that will power future growth. For me, sustained economic growth can come only through greater private investment and private capital. The business investment figures for the UK are encouraging, with our industrial strategy using the policy tools at its disposal to attract more than £390 billion of private investment commitments since it came into force.
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s question on reindustrialisation, which is an essential part of the Government’s programme. Backing reindustrialisation does not mean that we do not recognise the tremendous contribution of services, and it is not nostalgia—it is about looking at the brilliant innovation that we have in the UK and seeing it scaled up. Doing so requires policy intervention, and I am extremely pleased that the British industrial competitiveness scheme will shortly come online, bringing down our energy and electricity prices for 10,000 British manufacturers and ending the situation we inherited from the Tories where we had the highest energy prices of any industrialised major nation. We do have to look at targets, and I will look at the one my hon. Friend has proposed, but I also think there are other areas we have to include in that to get the holistic impact that we need.
Everything the hon. Gentleman has said sounds hugely attractive to me. He has clearly already engaged with Government to some degree, but I will follow up on his question and see what we can do to support his local area.
I believe that the figures show a level of resilience in an extraordinarily difficult global climate. In terms of our ambitions, I am pleased that we are turning around the underperformance of the 14 years of Conservative government, but I want more, and I am ambitious and hungry for that. In order to achieve that, the Government have already committed to certain interventions. Going back to my previous point, we inherited the highest industrial electricity prices of any developed nation, but we are bringing those down by a quarter for 10,000 British businesses. I want more progress in that space, and I will be speaking to the Chancellor about further work on that agenda. We are bringing down the costs for business, giving them new markets through the success we have had with our trade deals, and ensuring that the regulatory system supports those objectives. All of that contributes to what I believe is a set of tremendous opportunities for the UK because of the assets that we have. We should be ambitious for the future.
I have just led one of the largest trade missions we have ever sent to India, which is the fastest-growing economy in the G20. I was joined by northern mayors, the Environment Secretary, the Scotland Secretary and a Great North delegation of more than 200 businesses. We announced over £1 billion-worth of new deals, benefiting a host of British firms, including Menzies Aviation, Panakeia and Oxford Nanopore Technologies. Since our trade agreement was signed, £12 billion in new business has been announced, supporting thousands of jobs and driving good growth in every postcode of our country. During the visit, I co-chaired the Joint Economic and Trade Committee with Minister Goyal on tackling any remaining trade barriers. With our northern mayors, we also launched the UK-Maharashtra growth partnership, to foster closer regional ties and drive the creation of high-value jobs in both our countries. This is just the start. Our free trade agreement is forecast to boost bilateral trade by over £25 billion a year. We have opened the door, and businesses are walking through it, with Government backing them every step of the way.
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s championing of science. I revert to the comments I made about the scale of investment this Government are making in science and research and development, and the prioritisation of funding, which comes from a science-based assessment. There is an element of funding for the defence package that we had to find from the former Department for Science, Innovation and Technology budget. I will write to him about any concerns he has, but I reiterate that this is a Government and a country that are committed to science.
I am grateful for that question. I am proud of the trade deals that this Government have done with the rest of the world—we have talked about India, the Gulf, South Korea and Switzerland—and we have retained membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. However, there is uncertainty from action taken on the European side; that is the Prime Minister’s point. The “Made in Europe” agenda is one of great uncertainty for UK businesses. It is primarily about automative and aerospace at this stage, but it runs through some 50 different bits of EU legislation. The Prime Minister is right to have the aspiration for a closer trading relationship with the EU—I support that entirely—that is consistent with our work with the rest of the world. We must get to a point where we remove uncertainty by getting clarity on what this will mean for the long-term future of our relationship with the European Union.
First, we took 200 businesses to India; the mayors took their own delegation. The Manchester City representative came with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, rather than with me. I wish to put that on the record to avoid any lack of clarity. A lot of what the Conservative Government promised on trade but were not able to deliver has been delivered by this Government, and of course I am proud of that. The fact is that the Prime Minister is right to have that aspiration for a closer trading relationship—seven of our top-10 trading partners are other EU member states—and to seek clarity for the future. That is what he is doing, and I support him in that.
I recognise the specific issues in Brighton, and what the closure of R-Bar and Charles Street Tap will mean for Brighton’s LGBTQ+ community. The Government recognise the needs of hospitality. We have talked in this Question Time about lower business rates, and about the doubling of the employment allowance. Of course I want to work with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for raising this issue directly with me. No one ever turns down a visit to Brighton, so we will see if we can get that sorted.
In my first year doing this job, after the election, there was some mixed advice from Liberal Democrats on trade at various times, particularly on our engagement with the US and the EU. I believe that our package of measures that forms the basis of the UK-EU reset is ambitious. As for what the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement would mean for small businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and for us all, it would make a fundamental difference. Of course we are right to recognise that the situation has been very hard for business, and there is more red tape for people exporting to our major export market, but at times I get frustrated when people do not acknowledge that the things that already form part of those negotiations would make a difference to British businesses. We will have more ambitions, and our own views on how things should go, but there is an ambitious package that we should all get behind.
I am more than happy to look into the cases that the right hon. Gentleman raises, and we will be in touch with him about them.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the licensing of North sea oilfields is a matter for the Energy Secretary. In relation to his point about our announcement on sanctions for illegal Israeli settlements, we have made a clear and consistent stand. We have talked about how the legal regime for that will be the SAMLA—Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—regime. That will provide more certainty and it will have real consequences—it is not just a symbolic gesture. I will not comment on any individual company, but if the hon. Gentleman’s intentions and aspirations are for strong action in this area, this Government are providing it.
Those are obviously dramatic figures —I assume that they have happened through revaluation. I will endeavour to get the hon. Lady in contact perhaps with the Treasury, rather than this Department, to support her constituency.
I was very much hoping for a space question, so I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. Space technology is one of the most exciting and fundamental horizontal technologies for our economy; I recently attended the International Space Summit in Paris to hear about that. We have launched our space strategy, and Scotland is key to that. She will know about the SaxaVord launch capacity investment. I assure her that we will keep her involved in the progress of this successful strategy.
It is always a pleasure to visit McLaren, and I was delighted that it was part of an investment in the automotive sector in this month alone of £850 million. Those incredibly strong and supportive investments reflect the incentives we have put in place in the industrial strategy. I know that there is a specific issue locally with ensuring that that investment happens, and we will talk to the company about that. Our trade, innovation and wider business agenda is all about supporting successful businesses.
I thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend has said—I believe that he and I once campaigned quite close to where that business is based. It is brilliant news, and reflects the tremendous industrial heritage of Cumbria.
We can all go for breakfast soon. Of course, I understand the hon. Lady’s point, particularly on food and agriculture—addressing that is part of the EU-UK reset. I would also point her to, for instance, the tremendous opportunities we have created, such as reducing the tariff on Scottish whisky in India from 150% to 75% and then 40% in time. Scottish salmon is also part of that, so I promise the hon. Lady that we are always championing the interests of her constituents in every market.
We have this debate on a regular basis; on average we come back to it every six months. We have had a breakthrough with the action plan—I welcome that. For the first time we have a number of Departments working together coherently, and I think it will improve lives overall. There is a sense of urgency now. I have chaired an unpaid carers group for about three years—I am losing track of time. They are a representative group of young and old. They are mainly parents looking after their children, but some are siblings looking after one another and some of them are young as well. Exactly as the survey said, every one of them reflects the condition they are living in; it is poverty and hardship, sometimes in the extreme. Most of them find it difficult to work. They want to work; often they have given up their jobs as a result of their caring responsibilities and some of them have given up professional careers. Those carers also lack respite, and the common theme that comes through is the lack of a break. Another issue is that, where respite is offered, there are not the staff with the skills to cope with the individual they are caring for. Non-verbal individuals are very difficult to care for and staff need specialist training, but that is almost non-existent in many areas. I point to the report produced for the House by Siobhan O’Dwyer from the University of Birmingham, which we used in the debate about a year ago. That shocking survey—I do not like to raise this, but I have to—found that 40% of carers had thought about suicide as a result of the stress they are under. I welcome the action plan, but there is a sense of urgency. We cannot get away from the fact that the carer’s allowance is so low. Many of the carers I work with say, “We want a wage. We’re doing a job.” No one is doing 35 hours; they are all doing 40 or 50 hours, if not longer in some instances. They want a wage to lift them out of poverty, but also to reflect our respect for the work that they are undertaking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said, we do not expect miracles overnight, but we want to see some progression to a form of living wage for carers. We also need a system through which the issue can be properly evaluated over a longer period. I am really pleased by the Prime Minister’s commitment to social care. We have known about it for over a decade, from when he was in Parliament previously. It is a pity that there was not cross-party support to implement it at that time. I am also involved in a campaign in honour of one of our colleagues, Iain Coleman, who was the Member of Parliament for Hammersmith and Fulham. When he was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, he introduced free personal care—free home care—at the local level, and it has proved incredibly successful. Some councils have tried to emulate it, but with the cuts to local government over the past 14 years, it has proved very difficult. The first step towards a national care service could be the introduction of personal care. We should not wait until after the next general election in 2029; we should work towards it over the next year. Local authorities can undertake that work; it just needs to be resourced. I hope the social care action plan group brings forward a proposal that takes into account what Casey says next year—I am glad that has been brought forward—and sets out a step-by-step approach to introducing home care. When my group met last week, most of the people on it had not heard of the care plan. They have now, and we are going to take people through it. What came back from them was very practical. The objectives of the care plan were set out clearly in July; we now want to see steps towards implementing the objectives, which must be costed and timetabled. Within that, we want a debate about carer’s allowance and home care.
Last month I visited Save Ukraine’s hope and healing centre in Irpin to see the incredible work it is doing to rehabilitate children who have been rescued following abduction by Russia. During my visit, I had the honour of delivering beautiful tartan scarves and toys to the children, which had been generously donated by Ewan MacDonald of Houston Kiltmakers, based in my constituency. The children were thrilled with their gifts and intrigued to learn about the history of tartan and Paisley’s textile heritage. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Ewan MacDonald and his whole team for their generous support for the Ukrainian people, and for continuing the proud tradition of Paisley’s textile industry?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said, upland farms by their very nature have to be larger. I met upland farmers in Northumberland recently and I heard their frustration that window 1 of the SFI excluded them simply because their farms were too big geographically to be included in it. Will the Minister commit to work with me, other Northumberland MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and the NFU uplands group to ensure that a redesigned scheme properly supports upland farms?
I really welcome this statement, especially the recognition of the trauma caused to families when services fail. That is why it is so important to preserve strong local services like Mary Ann Evans hospice in Nuneaton, which provides dignity in death to thousands of families at home but is currently on the breadline and in insolvency talks, with last-minute legacy donations extending the deadline from the end of this month to the end of the year. I am in talks with the integrated care board, and we are doing everything we can, but there is a fundamental problem with the funding level. What can we do to protect these fragile services now, so that we can build on them in the future?
Dartford grammar school for boys, known locally as an academic powerhouse and centre for learning excellence, sits at the heart of our community in Dartford. This year, it has turned 450 years old. Among the many notable alumni are Sir Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones, war poet Sidney Keyes, computer scientist John Rushby and sprinter Adam Gemili. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Dartford grammar school—including headteacher Julian Metcalf, chair of governors Robert Tibbolt, and all the trustees, staff, parents and students—a very happy birthday?
The shadow Secretary of State keeps mentioning the fact that the Secretary of State is not here. Is he aware that one of the first things she did on assuming her role was to agree the development consent order for the lower Thames crossing? The last Government failed to do that over 14 years, because they were not prepared to stand up to the environmental groups who slowed the thing down and allowed dither and delay.
My constituents will be delighted to see this piece of legislation before the House. It is, as others have said, key to unlocking new infrastructure and finally ending the traffic chaos that plagues my Dartford constituency daily. The new lower Thames crossing is planned to be the first new road project funded in this way. The Dartford crossing and the M25 motorway, which along with the A282 provides access to the crossing, cut across the heart of my constituency, providing, as has been said by others, the one crossing over the Thames east of London. This represents a single point of failure, and fail it often does. The Dartford crossing was designed for 135,000 vehicles a day, but as the Minister has said, the crossing now averages 150,000 vehicles a day and needs to be carefully managed around the clock. When failure happens, it is the residents of Dartford who pay the highest price. When the crossing has to close, which happens regularly, it leaves the town at a complete standstill. Journeys that should take 10 minutes can take four to five hours. Children cannot get home from school, tradespeople cannot get to jobs, and medical appointments are missed. Dartford residents have been waiting for years for this to be addressed. Earlier this year, on 23 January, an over-height lorry somehow evaded the sensors designed to detect and halt such vehicles and caused significant damage to the roof of one of the tunnels, leading to a closure of more than 30 hours and absolute chaos for residents on both sides of the crossing, as traffic backed up for miles around. Even when there is not a major issue such as a tunnel closure, most days see heavy traffic. For those heading northbound in the evening, 95% of journeys feature delays, with two thirds taking twice as long as they should. The high amount of slow-moving traffic also has health impacts on Dartford residents, with air quality far below what we should expect. For our country more widely, delays at the crossing affect goods coming to and from ports in the south-east, and the delays are estimated to cost the UK more than £200 million every year in time lost sitting in traffic. It is therefore incredibly welcome that the building of the lower Thames crossing is now proceeding rapidly forward after moving slower than traffic over the Dartford crossing on a bad day under the last Government. We now see a reasoned amendment to the Bill, which would decline to give it a Second Reading, because the Conservatives do not believe the Government can deliver it on time. That is quite some accusation given their record of—how can I put this kindly—glacial progress on the project. Their 14 years of dither and delay are followed by an active attempt to block progress today. That will go down really well in Dartford, and I have no doubt that Dartford Conservatives will be ecstatic at the antics of their colleagues in the House today. The new crossing, when finished, will take away more than 10 million vehicles from Dartford, freeing up almost a full lane of traffic. It will be hugely beneficial for the local economy. Thousands of jobs will be created during construction, with half the workforce recruited locally. I hope that that will kick-start a whole generation of new careers in construction for young people across north Kent and Essex. Once built, the new road will increase access to jobs for those living on both sides of the Thames, providing crucial employment opportunities for my constituents and others living nearby. The campaign to get this piece of infrastructure up and running has been the single biggest priority in my time as Dartford’s MP. I welcome the Bill as a crucial step forward in getting the crossing built and open. I send my thanks to residents, businesses large and small, organisations across Dartford and north Kent, national trade bodies including Logistics UK, local government representatives and colleagues across this House and in the other place for their support with the campaign. I also thank the Secretary of State for Transport and Treasury Ministers, including the previous and present Chancellors, for the planning and funding decisions that they have made. I appreciate the time the Roads Minister took to discuss the project in the summer and hope that he will indulge me by answering just a few outstanding queries that I have about the operation of the Bill and its impact on the new crossing. Most importantly, on tolls, local residents in Dartford and Thurrock are entitled to discounted use of the Dartford crossing. Will the Minister clarify whether the Bill has any impact on the operation of a future residents’ discount scheme for both the Dartford crossing and the new crossing? It is crucial for my residents that the tolls across the two crossings are set at an equal value and remain affordable via the discount scheme. I would be grateful for any assurance that the Minister can provide on that issue. The arrangement clearly will not work if there is a financial incentive for goods vehicles to use one crossing rather than the other. It is important to recognise that, at its core, the Bill allows private companies that are licensed by the Government to charge tolls on newly built roads—the mechanism by which we unlock capital to build much-needed new infrastructure. British motorists already pay substantial revenue to the Government through fuel and vehicle excise duties, so does the Minister agree that although it is right to use tolls on new infrastructure in certain circumstances such as this, we do not want to see new toll roads created on currently untolled highways? I am sure that the Minister will give us reassurance on that. I have some concerns about the vulnerabilities highlighted by the Government’s final stage impact assessment with the Office of Rail and Road, which has been appointed as the independent regulator. How will Ministers address the concerns that have been raised about information asymmetry, such as the concern that in some cases, private firms bidding for and then building and operating the development may possess more detailed information about actual project delivery and operational costs than the ORR, which might allow them to inflate costs, with knock-on inflation in the charges that users will eventually pay? Some reassurance on that would be useful. Notwithstanding those queries, which I am sure the Minister will answer, I am happy to support this very welcome Bill. I know that it is widely welcomed as the key to unlocking the critical funding needed to build such a vital piece of new infrastructure.
I welcome the statement, and I hope that the national care service affords an opportunity to develop a sufficient road map to community support for the more than 3,000 people with a learning disability and autism who are currently locked away in secure mental health units that are inappropriate and, in some cases, actively harmful. That commitment was given to me at the Dispatch Box nearly a year ago by the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock). I would be grateful if the Minister could meet with me, Mencap and those campaigning to bring these people home from hospital.
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify where the Conservative Government were over the past 14 years when it came to building this project? People in my constituency have been on tenterhooks for years and have suffered the uncertainty of being told that it will happen, and then that it will not.