partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

   It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Mr Twigg. I take completely the opposite position from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire in almost every respect. I am going to speak against clause 18 and its inclusion in the Bill, and I am going to oppose the Government amendments that would put further tests on parent-child relationships and parental involvement for refugees. I will also be opposing the Conservative amendments, which would put even tighter constraints on family life. I am here to defend our article 8 protections—I say “our”, because I believe it is really important that we set laws for refugees and asylum seekers that we would happily be subject to ourselves. That is absolutely at the core of the universal nature of human rights and the international agreements we have made to respect human rights around the world in the way that we would want them to be respected should we be in the horrible position of needing to claim asylum. Article 8 protects the right to family life specifically for us under the European convention on human rights. Although it is not absolute, it requires any state interference in these rights to be lawful, necessary and proportionate. I do not agree with the Government when they say in their human rights memorandum that they are taking “proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims.” To me, paragraph 26 in the memorandum clearly admits that there is interference in our rights with this legislation. The Government are using the argument that they are taking “proportionate means” of “achieving the legitimate aims”, but the legitimate aims they lay out are: “maintaining effective immigration control, economic wellbeing and the prevention of disorder or crime.” I honestly do not see how clause 18, on family life and people making claims for reuniting their families and maintaining this essential human right protected under article 8, comes into those “proportionate means”. It is about reducing the ability of families to reunite. The impact assessment clearly says that many thousands of people who would be able to come here under current laws will be denied their claims. This is a reduction in human rights and it seriously needs looking at. I am neither equipped nor planning to add further arguments relating to Northern Ireland and the Windsor framework, but further conversations are needed about what is currently in the Bill, never mind what would happen if we withdrew from the ECHR. Everybody on the Committee wants a fair, robust and effective immigration system—one that works and upholds the rule of law and on in which people have confidence. Article 8 is not an abstract concept within all this; it is the law that decides whether a parent can stay in the country where their children live or whether a British child grows up with both parents. We do not want to see families separated or children separated from the parents who care for them, yet that is precisely the risk posed by clause 18, according to the Government’s own impact assessment.

   Hansard source
2. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

   I thank the hon. Member for his perspective. He must appreciate through his constituency casework, as I do, the general principle that article 8 claims need to be assessed on an individual basis. The Bill tries to codify and generalise things in ways that reduce the ability for anyone making decisions to look at the genuine family lives of those making the claims. Bad decisions can result from people misunderstanding different cultures, from unconscious biases and from all kinds of things like that. It is really important that we do not try to prescribe family life under state definitions. I will come on to talk more about that and about the toxic rhetoric and the awful anecdotes, such as the examples we have heard from Ministers, which increase the toxicity of the debate. We can do much better than this Bill to reduce that. Clause 18 would replace the reality of family relationships with statutory presumptions. Families today come in many forms. We have single-parent households, blended families, grandparents raising children, and parents who do not live under the same roof through circumstance rather than choice. A family does not stop being a family because it fails a cohabitation test. I will always stand up against people trying to define what a normal family is. The Government’s stated objective is to confine family life “normally” to the core cohabiting family unit. A parent who does not live with their child must prove that the relationship is genuine and be judged on how often and how recently they have had contact, even where work, shared care or the immigration system itself has kept them apart.

   Hansard source
3. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

   I thank the hon. Member for making those points, but as we spoke about on Second Reading and in earlier debates on this topic, the muddle lies in the bad initial decision making in the Home Office. If it is not clear what kind of evidence people need to establish family life, it should be dealt with through better processes, better information and more support for legal representation. Codifying it, as is done in the Bill, is not the right way to deal with that.

   Hansard source
4. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

   I disagree wholly with that. During the speeches made by Opposition Members earlier in the debate, I kept thinking about the people who, due to natural disasters or wars, are left without core family, and have to find another family member who will take them in and take that place. There is an inherent danger in putting in place these limits, and in the amendments tabled by Conservative Members that would add rigid definitions. Given the stories about the different ways in which people have experienced refugee status over the years, which all hon. Members will have heard about in casework and read about in memoirs and novels, the need for this change does not ring true. We should keep the system as it is now, where the reality of every single case needs to be looked at.

   Hansard source
5. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

   I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member. We need to look at individual cases individually, as no two families are the same. We could imagine many circumstances for which we would want exceptions to this rule. The Government have rightly left caveats in the Bill, but the Opposition are arguing against them. Putting in rigid criteria on top of what is already in the Bill is absolutely the wrong way to go about addressing the issue. The best way to deal with any problems we might see is to do so in the initial decision making. Clause 18 says that financial or emotional dependence, illness, or living in a conflict zone alone is not enough to establish family life, yet families routinely support each other financially, emotionally and practically. Ministers say that those factors can still be weighed at the public interest stage, but once family life is ruled out, that stage is never reached. What will that mean in practice? As I have hinted at, the Government’s impact assessment says that their article 8 reforms will mean 14,000 more refusals every year. Even after appeals, around 11,700 people more will be refused each year. Under the law as it stands, those people would succeed. That shows that clause 18 does not simply clarify existing principles, but is intended to change outcomes at a substantial scale. The clause does diminish human rights for refugees in this country, as is admitted in the Government’s human rights memorandum. The way the clause is doing that is very troubling for two main reasons. First, it suggests that family relationships deserve protection only when they fit a model chosen by the state, but article 8 has never worked that way. The European Court has always looked at the substance of an individual relationship, not its form. Indeed, the very cases the Government cite require an individualised assessment of all the circumstances. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said, we have been here before. The examples we are hearing from the Home Secretary and the Minister come as part of what is now a mini-tradition of Home Secretaries using exaggerated anecdotes to add to toxic rhetoric about migrants.

   Hansard source
6. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

   I thank the hon. Member for trying, but he is talking to a person who cannot read the universal declaration of human rights without welling up, and I will never give up making arguments of this sort. Previous legislation on these matters, to which the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred, followed on directly from the infamous 2011 party conference speech of the then Home Secretary—now Baroness May of Maidenhead. She repeated false claims from newspapers that judges had permitted a man to escape deportation because he had a pet cat—something she says she did not make up. In reality, neither of the judges’ decisions in the case was based on the man having a pet, and the second and final decision was not based on any human rights consideration at all. It was straightforwardly based on a failure by the Home Office to apply its own policy. Amnesty International gave us more information in its written evidence: “This—together with the readiness of many political commentators to cherry pick often minor or irrelevant facts that are mentioned in tribunal or court judgments and present these as if the main or sole reason for a decision that may have little or nothing to do with them—continues to underpin criticism of Article 8 in immigration-related decision-making. That criticism is plainly misinformed, often careless and, in some cases, on its face, clearly ill-intended—including out of dogmatic hostility to the ECHR and other political motivations.” On Second Reading of the Bill, the current Home Secretary summarised an unnamed case. She said: “In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner—instead, this relationship began only after a deportation order had been served. Why was the deportation deemed to be unduly harsh? The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 675.]

   Hansard source
7. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

   Yes, I will respond to that shortly with some data. To return to the anecdote from the current Home Secretary, Amnesty again corrects the record: “A key error in this summary is the statement that the relevant relationship had only begun after a deportation order had been served. That is not correct. The judge’s decision makes clear that it began significantly before the order. Of especial relevance was that the notice that such an order might be made was served in December 2019, but no order was then made for more than four years. By the time it was made in January 2024, the relationship had developed over a relatively lengthy period.” The Home Secretary mentioned the criminal conviction. Amnesty also corrects that information. It says that he was jailed for four months for a relatively minor offence, and was now “working lawfully and supporting himself.” It also says: “There was no suggestion of any risk of reoffending. His partner, who had no connection and had never been to Albania, was working and providing daily support to her sister and mother. Whatever may have been the position in 2019 was clearly not the position in 2024; and the relevant facts were clearly not adequately presented in what had been reported or at Second Reading.”

   Hansard source
8. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

   I have said that, based on my own casework, my experience of the Home Office’s errors, and the cases that I have seen, I would like to see investment in Home Office decision making to make it better in the first place. That would be the best way to deal with this issue, particularly when more than half of appeals are being approved.

   Hansard source
9. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

   It is pretty clear that I think the Bill is a result of the Government responding to toxic rhetoric coming from other parties, and that it is an attempt to be seen to be doing something.

   Hansard source
10. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I will finish my point. In an evidence session, we challenged the National Crime Agency on the roots of the organised crime that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes mentions, which is doing huge harm. I will not argue that the small boats system is the best way to bring people to this country. Small boat numbers started to grow the moment safe routes were closed. We need safe routes, and that is the approach the Government could take to reduce small boat crossings. The law that protects our rights does not need to be undermined. I would absolutely argue that.

    Hansard source
11. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I am happy to clarify that I am talking primarily about Reform UK. That party is not represented on this Committee and can answer for itself in other ways, but it has, until recently, been taking votes from the Government on the right. I am happy to come back in future sittings with further examples of anecdotes being used instead of evidence. I chose to highlight two examples of Home Secretaries doing that, because the Minister is here to represent a Home Secretary.

    Hansard source
12. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    This is turning into a very broad debate, but I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West.

    Hansard source
13. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Much appreciated, Mr Twigg. I would say that the best way to stand up to toxic rhetoric is to stand up to it. We are familiar with the concept of the Overton window, and I am distressed that a Labour Government have been moving in this direction through their immigration policies. As I said at the beginning of my speech in the previous debate, the Government ought not to bring forward this Bill or row back on other civil liberties and human rights legislation—that would be the right thing to do. I am a lone voice on this Committee, but that cannot be right when we know that people around the country want migrants to be welcomed and want to see more unity, inclusion and social cohesion. The way to build that is not to hear the argument about how article 8 and the ECHR need to go and then do a little bit of that. The answer is to stand up to the rhetoric and build a better country.

    Hansard source
14. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    One more time, then I will press on to the end of my speech.

    Hansard source
15. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    I do not concede that we are taking in too many refugees. As I said at the beginning, we have an international obligation to take our fair share of people seeking asylum, because of all the causes around the world that the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier—he left out climate change, but I will forgive him that. There are many, many reasons why we ought to take a humane approach to asylum. Some Government Back Benchers talked earlier about safe routes. There have been good schemes, aimed at particular conflicts in particular countries, and I hope the Government will continue to bring in more such schemes, but it is not good enough to cherry-pick particular conflicts or the kinds of refugees that we find acceptable. The volume of Ukrainian refugees has been absolutely huge, and has not caused social cohesion problems. We can make that work for many other countries as well, but the volumes in other schemes have always been too low. We need a universal framework of law that will work for all kinds of refugees.

    Hansard source
16. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Siân Berry

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

    Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any. I really think that the current law needs to be administered better, and that we need better decision making, more humanity in all of this, and more support for people to get good decisions made the first time. I would be very happy to receive from the Government any clear evidence of abusive claims under the current law that does not rely on anecdote, but I am absolutely sure that, in clause 18, the Government are seeking to prevent people who would currently succeed from achieving asylum in this country and from being reunited with their families. Let me move on to more things that the Government have said. The Government tell us that clause 18 is consistent with Strasbourg case law, and they even cite the cases, but, as other hon. Members have mentioned, they cannot have it both ways. If the clause simply restates the law, it is unnecessary. The Government’s impact assessment says that they expect grants to be cut by a third by those reforms. If the clause goes further, it risks putting the country in breach of the convention and inviting years of litigation. Either way, the clause does not deliver the clarity that Ministers promise, and I think that Opposition Members are united on that today. I believe that a fair immigration system should tackle abuse while protecting genuine family life, and that it should put the best interests of children first and reflect the reality of modern families. Clause 18 does neither. It risks real hardship for genuine families, with little evidence that it will achieve anything else. I urge the Government to think again. We can maintain effective immigration control without using this clause to break up thousands of families. We can protect our borders without sacrificing the fundamental British values of compassion and fairness. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to agree that clause 18 should not stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
17. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Hannah Spencer

    Jodrell Bank Observatory

    2. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the withdrawal of UK Research and Innovation funding for Jodrell Bank observatory from 2028.

    Hansard source
18. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Hannah Spencer

    Jodrell Bank Observatory

    Funding for the e-MERLIN radio telescope network is due to end in 2028, putting Jodrell Bank’s future at risk. People across Gorton and Denton have made clear to me the vital role the observatory plays in opening science up to people of all ages. Many of us went there on school trips as kids. The Prime Minister assured us that his Government will find a funding solution, so will the Secretary of State explain how the Government intend to honour that heartfelt commitment and secure Jodrell Bank’s long-term future as an active sovereign scientific facility?

    Hansard source
19. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    The Minister knows, because I wrote to him the day after this latest SFI shambles, that farmers in North Herefordshire are livid about the problem. Farmers in Ocle Pychard, Pudleston, Linley Green, Kimbolton, Dilwyn and more have all written to tell me that they are not only hopping mad; they are distressed and depressed at the devastating impact that this situation is having on their livelihoods and the prospect of them continuing to run their farms. Will the Minister recognise that farmers need to hear “sorry”? They need support, sustainability and certainty, not a lottery of fingers on buzzers. Fundamentally, they need direct answers to the following questions. Why is there less money available under the scheme than there was previously? Why did the Government not learn the lessons from the failure last year? And what are they going to do to genuinely own the problem?

    Hansard source
20. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    Business of the House

    Last week I was contacted by a constituent who faces a £300 a month shortfall between her rent and her local housing allowance. She is deeply concerned about the rent arrears and the risk of her and her family being forced into homelessness. That situation is affecting people across the country. On the very same day, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report showing how rent controls could reduce the cost to the Exchequer of the unfreezing of local housing allowance by more than a billion pounds by 2030-31. Can we have a debate in Government time about the urgent need to unfreeze local housing allowance and to institute rent controls so that we can avoid the risk of homelessness and the devastating impact, worry and distress that it is causing to so many of our constituents?

    Hansard source
21. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Green·Dr Ellie Chowns

    National Care Service

    I welcome the statement from the Minister, as I am sure will many people in North Herefordshire—people who draw on care and people who provide care, both paid and unpaid. Does the Minister agree that we need to end the lottery of care—the postcode lottery of care being provided in different ways in different places, the life lottery of people’s access to care being partly determined by their circumstances, and the lottery of whether someone ends up having catastrophic care costs at the end of their life and potentially losing their life savings? Can we agree that we need to ensure that care is locally provided but nationally funded, and will she lobby her colleague the Chancellor to include fair taxation of wealth in the mechanisms considered to fund that?

    Hansard source
22. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    At a time when the Government really should be supporting the producers of our food and the guardians of our countryside, they saw fit to open the new SFI scheme offer and then close it down after just six hours. Will the Minister acknowledge that his Government got this wrong, provide a road map—a forward look for the farmers—detailing what the next scheme will be, give them more notice and assure both farmers and this House that they will have more time next time round?

    Hansard source
23. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Wendy Morton

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the democratic deficit created by the new scheme of delegation in planning? By restricting councillors’ ability to call in applications, these changes will deny communities a meaningful voice in planning decisions. We urgently need more clarity and to understand how the Government reconcile that with their commitment to devolve power. Will they reconsider these changes to protect local democratic accountability?

    Hansard source
24. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Roger Gale

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    Kent was once rightly regarded as the garden of England, but faced with intolerable pressures on their finances, many of the small farmers in Kent—having looked to the sustainability scheme for help and having been denied it—are now having to sell their land for housing and other development, further denying us national sustainability in food. Can the Minister tell the House how many farmers in Kent are benefiting from the scheme?

    Hansard source
25. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Roger Gale

    Business of the House

    I associate myself with the remarks that have already been made about the murder of Sir David Amess five years ago to the day. David was a dear personal friend. He came into the House on the same day as myself and the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), in 1983. I think I am right in saying that had David lived, as he should have done, it would have been he who was Father of the House today. David was a passionate supporter of animal welfare. Earlier this week, my friend the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to create a close season for the killing of hares. I lent my name to that Bill, and I know David would have done so had he been here. That Bill is due to have its Second Reading on 19 March 2027. As a ten-minute rule Bill, ordinarily it would not go very far, but will the Leader of the House see whether he can find his way to ensuring that it has Government support?

    Hansard source
26. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Smith

    Hospitality Sector Support

    15. What steps he is taking to support businesses in the hospitality sector.

    Hansard source
27. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Smith

    Hospitality Sector Support

    As the Minister knows, in areas like mine, the hospitality sector provides the bulk of employment for young people. Can I urge her to look at the Opposition Front Benchers’ proposals, and proposals from UKHospitality, for a lower NICs rate to be provided at the upcoming Budget, to allow those businesses to employ more young people?

    Hansard source
28. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Julian Lewis

    Business of the House

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I invite the Leader of the House and other colleagues to do their best to watch the 15-minute video on the Maze YouTube channel entitled “The Medical Mesh Scandal Ruining Women’s Lives”, which was screened last night at a meeting chaired excellently by the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)? That video deals, of course, with the scandal of pelvic mesh. It is rather disconcerting that two and a half years after the publication of the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner, Professor Henrietta Hughes, the Government have not yet responded to her proposals, even on interim redress. Will the Leader of the House take up this cause, which is supported by people across all parts of the House?

    Hansard source
29. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Edward Leigh

    Business of the House

    On the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill, I am not sure that many of us Jews and Catholics have really felt discriminated against since 1829 by the provisions that are being repealed, and we think that there may be more important things for the Government to do. I am not sure that many of us actually want to be involved in appointing Anglican bishops, although we might improve the number of bishops who talk about God, rather than social issues. Turning to the much more immediate and important issue of the restoration and renewal of Parliament, the Leader of the House knows that I have been involved in this subject for many years, and am constantly urging action. We really need to get on with it. We need to repeal the legislation that stops work carrying on around us. There is a horrible rumour that we are going back to delaying the whole thing until 2032, and there is talk about a full decant. Will he give us a report on how we will get on with repairing this building?

    Hansard source
30. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Edward Leigh

    National Care Service

    The average cost of a home in the Gainsborough constituency is just £204,000. Typically, someone spends three years in a care home in their lifetime, which will cost them £150,000. Everything over £23,000—the upper capital limit—is taken. All over the country that really upsets people who have contributed for a lifetime, and it is a real issue outside London and the south-east, which have much higher house prices. If the Minister is to abolish the triple lock and change it to a double lock, which most commentators think is now inevitable, will she look at this issue and either raise the upper capital limit so people keep more of their money or have a cap on lifetime contributions, which was the policy of the last Government?

    Hansard source
31. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Rogue Traders

    Rogue traders operate with impunity in the park homes sector, yet the Government have refused to supply sufficient money to National Trading Standards to enable it to carry out a national investigation and bring those rogues to book. What is the Minister going to do about it?

    Hansard source
32. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible for the three London bridges that are in disrepair to be designated as trunk roads, so that they could be repaired under the provisions of this legislation?

    Hansard source
33. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). The different varieties of charges and how they are enforced is a problem not just for people with disabilities, but for general motorists. As I understand it, almost half of the income from the current Dart charge is from penalties. That income is almost as great as the income from the charge itself. It shows the level of confusion that is caused to those who use that crossing. I had the privilege of being the duty Minister in October 1991, when the Queen Elizabeth II bridge was opened by Her late Majesty. That was an occasion that I will never forget, with fly-pasts and the QE2 underneath the bridge. It was a great celebration of private enterprise at its best, because Members may recall that that bridge was built in only three years and two months. It cost £120 million and was delivered on time and to budget. The way it was financed was set out in the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988. In responding to this debate, I hope that the Minister will explain why a similar proposal is not being applied to the lower Thames crossing. I checked out the remarks that I made as the Minister when the bridge opened in 1991, 35 years ago this month. In those remarks, I made reference to the fact that we were working on the lower Thames crossing. We recognised 35 years ago that there would be a need for an additional lower Thames crossing. The idea then was that the income from the tolls on the Dartford crossing would eventually be used to help fund the lower Thames crossing. I am supportive of my party’s reasoned amendment, because it shows a certain scepticism about all these promises that are made. We should recall that, at the time of the opening of the QEII bridge, I promised—it was a repeat of a promise that had been given by a previous Conservative Minister—that the tolls would cease to be payable once the costs of the bridge had been paid for. The legislation provided that there was a maximum period of 20 years through which the tolls could be paid in order to fund the bridge. In the end, I think the period of the tolls should have been about 12 years, because the bridge should have been paid for by then. There was then an extension of one year for tolls in order to ensure that we had sufficient income to pay for the ongoing repairs and maintenance costs. That should have been the end of the financial burden on motorists using that crossing. Of course it was not, because then the Treasury got involved and said, “No, we need to keep the income coming in from the crossing. How do we justify that?” Well, the justification was that by continuing to have tolls on the crossing, we would be able to fund the lower Thames crossing. That continued for a bit of time, and then the Labour Government decided that they did not want to have the income from the tolls dedicated to a future road project across the Thames, and that the money would go into general taxation; we lost the allocated resources that should have been there to fund the lower Thames crossing, and the money that continues to be paid by those who use the Dartford crossing just goes into general taxation. Is it any surprise that people are sceptical about promises that are made when legislation like this Bill is being debated? The Minister says that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle for toll roads across the country. Frankly, from my own perspective, I once argued that the best way for us to promote important highway infrastructure in this country is by building roads for prosperity. “Roads for Prosperity” was the title of a 1990 roads White Paper that led to an enormous expansion of our road network, which I was lucky enough to be involved in during my time as the Roads Minister.

    Hansard source
34. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    I thank my right hon. Friend for that observation. That is why we need to be very sceptical about what the Government are proposing. Let us look at the issue of the lower Thames crossing. I read that it is going to cost £10 billion, and people will ask how we are going to raise that money. It seems to me that it will not be difficult to get the capital from the private sector, if a return can be obtained on that capital. Indeed, when Sir Nigel Broackes, who was the boss of Trafalgar House, was bidding for the Dartford crossing, he obtained the capital from the Bank of America. I do not think there is any doubt that the money will be forthcoming, but what will be the cost of the whole project? Will it have a finite cost of, say, £10 billion? If so, over how long a period will the Government allow the operator and the construction vehicle to have that paid back? Will the tolls be designed to pay back the cost of the tunnel within 20 years, 30 years or 50 years? The answer to that question will determine the level of the tolls. Are they going to be affordable? My view is that it is reasonable that this infrastructure be paid for by the people who will use it. I do not have a quarrel with that.

    Hansard source
35. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    I hear what the hon. Lady says, but the question I am asking is: why can we not have dedicated legislation for the lower Thames crossing, as we did for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing? In the primary legislation that went through this House, it was specified that there should be tolls only for the length of time it took to repay the costs of construction. Subsequent Governments changed that in the way that I have described, because any legislation can obviously be changed by a subsequent Parliament.

    Hansard source
36. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    I understand that, and one of my concerns is that we may find that the tolls continue far into the distant future, when there will no longer be a need for tolls to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure. In a sense, the model espoused for the lower Thames crossing project could have exactly the same consequence for motorists, which is that they will end up paying a lot more than the cost of the tunnel. I hope that the Minister can explain why we could not have had specific, ringfenced legislation on this, instead of a general Bill. If we could have had that, we could have made a lot more progress. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is saying that we Conservatives would like to leave the Aarhus convention, because it inhibits progress on such projects. I remember all the difficulties we had with the European Union when I was the roads Minister; EU legislation was preventing the completion of the M3 through Twyford down. That environmental interference ultimately cost our economy a significant amount of money, but when anybody uses the M3, they see that it just blends into the landscape and is a really well designed project. The question I put to my right hon. Friend, rhetorically, was: why did we not do something about the Aarhus convention when we were in government? On this, as on a lot of things, I am delighted that the leader of the Conservative party is showing herself to be a real Conservative. I fear that that we are still suffering from the hangover of a so-called Conservative Government who did not get to grips with issues such as the Aarhus convention, so I am very much with my right hon. Friend on that. I intervened about the scope for extending the Bill to projects not currently a part of the main highway network or trunk road network. If we want to deal with the problems to do with London bridges, we will have to find some way to fund bridge repairs. I have an interest: my home in London for many years was just south of Waterloo Bridge. Recently, we heard rumours that the bridge may have to close because of cracks in it. If it is closed, that will be the third unusable central London Thames crossing. That is intolerable. Surely, we must find a way of funding the repairs and the reconstruction necessary to keep those London bridges open. My grandchildren talk about London Bridge falling down and all the rest of it, but we are not talking about London Bridge. Three other key bridges in London are either already closed or about to be closed. What are we going to do about that? I would be interested if the Minister is prepared to say, “Yes, I agree that the model set out in the Bill could be applied to the bridges in London that are in desperate need of repair.”

    Hansard source
37. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    I cannot, obviously, make an assurance like that; it was a rhetorical question. All I can say is that I think people should take responsibility for their decisions, and we should face up to the fact that if there are costs associated with bits of infrastructure that cannot be funded out of general taxes, we should be prepared to ensure that they are funded by the users. To close down a thoroughfare across the Thames, with no solution or plan for what will happen, is totally unsatisfactory. I would like the Mayor of London to take action, because this comes within his responsibilities. He could easily use some of the income from the congestion charge or the ultra low emission zone charge to fund that. It does not seem as though that is happening, which is why I suggested that the Bill be used for this purpose.

    Hansard source
38. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Christopher Chope

    Highways (Financing) Bill

    I am not going to try to clarify that. It sounds as though what I have said is only partially accurate, but in a sense, that reinforces my point, which is that, whoever owns the bridges or has financial responsibility for them, the financial vehicle identified in the Bill could be used to pay for their repairs and maintenance, to ensure they are brought back into use. I do not purport to be an expert on who owns which bridges. I did not know that any of them were owned by charities. The hon. Gentleman seems to say that they are; I am not going to dispute that, but I do not think that alters the principal point I was making. I am concerned about other provisions in the Bill, and some of those concerns are identified in the reasoned amendment. It brings in massive new powers for the Office of Road and Rail, at a time when I thought the Government were rowing back on arms-length bodies being given such powers; and there are great powers under clause 99 to basically repeal any legislation retrospectively, as a consequence of the measures in the Bill. I could not understand the references to the insolvency legislation in the Bill. How would that fit into what happened with the building of the channel tunnel, for example? That was a private-investor exercise, and ultimately, the initial investors lost most of their money—but that was a result of them taking the risk. Are the Government suggesting, by taking those powers in relation to insolvency legislation, that different arrangements should operate in the future? I am sceptical about the Bill, but frankly, when I was a Government Back-Bench MP, I proposed that we should privatise the whole of our motorway network, because that would bring good benefits to the taxpayer and ensure that the network was paid for by the people who use it. Earlier this month, I drove back with my wife from Strasbourg—Strasbourg to Christchurch is about 550 miles, and the tolls amounted to over €100. That was a contribution that I made toward the cost of the French motorway system. If we are true radicals—this may be too radical for my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench—why can we not privatise our motorways? We cannot privatise the whole of the trunk road network because it that would mean dealing with all sorts of rights of way, bridleways and other complications, but the motorway network is set up in such a way that it could be the subject of one of the largest ever privatisations. I go back to my point about the success in the 1980s of involving private capital and entrepreneurial activity in the development of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. Why do we not extend that more widely across our road network?

    Hansard source
39. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Ashley Fox

    Sustainable Farming Incentive

    Farmers across Somerset have been left without certainty and support by this latest DEFRA snafu, and they will not be consoled by the thought of a workshop. How does the Minister envisage farmers being able to plan financially for the year ahead if they do not know when the next round is or how the funds will be allocated?

    Hansard source
40. 15 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Sir Ashley Fox

    Business of the House

    The quality of life of many local people in Bridgwater is being undermined by a small minority who show little regard for others with street drinking, drug misuse, shoplifting and other forms of intimidating and antisocial behaviour. There is a widespread perception locally that Somerset council and the police are not responding with the urgency that the situation demands. Can I therefore ask for a debate in Government time on what more can be done to support towns such as Bridgwater, so that the interests of decent, law-abiding residents and businesses come first and we can restore pride and confidence in our town centre?

    Hansard source