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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. We are committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all, and we continue to urge the authorities to release political prisoners, wherever they are, immediately and unconditionally if they are held as a matter of faith or belief. I will ensure that he receives a response from the Minister with responsibility for the Americas.
My hon. Friend raises an important case regarding the gap in the provision of blue badges. I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Minister. If that is not a sufficiently appropriate response to his concerns, then I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can make his case more strongly.
It certainly sounds as if it has taken far too long. I do not know why the council has prevaricated in that regard. My hon. Friend’s question allows me to say that the settlement for Scotland is the highest on record, and that if it has got down to a local level, then councils cannot claim that they do not have the resources to address such issues. I hope that the council has heard what my hon. Friend said, and I pay tribute to the volunteers for their successful campaign to alleviate the situation.
That is a concern that will be held by Members across the House, which is why we published a call for evidence, seeking views on the tax treatment of holiday lets—evidence will be published in due course. If my hon. Friend seeks a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss the topic further, I will help her to achieve that.
My hon. Friend has been an ardent campaigner for former mineworkers in his part of the world, and I pay tribute to him for that. He raises an important point regarding the proposals, and if he gives me further details, I will ensure that the Chancellor hears them during deliberations on what might be in the Budget.
My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for his constituents, and I will help him to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss those serious concerns.
It is a timely opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise the matter, and I am sure it will be raised again as we approach bonfire night. The consultation on targeted reforms to fireworks and pyrotechnics legislation closed recently, and we are rightly reviewing the evidence before we publish our response. I also understand that my hon. Friend will soon be meeting the Minister to discuss those matters further. I cannot say what the timescale is, but I am sure that my ministerial colleagues appreciate the urgency.
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone involved in the Millennium Link project. It sounds to me that they have done a remarkable job in cleaning up the area. I thank him for his enticing invitation to visit the site of Scotland’s Centre of Excellence for Canals and Traditional Skills to see the fantastic work that has been done, not least because it is about environmental improvement and heritage, in which I have a keen interest and am a big supporter. It is also about the jobs that are created by those projects, which is important for my hon. Friend’s constituency and others.
I join my hon. Friend in wishing Dartford grammar school a happy and historic 450th birthday. What a remarkable achievement for a school to have reached its 450th anniversary. I pay tribute to headteacher Julian Metcalf, and all the hard-working teachers and students over the years who have made the school such a success. I wish them well for the future.
My hon. Friend raises a crucial issue for his constituents. The Government are committed to ensuring that the £400 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on public procurement each year actively supports British industry. He raises an interesting point, and I will ensure that he gets an update from the relevant Department.
The case my hon. Friend raises does sound concerning. Local planning authorities have a wide range of enforcement powers, and there are strong penalties for non-compliance, including unlimited fines; it is for them ultimately to decide how to take action. However, I hope that the offenders, as it were, have heard what my hon. Friend has said today, and I encourage his local authority to make use of those powers. I will also ask the relevant Minister to write to my hon. Friend, and, following that, he may wish to consider either an Adjournment or a Westminster Hall debate so that he can make his case in more detail.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to today’s debate. The House has heard a range of views this afternoon. Some Members have spoken about the opportunities that the Bill presents, and others have rightly pressed the Government on how users will be protected, how local communities will be treated, and how we can ensure that major infrastructure is delivered in a way that provides value for money. Before I turn to some of the specific points, I want to return to the more fundamental question: why is the Bill needed? The answer is straightforward: the Government believe that we should have a wide range of tools to deliver nationally significant infrastructure, and that we should avail ourselves of those tools to offer the best deal for taxpayers and to help us provide the connectivity that our economy needs. The immediate context for this legislation is the lower Thames crossing, and the House knows the importance of that project. Dartford is operating well beyond the volumes that it was designed to carry. It has become a critical pinch point on the strategic road network, affecting commuters, businesses, supply chains and communities across large parts of the country. The lower Thames crossing will provide additional capacity, greater resilience and a new strategic connection across the Thames.
I have a lot to get through, and I have heard a lot from the right hon. Member already. [Interruption.] The Bill provides the statutory framework needed to support the Government’s preferred financing approach for delivering this project. It does not grant development consent—
The right hon. Member had numerous opportunities to intervene, which were accommodated by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). As I was saying, the Bill does not grant development consent, alter planning requirements or remove scrutiny; it provides a financing framework for delivery. However, this Bill is not simply about one project. At its heart, it is about ensuring that the Government have another option available when that is the right solution for delivering nationally important infrastructure. This infrastructure very likely could not exist without this new mechanism or something like it. It is worth remembering what this Bill is and is not. The Bill does not create the concept of privately financed toll roads. Parliament has already provided a route for private companies to finance, construct and operate toll roads through the concession arrangements under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. That route remains available today, and in the right circumstances it can work effectively. The M6 toll is an example of that approach. The principle that private capital can play a major role in road infrastructure is therefore not being invented by this Bill, but the Bill creates a different model. For some roads, a concession arrangement may be entirely appropriate. Where users have clear alternatives, commercial incentives can play an important role in protecting users’ interests and encouraging good performance. Some infrastructure, however, performs a very different function. Some roads are nationally significant strategic assets that form critical trade corridors and support economic activity far beyond the communities through which they pass, and for many users there may be limited practical alternatives. In those circumstances, the Government believe there is a strong case for independent regulation sitting alongside private investment. That is why the Bill places the Office of Rail and Road at the heart of that framework. The ORR will oversee performance, scrutinise costs, protect users’ interests, monitor financial resilience and hold operators to account. It will have substantial enforcement powers, including to intervene where performance is inadequate. The Bill also provides important safeguards to ensure continuity of service if a licence holder encounters serious financial difficulties. The purpose of the Bill is not to enable private charging where none has existed before; it is about expanding the Government’s toolkit to better address the range of possible circumstances. Furthermore, the Bill will help modernise the way tolls are collected and enforced on existing toll roads. Some operators have already moved on free-flow tolling, but the legislative framework has not kept pace. In some cases, existing arrangements are not working as effectively as they should, while in others the necessary powers simply do not exist to enable such a transition. It is right that the law keeps pace with advances in technology, and this Bill provides a clear route for operators to move to a modern tolling system while ensuring that enforcement remains effective. That brings me to the predominant theme in this debate. Today we have heard just how important local services are to communities across our nation. This Government back local people to make the right decisions for their communities, and we are striving forward with ambitious plans for devolution that will drive growth in every postcode. Fundamentally, this Bill is designed so that users make a contribution towards the costs of major infrastructure from which they derive substantial benefits. Toll revenue should meet the efficient costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure for which users are being charged. It would not be right to expand this proposition to a form of centrally imposed local taxation. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan). The Prime Minister has personally committed the assistance of No. 10 North to the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham to find a suitable way to bring back the Tilbury-Gravesend ferry, and we remain open to working with local leaders on similar issues. The clear theme in this debate has been whether this framework will provide regulation strong enough to protect users and avoid the failings seen in other sectors, including the water sector. We have learned those lessons and the Bill equips the ORR to be a strong and effective regulator from the outset. The ORR already has substantial experience of overseeing road and rail. Its new chief executive, Paul Smith, brings extensive regulatory experience from the UK’s aviation, energy and payment sectors, as well as from senior regulatory roles in Australia. Under this framework, the ORR will monitor licence holders’ financial resilience and long-term performance closely, and the regime will incentivise the right behaviour. Where an operator falls short, there will be meaningful consequences. Ultimately, the ORR will have the ability to suspend tolling while issues are resolved. The Bill also provides a clear backstop for this nationally important infrastructure where necessary.
There will indeed be a stakeholder group and opportunities for people to feed into that. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, was right that transport works best when there is a clear sense of direction and purpose. The Government are committed to providing that through a coherent programme of investment, reform and delivery that will create a more reliable, integrated and sustainable transport network. Indeed, that is exactly why we published our “Better Connected” strategy in April, which set out for the first time a single vision of how roads, rail, buses and active travel should work together to serve the people and places across England. I want to address directly the reasoned amendment before the House, because it goes to the heart of what the Bill is and what it is not. To be honest, it is as if the Opposition have pleaded with ChatGPT to find any conceivable reason why they could disagree with the Bill. The first thing to note is that while the immediate context for the Bill is, of course, to aid the delivery of the lower Thames crossing, the Bill is about far more than that, so I will not be talking about the budget or project timelines. I will not dwell on the frankly shocking hypocrisy of the Conservative party, which oversaw ballooning costs to HS2, lecturing this Government on financial management. There are other times and places for that kind of discussion. Let me simply say this: the project is progressing, with construction activity already under way. Decisions on the project continue to be subject to rigorous scrutiny, with value for money remaining at the heart of decision making. The project already has its necessary planning approvals, which included the approval to charge tolls for use. In bringing forward the Bill, Parliament is not changing that approved scheme; it will just be providing another option in a suite of tools that the Government have to fund major road projects. I am confused, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I do not understand why the Opposition want to withdraw from the Aarhus convention at this stage of the process for the lower Thames crossing. The main thing the convention does is to allow public participation in the planning process and ensure that environmental information is made available. It protects public access to reasoning and decision making during the planning process. That stage has already passed in the case of the lower Thames crossing. Withdrawing from the convention now, on behalf of the lower Thames crossing, would do absolutely nothing. The environmental information has already been produced. It has already been scrutinised publicly and published. That stage has passed, so it would not save money now. The third thing to note is that, as I have just explained, there are already Acts that have been approved by this place that allow the Secretary of State, and indeed local government, to introduce new road schemes that involve charging or tolling without recourse to parliamentary approval. Finally and most importantly, I must address what can only be described as misunderstandings contained in the reasoned amendment. It is important that this House takes its responsibilities for clear and fair communication with the public seriously, and I want to address that head-on. The Bill provides a mechanism for new infrastructure to be funded through future tolls in a way that regulates the potential impact on road users and provides certainty for investors. It also allows for existing physical tolls to be replaced by free-flowing virtual toll systems. The Opposition support both those measures as far as I understand. There is nothing else in the Bill: it has got nothing to say about applying new tolls on existing roads; nothing to say about wider road-user charging; nothing to say about low-traffic neighbourhoods, 15-minute cites or who shot JFK! There are no conspiracies here. I know the Opposition like to whip up the culture wars whenever they see the opportunity, but their rantings and ravings about the war on motorists, in this place and outside it, are obviously wide of the mark. What sensible hon. Members will see in the Bill is a common-sense approach to managing our road infrastructure, now and in the future—nothing more; nothing less. Frankly, our constituents would be better served if we scrutinised what was in the Bill, rather than harping on about things that are not. Ultimately, the debate comes down to a simple question: should the Government have another tool to help deliver nationally significant infrastructure; a tool that enables practical partnership with the private sector that, in the right circumstances, can offer a good deal for taxpayers and users, and that comes with a strong regulatory protection. I believe that the Government should have that tool. The Bill does not require the Government to use that model in every case, it does not place private finance above public finance, and nor does it ask the House to make an ideological choice between the two. It simply ensures that where private investment can help deliver nationally important infrastructure, with strong, independent regulation and robust safeguards for users, the Government have the option. That is pragmatic, proportionate and, above all, focused on delivery. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Will the Leader of the House join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of Labour Councillor Dave Parkins? Dave was a proud veteran and a diligent and compassionate councillor for 32 years in Huncoat. In his most recent election in 2023, he secured 80% of the vote—an example to us all. “Mr Huncoat” will be sorely missed by all of us in Hyndburn.
I thank my hon. Friend for his dedication and commitment to young carers, though I know he does not support just young carers. He has the Neurological and Physical Abilitation centre in his constituency, and knows that one of my constituents, 11-year-old Alf, utilises that service. Alf’s mum, Emma, is an incredible advocate for her son and is desperately trying to get the support she needs. She gets 10 hours support for him during term time and 20 hours during the holidays, but Derbyshire county council has recently said no to any more support, including overnight care for just one day a week to help Emma to not reach breaking point. Although my hon. Friend is talking admirably about young carers, does he agree—perhaps the Minister will address this in responding to this brilliant debate—that the new national care service, which is coming in to support older people, should extend to support disabled children and unpaid carers so that they can get timely, flexible support, including overnight care where needed, to prevent parents and carers from reaching breaking point?
It was reported in Derby Telegraph this week that Derbyshire county council, in failing special educational needs and disabilities children, has in the past year cost the taxpayer £79,000 in compensation paid out, with £20,000 paid to one family alone. However, those families do not want to be getting to the point of compensation being paid out—they want help. Yet in the past three months of surgeries, I have had little progress and little in the way of updates for the families in South Derbyshire that my team and I support, including Hayley Archer who is an incredible advocate for her son but whose life is being ruined by Derbyshire county council. Derbyshire county council is one of the councils having 90% of its deficit wiped out by this Labour Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that that huge help to DCC should see a marked improvement in outcomes for the people I represent in South Derbyshire and that the council should be held accountable for evidencing value for money by delivering for SEND families instead of ignoring them?
The reason I joined the Labour party—in my 30s, quite late—was the national health service and the welfare state, two incredibly important institutions in this country that look after people at their most vulnerable. After today, the national care service would be the third reason why I would join the Labour party. I mention that because in my South Derbyshire constituency, we saw the closure of the most beloved care home, Castle Court care home in Gresley, by the Reform-led county council. It was galling this week to see a couple of Reform county councillors celebrating the fact that the care home has been bought by a private company—hurrah for it coming in to save the day, by the way—when Reform was responsible for closing it, putting staff out of a job and residents out of a home. Does the Minister agree that it is only ever Labour Governments who create the institutions that look after people when they need help the most?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this important debate. I will start by declaring a lifelong professional interest in this vital issue. As a physiotherapist for more than 30 years, I have seen at first hand the effect of smoking on initiating and exacerbating things such as asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease. Passive smoking will hopefully decelerate now, but people who have never smoked do get lung cancer as a result. I am extremely passionate about the importance of smoking cessation to public health, and the critical role that physiotherapists can play in supporting such interventions. As we have already heard from the hon. Members who opened the debate, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, killing an estimated 80,000 people every year, including almost 4,000 people in Wales. One in every 10 deaths in Wales among those over the age of 35 continues to be as a result of smoking. Although that is profound for the families of the people who have died, it also has a major impact on our NHS. Public Health Wales estimates that every year in Wales more than 17,000 hospital admissions are attributable to smoking, and smoking-related costs to the Welsh NHS and social care system are estimated at over £650 million a year. That is for a country with a population of about 3 million, so Members can see just how expensive the problem is. However, the full estimated costs are so much greater, because smoking remains a major drag on productivity and our environment. As we have also heard today already, the costs of smoking are not borne equally; individuals from deprived backgrounds are the worst affected and smoking is a persistent driver of health inequalities. Consequently, smoking cessation must be understood as a social justice issue. Almost a quarter of adults in the most deprived communities in Wales smoke, a figure that is four times higher than that for the least deprived areas. As we have already heard clearly today, that is not fair; it is a social justice issue. No Government who are committed to social justice, whether they are in Cardiff Bay or Westminster, can ignore this problem. I am therefore very pleased that the UK Labour Government are leading the way internationally through the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026. That landmark piece of legislation will see the UK deliver the world’s first smoke-free generation, ensuring that today’s children will be protected from the cycle of addiction and disadvantage that has plagued our communities for decades. Another major achievement of the Act was to take major steps to combat the challenges of youth vaping and to protect future generations from the risks of nicotine addiction. I will concentrate mainly on vaping from now on, because although vaping is an important means of smoking cessation, I remain concerned about the number of people, especially children, who are vaping and consuming nicotine without ever having been smokers. Earlier this year, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that over a million people across England, Scotland and Wales are in that category, and the figure has doubled since 2021. Overall, the number of people using vapes and e-cigarettes daily or occasionally has quickly overtaken the number of people who smoke, and the number continues to rise, especially among young people, even while smoking rates decline. Public health analysis from last year found that 5% of children between year 7 and year 11 reported vaping at least weekly, with the proportion for year 11s rising to 13%. Similar fieldwork undertaken by ASH Wales in 2023 found that 92% of secondary school-aged vapers were using products containing nicotine and that almost half of them could not go through the whole school day without vaping. Moreover, 55% of the vaping products being used were identified as being highly likely to be illegal. These patterns are extremely concerning, and we need to go further and faster to bear down on the illegal and immoral parts of this industry that is preying on our young people. Last month, I was pleased to be able to host a roundtable here in Parliament to consider how the provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 can be further strengthened to bear down on those trends. Attendees noted that, as we have heard, there is a wide spectrum of vape shops, ranging from corner shops to specialist retailers. There is a considerable discrepancy between the two ends of the spectrum. Currently, customers should be able to expect clear and consistent retail standards, with a focus on smoking cessation at their heart. I ask the Minister to outline what steps she is taking to level up retail standards for vape shops so that customers know what to expect. At that roundtable, we also discussed imported vape products, particularly the high-capacity “big puff” devices. They should be held to the same standard as vape products manufactured in the UK. Consequently, will the Minister say what conversations she has had with the Treasury to ensure that our UK Border Force and local trading standards teams are effectively resourced to perform effective spot-checks at the borders and in retail establishments? The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency also needs to be sufficiently financed to provide effective safety assurances. Proposals by the Government to regulate the appearance or operation of physical shops will have limited effect if unsafe or non-compliant products can still enter the market through online sales, direct imports or other routes. I could go on and on, but I dare not, because I am conscious of time. We need to get a grip on this problem and I look forward to the Minister answering my questions.
Such schemes are hardly new: in London, we have had the congestion charge for many years now—[Interruption.] We have it elsewhere, too; drivers in and around our major cities are used to a charge they have to include in their budgets.
It is been interesting to listen to the former Minister, who has had a distinguished career. I cannot speak about the former funding of the Dartford crossing, but does he not recognise that under this RAB model, which is overseen by the Office of Rail and Road, as are other RAB projects, funding is in effect hypothecated to the scheme? That is clear and transparent, unlike the situation that he mentioned, in which drivers did not know whether the funding that they provided was being merged with general taxation income. On how long this will last, surely that depends on the risk, and the length of time for which investors are prepared to take on the licence, when they bid to Government.
I appreciate the hon. Member’s response, but as this Bill makes clear, the funding through the RAB model of the lower Thames crossing and other schemes is not only for construction, but for ongoing maintenance, necessary improvements and so on. It is a long-term scheme, and is not merely for the cost of the construction.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), given his deep experience and interesting perspective on bringing in tolls for all our motorways. That may be what happens in certain countries, but I suspect the whole funding of their road network is somewhat different from ours, so I will go back to focusing on the Bill. I have driven on roads in other countries, and across the bridge to Wales in the past, and it seems entirely natural to me for us to introduce a toll for the lower Thames crossing. It is parallel to the tolled Dartford crossing, and it is hardly going to be the first toll road in the UK. I welcome the Bill, which will enable the funding of the lower Thames crossing to be delivered and maintained through tunnel users paying to use it. It is the first time that a road project has used the RAB model—a model that is already used for energy, water infrastructure and Heathrow airport. Delivering improved transport infrastructure is core to this Government’s growth mission, so I am glad that the Government are exploring a range of both tried and tested and new methods of working with private sector investors to deliver projects. Those include using RAB for the roads for the first time—as in the Bill—as well as using the community infrastructure levy and further exploring the capture of land-value uplift on new rail schemes. Some of the early private finance initiative schemes in the mid and late ’90s gave public-private funding partnerships a bad name, but I am confident that the relationship between state commissioners and long-term private capital has matured in a way that can only be mutually beneficial. On the RAB model, however, I do have some concerns. While it provides confidence for investors and a rock-solid return—as the representative of potential investors in the lower Thames crossing told me—there is also a history of gold-plated, over-engineered schemes. Sometimes, as in the case of Heathrow airport, it can be poor value for money, as airlines and businesses that are captive tenants there tell me. All of Thames Water’s bill payers are funding the Thames Tideway tunnel—a project that provides no benefit to my constituency or the health of the River Thames in my constituency, as we are upstream of the intake of the Tideway tunnel. While there is a regulator in the Bill—the Office of Rail and Road plays an important role—I wonder, as I do with many regulators, whether it has sufficient teeth and funding. Does it have the right powers and sufficient powers over issues such as sustainability, safety, customer focus and local communities? To look again at the example of Heathrow airport, I fear that the Civil Aviation Authority is far too weak in areas other than its core responsibilities of the economy and, of course, air safety. There is one final issue with the lower Thames crossing that has been exercising both myself and the road haulage industry: the removal of any truck stop or motorway service area from the plans. The Transport Committee produced a report on this matter in 2022, when the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who is now on the Opposition Front Bench, was on the Committee. Our conclusions showed the critical impact of the shortage of safe, secure driver facilities around the south-east, and particularly on routes to and from Dover. That message was repeated to the Transport Committee in March this year by the haulage industry and driver union representatives. Drivers are required to rest every 4.5 hours and need somewhere to stop and sleep in a place where they and their load are safe, yet we were told that at Medway and Thurrock services, on either side of the Thames, if a driver is not in the motorway service area by mid-afternoon, they would have to go and find an A road lay-by, meaning no toilets, no food and no safety.
I absolutely believe that it will exacerbate the issue, because the lower Thames crossing will significantly increase vehicle throughput, particularly of trucks and lorries, on what is already a busy part of the network. The originally proposed MSA or truck stop—I am not sure which—has been removed from the plans, and I am told that there is no plan and no requirement to bring one back. This illustrates a national policy gap. In the French motorway system, there is a full MSA every 50 km and partial ones every 10 km. I am told that it is not too late for proposals, and I really do hope that that is the case, although there would have to be a planning application from a landowner in order to bring one in. I cannot believe that it would not be a profitable opportunity for investors to do that and then in due course to link it into the lower Thames crossing, because of course it is only just along the road from the docks, so there is bound to be demand. The Opposition amendment says: “this House…declines to give a Second Reading to the Highways (Financing) Bill, because it has no confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver the project on time and on budget, given its record of cancelling major road schemes across the country” and risks costs “spiralling further out of control”. That is rich coming from the party that oversaw most of HS2’s lifespan. HS2 is so desperately needed by our rail system and northern cities, yet what did the Conservatives do when in government? They started construction before the design was agreed and complete, then halted it and removed about half the length of HS2, thus completely undermining the business case. I could go on. The lower Thames crossing was commissioned because the Dartford crossing has miles-long queues leading on to it. Extra lanes have been built on the M25, and we have all-lane running on many other motorways, yet on many of them traffic still crawls along at slow speeds due to the sheer level of congestion. While there is no doubt that the lower Thames crossing will relieve pressure on the existing Thames crossings for a few years after it opens, how long will it be until the toll payers are effectively paying to park on the approach road instead to cross to the other side of the Thames? The DFT forecasts that road traffic will grow by 12% on motorways and 10% on all other roads over the next 10 years. To ensure that our roads do not grind to a halt, I really look forward to a policy that incentivises alternative travel options so that road space is available for those journeys for which there is no choice but to drive. For instance, increasing capacity at the Ely and Haughley junctions, or any number of other rail bottlenecks, would increase rail capacity for freight and passengers at a fraction of the cost of the lower Thames crossing or of opening another lane on a UK motorway. I do hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State can provide some assurance to me and this House. Unless there is an overarching transport strategy that supports modal shift, it will not be long before we need an even lower Thames crossing.
10. What steps his Department has taken to support the advanced manufacturing sector.
May I say how shocked I am that the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) suggested that your appearance needed any augmentation, Madam Deputy Speaker? On the Isle of Wight, we are incredibly proud of our advanced manufacturing sector and, for an area of its size, the island has one of the biggest concentrations of advanced manufacturing and high-tech engineering jobs in the country. Employers on my side of the island are racing to employ under 25s. We always want to do more, so will the Minister set out how the Government’s drive to buy British, alongside their renewed commitment to strengthening our defence capabilities, will create new opportunities for island manufacturers to secure contracts, invest in growth and create the next generation of skilled jobs on the Isle of Wight?
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have no skin in the game on the ferry’s name, but I could not let the mention of ferries pass without intervening—I am sure the whole House would be angry with me if I did not. She makes an important point that those of us who have to travel by water feel that ferry travel is not part of integrated transport. Does she agree that it should be, especially in her situation?
In Scotland, our health and social care partnerships face a £500 million funding shortfall, and the SNP has failed to deliver on its commitment to establish a national care service for Scotland. As the Government take forward these vital plans for social care, will the Minister ensure that her counterparts in the Scottish Government are regularly updated on this work, so that they can learn how improvements in social care can be made effectively and encouraged to fulfil finally their pledge to provide the improved social care services that my constituents need as well?
The Government’s announcement yesterday that it was partnering with UK hospitality firms to deliver 100,000 jobs to young people not in education, employment or training was hugely welcome, but one such partner, amid widespread claims of bullying, sexual harassment and discrimination, has been placed under monitoring by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Will colleagues be bringing a statement to this House to assure us that appropriate safeguards will be put in place for any employee taken on?
Bedrolite is a medication for those with a very rare form of epilepsy. There are, I understand, four private prescriptions and three NHS prescriptions in the country. It is made by a company based in the Netherlands called Bedrocan, which was in the news at the weekend because it is going bust. One of my constituents’ families is deeply affected by this and needs this medication, but their prescription is running out in December, and hon. Members can only imagine the deep concern that his family feel at the moment. I have written to the Secretary of State and to the Minister responsible, and I believe they could also be assisted by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office through its relationship with the Netherlands. Can the Leader of the House support me in bringing together all parts of Government to address this urgent issue for anybody using this important medication?
13. If he will take steps to help ensure Post Office provision in every community.
When York’s Crown post office closed after 138 years, we were given assurances that through WHSmith, we would have a sustained solution. However, Modella Capital, which has taken over WHSmith, closed the post office yesterday. We only have a teeny weeny post office in the city centre. Businesses, residents and tourists are dependent on it—we need a solution. I have met the Post Office; it says that it will take six months to get a solution. I need a solution now. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that we have a temporary solution before we get our sustained outcome?
One hundred and twenty-five years ago, Seebohm Rowntree launched his report, “Poverty: A Study of Town Life”, which was an encyclic understanding of the levels of poverty in York. Just last week, the University of York launched a similar report looking at the city, where poverty is still embedded in our communities. Could the Leader of the House say what the Government are doing to ensure that Departments come together to address poverty? Will they look at the work that the University of York is doing with me to bring our communities together, to ensure that people with lived experience lead that agenda?
I share the Minister’s pride; my mother turns 89 today, having dedicated her life to the NHS. I also extend that pride to the 1.6 million care workers, and believe that we could do so much more to lift their confidence in their professional skills. I welcome the Prime Minister’s extending his interest to care co-operatives, because those can empower staff and service users. Will the Minister work with the Co-op party, which has done extensive work in this area, to deliver that model?
Councils across the country are spending millions of pounds on single-occupancy taxis for SEND transport, while ageing minibus fleets go unreplaced. One manufacturer in my constituency reports that complex procurement processes, excessive bureaucracy and lengthy tendering delays are preventing councils from ordering new vehicles, despite there being clear demand to do so. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to secure a statement from the Government setting out how they will ensure that the buy British agenda helps councils modernise fleets, reduce transport costs and support British manufacturing jobs?
My hon. Friend will not have failed to clock the comments from the president of Microsoft this week that the UK is best placed to lead on AI governance. That is something that we found in our report, not least because of the AI Security Institute, which our report recommends strengthening further. Does he agree that it is not about limiting the very real benefits that AI may bring to the UK’s economy, our healthcare system or even, as we found in our report, to human rights, but about leading the world in realising those benefits safely while recognising and mitigating the very real risks that exist?
I thank the Minister for setting out in a clear and unambiguous fashion the nature and content of the Bill’s 104 clauses and three schedules. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be equally clear when he winds up. I also thank—very belatedly—Winston Churchill, who in 1929 provided £2.5 million for the first Mersey tunnel crossing, the Queensway crossing, which was opened by His Majesty King George V. Frankly, that was the last time that the Tories did anything worthwhile for Merseyside. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), who is sitting behind me, is used to the question about the development of a Mersey crossing. There are also the two toll tunnel crossings we have had since the early ’30s and 1971. There is a history of toll roads in this country; many of them have been on Merseyside, including the two tunnels under the Mersey and the two bridges across the Mersey. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with legislation that will allow the Office of Rail and Road to be the independent regulator? What do the Tories have against that, or against providing a licence regime for construction and operation of the proposals? What problem do they have with laying out highway authorities’ functions in relation to licence holders, or with ensuring fair charges for cars and transparency in service standards? I do not see anything wrong with that at all. What about the Bill’s provision for transfer schemes, to allow property, rights and liabilities to be transferred, as well as a special administration regime and backstops? I cannot quite see what the Conservatives find wrong with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who is no longer in her place, referred to a ferry crossing. There has been a ferry across the River Mersey since 1150—a long time. King Stephen was the monarch at the time; the period was called the anarchy. The Tories know all about that; we had 14 years of anarchy under them. I do not want to take up much of the House’s time—[Interruption.] I am listening to the Whips as well; I pay clear and unambiguous attention to the Whips. I want to ensure that when projects are introduced and developed, communities are part of that. My experience with National Highways—in relation to the A5036, for example—has not been as good as it could have been. I hope that when and if schemes are developed—whatever the nature of the scheme, be it toll or otherwise—the agencies that have a part to play in them will act with integrity, honesty and passion. If they do not, hon. Members across the House will ensure that they do.
Plans to revive Cornish tin and tungsten mining are well advanced with the support of the National Wealth Fund. However, if tin or tungsten were to be brought to the surface today, it would have to be shipped to the other side of the world for refining and processing, with only a fraction coming back to the UK at seriously increased cost. When Cornish MPs meet the Minister next week, can we discuss plans from Government to invest in domestic refinement of tin and tungsten?
When the shadow Minister next gets up at the Dispatch Box, I hope he will withdraw the inaccuracy that the scheme was, for the first time ever, built on a first-come, first-served basis. That is simply not the case, and the Conservatives know it. Does the Minister agree that farmers deserve better than the rewriting of history from the party that left a half-built, half-baked transition, and can he expand a little more on his plans to reform the RPA in time for SFI27?