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
Fuel prices in my constituency are consistently higher than in neighbouring areas. A litre of petrol costs £1.82 in Hoddesdon, in the north of my constituency, compared with £1.64 in Enfield —from the same company. Can we have a statement on what the Government are doing to stop my constituents in Broxbourne getting ripped off when they fill up their cars and vans at the petrol pumps?
It is British Beauty Week—I can see you have been celebrating, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure the Secretary of State has been, too—but it is tough out there for our salons. The industry lost one in five employees last year, which is the largest loss of any job type in the UK. Many will have been young people starting their careers in the industry, and few salons can afford to employ and train them because they are getting hammered by the jobs tax, soaring business rates and higher utility bills. What hope is the Prime Minister offering them?
The Secretary of State confessed last month that business leaders have urged him not to return to the political uncertainty around our relationship with the EU. The Prime Minister has now completely ignored him, and them, and says that the UK could pursue a customs union or a single market, or go all the way back in. He clearly was not in the 2017 to 2019 Parliament; he has barely been in this one. Will the Secretary of State tell businesses what the Prime Minister’s preferred option is?
The Secretary of State could not say what the Prime Minister’s preferred relationship is, and I think that is because the Prime Minister himself does not actually have a clue. Today, the Business Secretary trumpeted the free trade agreement struck with India; he took northern mayors, and a rep from Man City, on his trip this week to expand that. Sir Keir Starmer spoke about his pride and relief at telling Jaguar Land Rover workers that he had struck a trade deal on cars with America that would save their jobs. Those deals are possible because we are not in the EU. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that in the UK-EU trade talks that are under way, the Prime Minister will offer no concessions that could jeopardise our non-EU trade deals?
As the Leader of the House will be aware, the recent works to Carriage Gates here at Westminster cost the taxpayer over £62 million, which was significantly over budget. It has now been brought to my attention that fire engines may not be able to get through the new gates. Will he undertake urgently to investigate that further? Will he assure us that arrangements will be put in place so that fire engines can get into the Palace of Westminster if there is a fire?
Most farmers invest in a plan over several years, and over 12,000 who were in receipt of previous grants have been unable to fulfil what they expected this year. What thoughts does the Minister have on those individuals, given that the significant sums of money already invested, through the taxpayer, will essentially go to waste? On the RPA, what will he publish about the barriers? Most farmers get very frustrated that they cannot work out what they have done wrong.
As I understand it, the purpose of this new provision is to focus on the rights of the person in the UK, to ensure that their right to a family life is respected according to their circumstances. But their circumstances will be that their other family member is living abroad; that is their family life. I do not understand why that pre-existing situation would suddenly infringe their human rights and give them the right to bring in a family member. Their circumstance, by nature, is people living in two different countries.
The Minister says that her provision on the core cohabiting family member has been restricted by this definition to tackle the issue of people coming into this country. Can she tell us how many people are currently in the UK with a core cohabiting family member outside the UK? What is that figure so we can understand at least the potential pool of applications?
Could the Minister perhaps provide that figure, either later on this morning or this afternoon, for how many people are in the UK with a cohabiting family member overseas as of today?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I am speaking a little earlier than I had expected—I misunderstood the shadow Minister. I thought he was just getting started, but it turns out that he considers his speech on the long side. Just for the record, I do not. I am going to address the wider issue of whether the Bill, the clause and this set of amendments really do address the issue that the Minister, and indeed the entire Government, want them to. Their intention, as I understand it—I do not think this is controversial, at least given what the Government say they want to do—is to reduce the number of claims, to ensure that claims are genuine and to create efficiencies in the system. Of course, we all have those aims. I think that the Government have made a genuine attempt with the Bill, but as far as I can see, it will fail substantially.
I do not accept that it is philosophical. The pool of people in the world who could make an asylum claim runs to hundreds of millions, and possibly billions, because, tragically, a lot of the world is very unsafe and there is a lot of inhumane treatment and activity. As much as our hearts want us to try to improve the lives of those people, we would probably all agree that the UK cannot take in those vast numbers. However, I am addressing the more limited provision that the Government have put forward; I am talking not about the pool of people in the world who may be suffering inhumane or degrading treatment, but about the “core cohabiting” family members overseas who have a family member in the UK who might want to make an application on their behalf under the newly qualified right to a family life in proposed new section 117AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Let me turn to the new definition of a core cohabiting family member. Those words might prompt a debate of many hours or days, but the Bill helps us. It tells us that a “core cohabiting family” member of Person A is “(a) A’s spouse, civil partner or partner; (b) where A is a parent, A’s children who are under the age of 18; (c) where A is under the age of 18, A’s parents.” That makes sense: we are talking about children, parents, partners or civil partners. However, if we take the example of a civil partner, the provision would, as I understand it, allow someone in the UK—remember, that person may not be a British citizen, but someone who has a right to be here—to make an application to bring their civil partner, who is living outside the UK, into the UK, on the basis that to do anything else would be to infringe their right to a family life. The Minister said pointedly that the focus is on the claim made by the person already here and their circumstances, rather than on the person outside the UK, but we know the circumstances of the person in the UK making such an application for their civil partner. Their family circumstances are that they are living a family life in two different countries; that is the pre-existing arrangement when they make the application. To most of us, though not everyone, that might seem unusual, but those are the circumstances. I do not understand why, if we have a system based on the circumstances of someone who has made an application, that application should seek to rearrange their family life and say, “We’re no longer happy to live in two different countries; we want to live in the same country—and, by the way, that same country must be the UK and not the other country.” This provision does not seem to be person-focused at all; it seems to have been drafted in effect, almost as of right, to allow someone’s civil partner into the UK. If we run the argument the other way and say, “Of course two civil partners should be able to live together in the same country and, indeed, in the same household. Isn’t that what a right to a private family life means?”, the case will be won by the sponsor making the application, because they will say, “How can you possibly expect me to live in a separate country to my civil partner? That is inhumane and unfair. You wouldn’t expect it of an ordinary citizen in the UK, so why do you expect it of me? It is discriminatory. It is against the provisions in the Human Rights Act and the ECHR,” and so on. It seems to me that all those cases will be won on that basic assertion, and that what this provision really does is allow someone to bring in their civil partner in all circumstances, as of right. Indeed, it may be worse than that. If that is in effect what is happening, we may as well say it, but what we have here is law that will be contested in court. If the Government contest each case, that will lead to a huge administrative process and a huge court backlog and appeals issues, just to end up with a set of decisions that all say the same thing: “Yes, of course, that overseas partner can come in.” Setting that aside—and that is the most certain part of the provision, even though I argue that it is inherently uncertain and that it does not achieve its objectives—there are other circumstances set out in the provision in which someone does not need to be a core cohabiting family member. Proposed new section 117AA(1) says that the provision is “normally limited” to a core cohabiting family member, so there will be abnormal situations in which someone can come into this country even if they are not a core cohabiting family member. That, surely—obviously—is the gateway for Strasbourg jurisprudence. I acknowledge the Minister’s honesty when she said earlier that we—and by “we” I think she meant the British state rather than her Government particularly—as a country have been guilty of over-interpreting Strasbourg law, but that provision in her Government’s Bill is the gateway for Strasbourg law to be applied in the ordinary way that it has been over years, and that is the issue we are trying to tackle. The Bill gives us some help on what constitutes an abnormal situation—a situation where a non-core cohabitant family member could come in. To quote proposed new section 117AA(4)(b) of the 2002 Act, that is where “the circumstances are such that there is an additional element of dependency” between two family members. But there could be an additional element of dependency between anyone residing in the UK and a family member overseas. Let us remember that we are not talking about core cohabitants now; we are talking about any family member. That could be a cousin, uncle, aunt, second cousin or third cousin—who knows? Who will decide whether there is an additional element of dependency? Well, it will be based on the facts. The applicant will have to present a whole set of circumstances, including the family relationship that existed before anyone ever got to the UK and how much it meant to them emotionally or financially: “Yes, normally third cousins are not close and interdependent, but you must understand the culture where I am from. We had a relationship that was more like brother and sister or husband and wife, and therefore I should be successful.” Who will decide that? It will be the bureaucratic infrastructure of the state, which is already overburdened, be it the Home Office, which typically makes a decision that gets overturned, a new system of judges appointed on the advice of the Home Office, or the existing appeal structure all the way up through the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the interpretation of Strasbourg jurisprudence, including the Human Rights Act and the fundamentals of the ECHR. All the things that currently challenge our ability to say no are brought in or retained by this provision. Even if a number of claims are unsuccessful—and I am sure a number will be—the number of cases that will go through the courts to establish their success or otherwise will continue to overburden the system and give everyone at least the hope that they might be successful, even in hopeless cases. I say as a former lawyer—not a human rights lawyer or one who has been involved in this type of case—that this sort of provision is a gift to the world of ongoing litigation. Legal professionals try to construct a strong case with new legislation, as is their legitimate role. There is nothing like a bit of new legislation for the legal profession to get their teeth into. They try to create new case law to interpret it and find out what it is all about. Very often, litigation increases rather than decreases, at least in the short to medium term, when a novel provision like this one is introduced. An abnormal, or not normal, family situation is not defined, but there are a few examples of an abnormal situation where an applicant would be successful. To paraphrase proposed new section 117AA(5)(b)(i) to (iii) of the 2002 Act—we can see just how complicated the Bill has become to try to achieve an aim that I do not think it will—one example is where there is mental illness in the person who is outside the UK, and care and support would need to be provided by the person in the UK. An application is therefore likely to be successful if the sponsor in the UK says: “My family member who is not in the UK”—they do not have to be a core cohabiting family member; they just have to be family, whatever that means—“has a mental illness.” Presumably whether they have a mental illness or not will be judged by a healthcare system outside the UK, which might be very different from our own, with a very different standard of what counts as a diagnosis. “That person has a mental illness and there is no care or support available to them other than me, a family member in the UK.” Again, they might be in a country with a health service that, almost universally, does not provide sufficient care and support to people with mental illness. That could, in reality, be quite an easy application to make.
I shall speak to the next group when the time comes. I do not make any apology for focusing on what I see as a major flaw in the legislation. I do not have a political disagreement with the Government; I just think that what they are trying to do is not achieved by this provision. I am certainly not here to give an overall appraisal of the Bill or of this group. That is for the Minister and the shadow Minister. As a Back Bencher, I am here to try to examine, explore and understand what I see as a weakness in the Bill. That is my job in Committee.
I have it right in front of me. I think the wider points have been made. The hon. Member is obviously desperate to make the decisions that a Chair would ordinarily make. Maybe one day she will be elevated to the position of chairing a Committee. If she would like me to repeat everything I have said, I will be happy to do so in this afternoon’s sitting. I am slightly reluctant to stop now, because it looks like I have wilted in the face of an intervention from the Government Benches, but I had come to the end of my contribution. I hope I have made my point, even if it is not agreed with.
If the Minister’s position ends up being that there is no data, I will take that. To be clear, I am asking for the data of people residing in the UK who have a family member who is not a British citizen and who has no right to be in the UK, be they a spouse, civil partner or child. If it is the case that we simply do not have that data, obviously I will accept that, but the question remains on the table.
Too generous.
Will the hon. Lady give way?
I agree with the hon. Lady that there is some toxic rhetoric around this, although not from Members on this Committee. Does she not agree nevertheless that there is a problem with immigration and asylum in this country, and that part of the problem is that the numbers are too high?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I will address clause 18. I must confess that I have a slight tendency to stray, but I am comforted by the fact that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes will be on it and ensure that I stick to the grouping before us. I made some comments on clause 18 in the morning sitting, so what I will say now is additional. I will focus on situations in which a right to family life can still be argued under the Bill, even though it seeks to restrict human rights applications based on family life. Those are not situations involving a core cohabiting family, but ones in which a sponsor in the UK who does not necessarily have a UK passport but nevertheless has a right to reside here applies for somebody—not necessarily a family member—who lives elsewhere with no right to come here, has a mental illness, needs the sponsor’s support and cannot find that support at home. That seems to me the widest part of the Bill, allowing a great range of claims to be made and increasing or maintaining the backlog at the Home Office and in the courts. It seems that this mental illness provision could create a dodgy market of mental health clinics elsewhere in the world, set up specifically to provide paperwork for an application—that is not fanciful. We know the huge pressure from the black market abroad, involving people smugglers and all sorts of behaviour that is not just immoral but illegal and abhorrent, to get people into this country, because of course it is a great place to live and build a life. We know that the pressure is already there; that is why we have such high numbers coming. Setting out in law a mental illness route that seems to have such a low bar for evidence could lead, I think, to an entirely new dodgy avenue opening up. Let us envisage a very real type of application. Someone in this country says that a family member or close friend living in another part of the world has a mental illness and a certificate to prove it. However, that certificate could very well come from a clinic that does not adhere to the standards of the NHS, the Care Quality Commission or anything that could be recognised in this country. That bit of paperwork—the bottom of which says, by the way, “Sorry, there is no support at home”—could give rise to an application. Without any evidence to the contrary, I do not see how the Home Office—or indeed a court—could deny that application.
Will the Minister give way?
What would happen if someone were living here, but their child was overseas with the other parent—they were cohabiting there, not with the parent here—but the parent overseas died? What happens to the child? I cannot see a provision by which the child can come here, because there was no core cohabiting family arrangement.
5. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support the creation of jobs for young people.
Jobs and opportunities for young people have dried up over the last two years because the Government have made it more expensive to employ them. On the Isle of Wight, this has compounded our pre-existing structural problems. Will the Government now do the right thing and halve national insurance contributions for employing under-25s, to help grow more opportunities and jobs for young people?
Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I associate myself with everything that was said in the previous urgent question about the fiasco of the sustainable farming incentive. We meet today on the fifth anniversary of the death—the murder—of Sir David Amess. I know that all colleagues will want to join me in celebrating David, his perennial optimism, his beaming smile, his enormous gift for friendship, and his unfailing energy in assisting and supporting his constituents. The independent report into his murder led by Sir Robert Buckland cannot come too soon. I have three matters to raise. The first relates indirectly to David Amess. As the Leader of the House will know, at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister described the man charged with the murder of our former colleague Ann Widdecombe as the man “responsible” for her murder. That statement breached the legal presumption of innocence, discussed a case that is sub judice and misled the House. It must have been inadvertent, but there has been no clarification yet—
As I think I said, whatever took place was inadvertent, but there has been no clarification from the Prime Minister or any Minister, no withdrawal of the remark and no apology. That is deeply disrespectful of this House and of the Chair. Will the Leader of the House correct the record, withdraw the remark and apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister? Secondly, as the House will know, Manchester City have been found guilty by an independent commission of 114 of the 115 charges brought against them by the Premier League, including inaccurate financial reporting, undisclosed remuneration and failure to co-operate with the investigations. This week, having previously been neutral on the issue, the Prime Minister sought to distance himself personally from the club and its owners. Otherwise, he and Ministers have remained remarkably quiet, especially since his club, Everton, had an eight-point deduction for two breaches—112 fewer than have been found here—just three years ago. Will the Leader of the House set out the Government’s position? Do they regard the breaches as extremely serious, or do they believe that a few eggs may have been broken, but broadly speaking everything is all right? When will we get a statement from the Sport Minister on the subject? Finally, last November, I highlighted the severe flooding suffered by Ewyas Harold in my constituency. Homes were inundated, people and businesses were evacuated, and families were left with huge financial and emotional costs. Insurance premiums have gone up—if insurance remains available at all. The school, the doctors’ surgery and access for emergency services were cut off. Other nearby villages, including Clodock, Kentchurch and Allt-yr-ynys were similarly afflicted. Yet now, 11 months later, despite an all-parties meeting that I convened last March and repeated representations to Ministers, the Environment Agency and Herefordshire council, there has been no substantive progress. The Government Office for Science believes El Niño is likely to be bigger than ever this year. My constituents are deeply anxious that floods this winter will drive them yet again from their homes and businesses. Fixing that does not require some vast engineering project. Better drainage, watercourse maintenance, management of run-off and other practical mitigations could all make the difference. However, the residents are in a Catch-22 situation that will be familiar to many people across this House: no one in authority is taking any responsibility, but people are not allowed by law to help themselves. The works could all be done legally, quickly and effectively this year by local companies at less than half the cost of the EA’s framework contractors, but that is prohibited. No one will come to the aid of these people, but put one foot into the watercourse just to clear the debris, and they risk prosecution. I have made a formal Budget submission to the Chancellor on that matter. Will the Leader of the House now take it up personally with the Chancellor and the Environment Secretary and make funding this scheme the first order of business for the Government’s new floods resilience taskforce?
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the Minister have any idea how long it takes to design and then apply for an SFI? All that is then chucked away in a six-hour lottery. The Minister’s response today—he has got his back to me; he is not even listening to my question—has been symbolic of the shrugged-shoulders attitude that the lanyard classes have had to farmers for far too long. He has had two and a half years to fix the problem—if, as he says, he inherited it. Does he even understand the boiling sense of frustration and anger that farmers have?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing this debate. I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on this issue over many years. Smoking remains the single largest preventable cause of cancer, and the prize for tackling it is enormous: fewer deaths, shorter waiting lists and a healthier country. We on the Opposition Benches will support action that works and will hold the Government to account on the delivery of it. As has been mentioned, common ground has been found on this subject throughout the House. I am glad to put on record my party’s appreciation and my thanks to the Government for carrying a Conservative Bill over the line when what was for most of us a rather unexpected general election interrupted progress. Let me start with that record. The ambition for England to be smoke-free by 2030 was set under a Conservative Government in 2019. The Khan review, commissioned by a Conservative Health Secretary, called for investment in a Smokefree 2030 programme, a rising age of sale, vaping as a substitute for smoking, and stop smoking support at the heart of the NHS. In 2023, we committed an extra £70 million a year to local stop smoking services, more than doubling annual spend to £138 million. Swap to Stop gave almost one in five smokers in England a vape starter kit alongside behavioural support. We put stop smoking advisers in maternity units and introduced incentives for pregnant smokers to stop, and smoking at time of delivery is now at an all-time low. We also began targeted lung cancer screening. Before the election, as I said, we published the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I served on the Bill Committee alongside the hon. Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for City of Durham, so we remember the cross-party consensus that there was for most of that Bill. The outcome was that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally allowed to buy tobacco. We are proud of that and want it to work, but a law on the statute book does not cut smoking rates by itself. What happens next is what counts, and I want to raise five points with the Minister. The first is about the target. The Office for National Statistics tells us that 9.8% of adults, or about 4.9 million people, smoked in 2025. That was down from 10.6% the year before. Of course that is welcome, but smoke-free, in definition, means below 5%. On this trajectory, unfortunately, the 2030 target will be missed. I do not say that to point-score, but candour matters. Canada has set a target of under 5% by 2035, and Belgium and the Netherlands a target of under 5% by 2040, with interim targets and goals for young people. If the Government accept the Office for National Statistics figures and that the 2030 target will be missed, they should say so, set a new date and publish an outline plan. Cancer Research UK and ASH both want a new road map and tobacco control plan. Will the Minister commit to one, and when? Secondly, on support to quit, ASH has warned that hospitals stop smoking services are being squeezed as ICB budgets are reduced. The Government promised opt-out cessation support in routine hospital care. So where is it? The national cancer plan lists implementing the Act as a key action and promises to fund stop smoking services, but it says very little on the delivery. A target without a funded service is an aspiration, not a policy. That support must also reach the people who need it most. In the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, I noted that manual and routine workers are 2.6 times more likely to smoke than managers. ASH now points to social housing, the economically inactive, people with no qualifications and those with poor mental health. How will the Government ensure that these gains are shared? Thirdly, on enforcement and proportionality, Ministers are bringing in a ban on free samples from 29 October; a marketing and sponsorship ban from June of next year; wider standardised packaging, flavour and design rules; licensing; planning permission requirements for vape shops; and extended smoke-free places. All of that regulation lands on trading standards and councils. In the Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asked trading standards witnesses whether they would have the resources. I warned that online and cross-border sales are the hardest to police. A rule that is not enforced is not really a rule. So what extra resources will trading standards receive, and when? Rules must also be proportionate. The Government have taken wide powers to extend smoke-free places. The amendment my hon. Friend tabled to the Bill to limit them to places with a provable significant risk to public health was unfortunately rejected. In Committee, I asked the then Minister for a firm commitment on outdoor hospitality; unfortunately, essentially saying that it might not be the right time is not a decent response. Pubs and restaurants are under all sorts of pressures. Will the Minister therefore confirm that they are not in scope in terms of their outside seating? Fourthly, on vaping, we have always backed vaping as a route out of smoking for adults, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) said. In Committee, I said that what worries me most for our children is vapes. However, the Government can hold both positions at once, and the disposable vape ban, in force since June last year, was a step towards that. ASH suggests that disposable use has fallen significantly, which is encouraging. Yet, Ministers have said little about what they have found from that. As the Government review planning rules and business rates for vape shops, protecting children must be foremost. For example, on flavours, I urge the Minister to look hard at restricting the names that appeal to children—we talked about unicorn milk and the like endlessly in Committee—before removing options that help adults quit. I would also ask the Minister to revisit the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) for exempting mental health settings from the vape vending machines ban. Finally, on lung health, respiratory disease is the third most common cause of death in the UK, yet there is no modern service framework for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham tabled an amendment to the Health Bill requiring one within 18 months. Unfortunately, Government Ministers rejected it. Asthma + Lung UK has called for exactly that kind of mission for lung health. The Government have also committed to a full roll-out of lung cancer screening by 2030—a programme that the Conservative party started. Is it on track and is it funded? I want to close by paying tribute to a constituent, Yolanda, a volunteer for Cancer Research UK in my community, who has given her time to raise awareness of these issues. She lost her husband, and I put on record my condolences and my thanks. It is people like her working across our constituencies who remind us why the delivery of this is so important and why it matters. Will the Minister publish a new target and plan? Will she fund hospital stop smoking services and deliver opt-out support? Will she resource trading standards, rule out the hospitality element, report on the disposal vapes ban and reconsider a framework for respiratory disease? We all want this Act to succeed and I will support her in any way I can to deliver it.
As if the farmers in my constituency did not have their heads in their hands enough over this Government’s attitude to farming, this latest debacle—turning something so important to our farmers’ livelihoods into some sort of perverse six-hour first-finger-on-the-buzzer game show—has them even more in despair. I am afraid that the Minister’s “nothing to see here” answers will cause even more distress. Perhaps he can address some of the detail. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), asked him a very, very specific question about the £210 million difference between the value of expiring agreements, valued at over £520 million, and the £310 million SFI budget. Where is that difference? Where is it going to be spent and when?
How we pay for infrastructure is a matter that the House needs to take extraordinarily seriously. When the Government announced that they would bring forward measures set out in the King’s Speech on using private finance to build new roads, Labour Members should not have been surprised. After all, the Prime Minister was one of the most effective defenders of PFI schemes in the NHS during his previous time in government, and as Mayor of Greater Manchester his effusive praise of the investment from Manchester City shows his willingness to back private finance. It should therefore come as little surprise that the Government are interested in how we can leverage private funding for our roads. The Minister set out in his opening remarks that this is the biggest change in this area since the 18th century. Well, the Bill does indeed once more open the back door to highway robbery. Having reflected on the debate and listened to the contributions of hon. Members from across the House, I think that most hon. Members recognise the importance of finding innovative methods to build infrastructure. Members from across the House can look at examples of cost overruns on infrastructure—particularly on the lower Thames crossing—that has used private money and incentives to increase road capacity and improve the experience for drivers. As the Government’s own slightly outdated figures in their impact assessment set out, the vast majority of miles travelled across our country are travelled in our cars, and over two thirds of freight is transported on the strategic road network. That point shone through in many of the contributions. We started with the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and his public service safety announcement. He was followed quickly by the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who, in true third-party style, could not muster up a speech without a European comparison. He was followed quickly by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who brought us his memories of 1991 and Her late Majesty, focused on a case of private enterprise at its very best: the QEII bridge. He then shared ideas with the House, based on his ministerial experience. His points on London’s bridges were particularly well made.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Many moons ago, he and I were Conservative councillors in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. I remember in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on that council—we had a small electoral mishap, and the Labour party had taken control of the council once more—trying to call out the Labour-run council for failing to take the steps necessary to put a plan in place to fix Hammersmith bridge. Today, it remains closed to traffic. That is a bridge owned by the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham—it is Labour-run, and it is a Labour failure to get that bridge open again.
I think I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch put some ideas in front of the House that are not necessarily shared by the Conservative Front Benchers. However, his fundamental point—that we have London bridges closed to traffic, and Labour councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham are failing to fix them—desperately needs to be addressed in the interests of motorists in London, and in particular the residents of the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, and of Richmond.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. We will come on to those charges later. One thing that has shone through in this debate is that no one can tell us—unless the Minister pulls a rabbit from a hat in his wind-up and gives us a figure—what the charge will be to use the lower Thames crossing once it is built.
The hon. Gentleman wants me to get on to road charging, but I do not think that the Labour party wants me to go through the record of the Labour Mayor of London; he introduced the ULEZ and hiked the congestion charge to unaffordable levels. To move on to another London Member of Parliament, the Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) said that she wanted more powers for the ORR on sustainability, as if banning diesel and HVO in the construction of the lower Thames crossing was not bonkers enough. However, I agree with her about HGV driver facilities. I remember in the last Parliament serving alongside her on the Transport Committee when we did an important report on that and visited Thurrock services. The lorry driver was not what I would classically call delighted when the whole Select Committee was shown the shower facilities that he was using at the time to see that the tiles were falling off and everything was not fully in order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) injected some common sense into the debate, asking serious questions steeped in the history of the project that affects his constituents. He mentioned their scepticism about the cost and the opening date of the lower Thames crossing. We also heard thoughtful contributions from the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson). The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), raised a fundamental question during his opening remarks: is this the right type of legislation? Why on earth have the Government drafted the Bill in a way that could feasibly allow charges be to be imposed simply for using roads beyond the tolls? Why is that a concern? Well, to quote clause 3 of the Bill: “A licensing authority may grant a licence to a person authorising the person to charge tolls in respect of the use or keeping of road vehicles on a highway specified in the licence, in return for the person securing works involving…the maintenance, operation or improvement of a highway specified in the licence which has been…constructed in pursuance of the licence or another licence under this section”. I fear we risk smuggling in charges on drivers through the back door, and are opening the door to the tolling of the M25 and beyond. At a time when drivers are getting squeezed at the pump and the Government are cancelling multiple schemes, we must be completely clear that the Bill as it stands is not acceptable. That is why my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State tabled our sensible reasoned amendment. We cannot pass a Bill that could impose costs on drivers without a requirement to deliver significantly increased capacity and new schemes. The Government say that only new big roads will be included, but they have failed to explain why the Bill allows new infrastructure to fall within the scope of tolling. The use of the term “infrastructure” may paint a picture of an entirely new road scheme, but what is there to stop it being something as small as a new set of smart motorway cameras? The Government may protest that that is unfeasible. If so, why will they not amend the Bill to make that abundantly clear? They should put it on the face of the Bill. By going well beyond the scope of the lower Thames crossing, the legislation puts in place a scheme that is not fit for purpose. If we do not limit its scope, I fear that the words of the president of the AA will be ringing in the ears of drivers. He has said that drivers already pay for roads through £34 billion in fuel duty and road taxes, so extra charges across the road network would be a “toll too far”. As I said earlier, no one can tell us what the tolls for private motorists and HGV drivers will be. We want the Government to bear down on the costs of building, which make such projects so expensive. That is why we announced at the Conservative party conference that we would leave the Aarhus convention and tackle the rules that allow costly and protracted legal challenges. If we want to achieve low toll prices for drivers and incentivise private investment to build the project at a lower cost, we must reduce the regulatory burden on those involved, as opposed to imposing burdens such as banning diesel machinery. We should use equipment that is cost-effective to get the best deal for motorists, rather than trying to achieve ideological purity. It is not merely the costs that we have to consider; there is also the structure of the scheme. As has been noted, the RAB model used by the Government will be dependent on the work of the Office of Rail and Road. At a time when the Government are trying to restrict the powers available to the ORR to uphold competition in rail, the organisation that will regulate the scheme will have to have regard to matters including efficiency and economy, the ability of licence holders to finance their licensed activities, safety, impacts on the wider strategic road network, sustainable development, competition and regulatory best practice. It is one rule for road and another for rail, with no consistency from this Government. That really matters. As the Government’s own impact assessment sets out, using the RAB model for the strategic road network would be a new application of the model. In the literature about the scheme, one of the central principles is the need for a regulator that can control costs and serve drivers. The ORR may be able to achieve that, but we are going in blind. We need complete clarity from the Government about how the scheme will actually work, in addition to answers to the fair questions that have been raised by Members from across the House about the tolling regime. We cannot treat drivers like a piggy bank. At the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister told the country that people “need breathing space now”, and that he was “determined to provide it.” If Labour MPs want to follow the Prime Minister’s words, they must send a clear message back: unless this Bill clearly prohibits charging drivers for using existing roads, it cannot be allowed to pass through this House.
May I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the amazing work done by care workers day in, day out across our country? Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and Governments with Liberal Democrats in them have all been unable to find a way to implement significant changes for the future of social care. That is not, I suspect, from a lack of desire, but due to the complexities of doing so and of securing a degree of meaningful agreement across the parties in this House. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the contours of what the cross-party discussions and the Casey commission can consider and potentially conclude are in no way predetermined by the Prime Minister’s announcement?
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing the debate and all hon. and right hon. Members on their very thoughtful and, at times, moving contributions. As we heard during the debate, across the United Kingdom 5.8 million people provide unpaid care. Those carers collect prescriptions, organise appointments and help with all aspects of personal care, and many do so either before or after they have done a full working day. For millions of families up and down the country, this has become part and parcel of ordinary life, but we should never underestimate the toll it takes over time. Of those 5.8 million carers, 1.7 million provide at least 50 hours of care each week—more than a full-time working week—and they often do it alongside employment or while raising a family or managing their own personal health needs. Of course, caring responsibilities rarely fit neatly within the timetable that defines our normal week. Likewise, the way that care, and the need for it, presents itself is often varied and complex. For some, it can come with little forewarning; they may need it after a sudden accident, such as a catastrophic spinal injury. For others, it comes much more incrementally, over a period of time: needing help with shopping becomes needing help with medication, or an occasional visit becomes a daily necessity. Eventually, it can feel as though it is becoming all consuming. Clearly, individuals must adapt because someone they love needs that help. However, our services must adapt, too. Too often we assume rather than asking whether the person who is undertaking the care is able to manage, and whether they have been shown what to do or how to use the necessary equipment and so forth. It is worth remembering that a relative’s presence is not in itself a care plan, and nor should their willingness to help be taken as proof that they do not need any support themselves. We have heard a plethora of examples of what happens when those questions are ignored. One can only imagine the frustration encountered by so many carers who are forced to describe their circumstances, often repeatedly, only for nothing to happen. That risks leaving the carer carrying entirely the same burden and responsibility as they had beforehand, but with less confidence that if they ask in the future it will make an iota of difference, and consequently, potentially, with declining physical and mental wellbeing. Others are forced to cut back on essentials just to make ends meet. These individuals deserve a clear plan from the Government. Carers frequently find themselves putting the needs of those they care for above their own. As we have heard, employment can become more challenging, which often leads people to reduce their hours in order to make caring manageable, which of course has a knock-on impact on their income. Some are ultimately forced to leave work, which brings further financial pressures and often makes returning to the workplace much harder. As a society, we should be helping people preserve their working life wherever possible. Work provides not only financial freedom, but an environment where carers are recognised for achievements beyond their incredibly commendable responsibilities as carers. We must remember, too, that many older carers are managing their own fragility, and that younger carers are often in education and their own childhoods can be affected. Support must reflect people’s different circumstances rather than assuming that every family can manage in entirely the same way. Alan Milburn’s interim review identified around 300,000 informal carers aged between 16 and 24. It described young carers as “one of the least visible groups in the NEET conversation and one of the most systematically miscounted.” A young person who misses college, declines an apprenticeship interview or struggles to attend a job or university may be managing responsibilities that somebody has simply not asked about. In those circumstances, it cannot be right that their commitment to a loved one should cost them opportunities. The previous Conservative Government took action through the 2018 carers action plan, the carers innovation fund and support for statutory carer’s leave. I welcome this Government’s publication of the unpaid carers action plan in July. The task now is to ensure that those commitments actually reach the people the plan is intended to help. With that in mind, I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, with NHS England to be abolished by April 2027, who will have ownership of the actions in the unpaid carers plan thereafter? Secondly, NHS England currently has powers to support service integration between local authorities and the NHS and for the functions of the better care fund, a major source of funding and resourcing for unpaid carers. The BCF in its current form requires the NHS and local authorities to pool budgets for the purpose of service integration, as there is a requirement to use section 75 agreements. That means that to pool budgets, the BCF must involve local authorities. The impact assessment for the Health Bill sets out that, following the abolition of NHS England, that function will be conferred on the Secretary of State. In addition, what is currently a mandatory requirement on the use of section 75 will change to a discretionary power. In short, the Secretary of State will retain the power to require pooled budgets should they wish, but that will not be the default position, as is currently the case. Does the Minister share the concerns of carers’ charities that this change may lead to significant cuts for schemes that support unpaid carers? Thirdly, the Prime Minister set out in his conference speech the bare bones of a plan for a national care service. The Government have of course proposed to fund that through reforms to the triple lock. However, those reforms will, self-evidently, not be sufficient to fund and deliver such a service. Notwithstanding the statement in the main Chamber earlier today, the details of the funding still appear to be somewhat lacking. Much more detail of what the Government are proposing is needed. Do the Government intend to set out further details of how the national care service will be funded, and will the Minister rule out increased borrowing or tax rises to fund it? The Conservatives look forward to working constructively on this issue. It is an important issue that we all face in our inbox every day, but for too long, across the political spectrum, we have kicked it down the track and not got a grip of it. In that spirit, we look forward to the ongoing cross-party talks on the issue. Ultimately, the marker of success must be whether carers can obtain the help that they need, are able to access respite breaks when they need them, and can look after their own health and wellbeing at the same time. That of course requires proper policy consideration, not just headline announcements, and I hope the Minister is able to provide greater clarity on that front today.
The Minister is a good man; I worked with him to secure funding on schools when he was the Minister for Early Education. Will he simply say sorry to those small farmers who were out working in Hinckley and Bosworth, and up and down the country, who do not have a land agent to get the application in within six hours? Will he show some contrition and simply say that on his watch the scheme did not work but that he will learn the lessons, and will he simply say sorry?
Over the summer, we had a massive fly-tip in Hinkley. Make no mistake—it is a criminal act and those involved need to be held accountable, but so does the landowner. In this case, that is the Liberal Democrat-run borough council. When two JCBs come in and drop 2,500 tonnes of waste, someone needs to be held accountable. The questions rightly being asked are: what was done to secure this site, and what was done to clear it up? The bill will be £1.3 million. I have taken up the council’s request to write to DEFRA to ask for help, but I have not yet heard back. Would the Leader of the House use his good offices to follow up with DEFRA, while I follow up with the borough council about what it is doing?
Many farms in Wiltshire are marginal at best, and now that they are having to divert investment into a pot to pay future inheritance taxes, they are being pushed over the edge, to be honest. What does the Minister think this latest will do for those businesses, and what assessment has he made, regardless of the attribution of blame, of how many farms will actually be sold up—families packing up and going away—as a result of this latest round of DEFRA incompetence?
Can we have a debate in Government time on the increasingly feral behaviour of residential property management companies such as FirstPort, Remus and Fexco, which are blighting the lives of too many of our constituents with unreasonable financial demands and a complete lack of accountability and transparency? This has gone on for too long, and there is an opportunity with the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill for Ministers to do something about it. Can one of them come to the House to explain what they will do?
The trauma of care that the Minister refers to includes keeping frail elderly people in acute hospital units well beyond their date of expected discharge. That is dreadful for them. It means that they are likely to succumb to hospital-acquired infections and the various other things that are attendant on hospital stays. It means that they are not in homely settings in the community, which is where they need to be and where their families want them to be—and at a quarter of the cost of keeping them in an acute hospital unit. Will the national care service incorporate savings that can be made through our NHS by getting people the care that they need—that is to say, care in the community rather than in busy acute hospital beds?