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

11,997 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Nadia Whittome

   Local Government Reorganisation

   Councils have spent considerable time and resources building the case for local government reorganisation, including by producing robust financial analysis, housing data, work on the social care impact and work on the impact on travel-to-work areas. Today’s announcement raises serious questions for any future timetable. Will the Minister confirm if councils are expected to go back to the drawing board and negotiate with surrounding councils on new boundaries? If so, how can they be expected to do that by January while meaningfully consulting their residents?

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Nadia Whittome

   Budget Resolutions

   I welcome many of the measures in the Budget: policies to lower energy bills and the price of a food shop, support for our high streets, the assurance that every penny of the mineworkers’ pension scheme surplus will go to former miners, and our continued commitment to supporting Ukraine’s defences. The Government are absolutely right to double the fund to end rough sleeping, and the extra £1.5 billion for 10,000 social and affordable homes is very welcome. I am glad that the Government are tackling this issue with such ambition. However, if we are to reverse 40 years of neo-liberalism, we must apply that same ambition to every area where people are struggling. We have the deepest poverty levels in 30 years. Rents and mortgages, food prices and bills are spiralling, and wages simply are not keeping pace. Despite the increase in funding in recent years, public services are still under severe pressure. We cannot expect people to endure this fall in living standards, and to keep going without, while the super-rich get richer. I recognise that the Government are in a difficult position as a result of the global economy, but it is their job to shield people from the shocks, and to build stronger protections for the future. That is why we must be bolder in taxing wealth. We could fairly raise billions of pounds to fund our public services, strengthen social security and renationalise essentials, such as water and energy. I welcome measures to tax banks and raise property income tax, but we must go further and take impactful measures, such as a reform of capital gains tax. The current system encourages people to convert labour income into capital gains, hoard wealth and leave the UK without paying their fair share. This measure could raise £20 billion a year—enough to fund a national care service. We could <span id="531" class="column-number" data-column-number="531"></span>expand national insurance contributions to cover investment income and partnerships. That could raise £6 billion a year, which could fund higher local housing allowance rates. We could replace council tax and stamp duty with a proportional property tax, which could raise £5.6 billion a year and leave most people better off. And, of course, we could introduce an annual wealth tax at 2% for individuals who have wealth of over £10 million; that could raise £24 billion a year. As the Chancellor said, we need fresh hope for the future, but hope cannot come from words alone. We cannot paper over the cracks of a rigged economic system. It is this Labour Government’s duty to fundamentally transform our economy, so that it is just and resilient, and shifts wealth and power back to working-class people.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Julie Minns

   Ofcom

   The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about villages. In my constituency, a number of villages do not have a shop or a bus, and so on, but they did have the public switched telephone network. Ofcom has overseen the switch-off of that old copper network infrastructure, but it has not placed an obligation on Openreach to communicate with the people who are losing their telephony. Does she agree that it is not too late in the day for Ofcom to put Openreach on the hook for communicating with people who are about to lose their copper network?

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Julie Minns

   Ofcom

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, I think for the second time this week. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this important debate. She made a critical point in her final remarks about the effectiveness of Ofcom and whether we are overdue a review. It is 26 years since Ofcom was set up, and the changes in modern communication that we have seen in that time have been profound. It is a very valid point. Before entering Parliament, I worked in mobile telecommunications for 13 years. During that time, I saw how Government policy and regulatory frameworks shape competition, investment and consumer choices <span id="247WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="247WH"></span>and outcomes. One lesson that I took from that experience is that spectrum policy matters enormously. Spectrum is not simply a technical issue for regulators. It is one of the most powerful tools available to support competition, investment and innovation in mobile. Back in 2000—I am that old—the UK’s 3G spectrum auction demonstrated that point very clearly. Competition sat at the heart of the then Labour Government’s policy. The result was a highly competitive mobile 3G market that encouraged substantial investment in infrastructure, rapid innovation and major benefits for consumers. Over time, and I am afraid to say particularly due to the decisions taken in the early 2010s by Conservative Ministers, that competitive landscape shifted. Spectrum holdings that were held for the use of mobile data became increasingly less equal, and the opportunities to strengthen genuine infrastructure competition were missed. As a result, some of the benefits that came from a competitive 3G market were lost. Much is said about competition in telecommunications, and rightly so. Consumers can choose from a wide range of broadband and mobile providers. That competition helps drive innovation, service quality and value for money. However, we should not confuse retail competition with infrastructure competition. True competition depends not only on the number of brands selling services, but on competition between the networks that underpin those services. Without effective infrastructure competition, consumers might appear to have plenty of choice, but what they do not have is plenty of coverage—certainly not in rural areas such as my constituency. Spectrum sits at the heart of that challenge. It is a finite national asset, on which every mobile call, message and wireless data connection depends, and the way it is allocated has a profound impact on investment coverage and long-term market structure. Ofcom, therefore, has a critical responsibility to ensure that spectrum policy promotes genuine competition, supports investment and delivers benefits to consumers in every part of the country, including rural and hard-to-reach communities. Spectrum policy should strengthen rather than simply reinforce the position of the operators that already hold significant advantages in low-frequency spectrum in particular, which is critical for delivering rural and indoor coverage. However, I do not believe that responsibility rests solely with Ofcom. Spectrum is one of the most valuable public assets this country possesses. Decisions about how it is used shape competition, investment, innovation and coverage for decades. Those decisions should be informed by a clear national strategy set by Government. We have long-term strategies for transport, energy and digital infrastructure. There is a strong case for a clear, long-term spectrum strategy that sets out how spectrum allocation will support economic growth, innovation, network resilience and genuine infrastructure competition. Infrastructure competition is not, on its own, enough. We must also look at the resilience of our mobile networks, because mobile connectivity is now an essential service. People rely on it to access banking, public services, transport information, employment and emergency assistance. Businesses rely on it to operate, communicate and serve their customers. When networks fail, the consequences are no longer merely inconvenient. Outages can disrupt livelihoods, affect public confidence and leave people unable to access services on which they depend. <span id="248WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="248WH"></span>That makes Ofcom’s work on network resilience critical. Mobile operators must be expected to maintain robust infrastructure, communicate clearly with customers when problems occur and learn lessons when failures happen. Resilience should not be treated as an aspiration; it should be a core obligation. However, currently, it is left simply to Ofcom guidance. Reliable mobile connectivity is now part of our critical national infrastructure. It underpins growth, services and everyday life, and the public rightly expect networks to be dependable. I ask the Minister: is guidance on something as critical as mobile resilience sufficient? Should Ofcom not instead require the mobile networks to have back-up power to their mobile masts? That does not have to be permanent back-up; it could be a fleet of electricity generators that can be taken to masts in the event of power outages. I do not believe guidance is sufficient. My second question is: do the Government believe that citizens and consumers, which Ofcom has a dual duty towards, would benefit from a clearer national spectrum strategy from Government working alongside Ofcom? Thirdly, does the current regulatory framework provide sufficient tools to promote infrastructure competition? Ultimately, consumers need more than a choice of provider; they need confidence that the networks on which they depend deliver the coverage they need, that they are resilient and reliable, and that Government, regulators and industries are working towards a clear, long-term plan to fully utilise one of the most important assets our country has.

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Julie Minns

   Active Travel

   <Question HRSContentId="{EE06A08E-5BFA-4AA8-9BB8-08E9CDEA8E88}">18. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{BA27D50B-FD96-4589-A17F-D4489F268437}">What steps she is taking to promote active travel.</QuestionText> </Question>

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Julie Minns

   Active Travel

   To continue the theme of the Tour de France, after it leaves the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), it will finish its first leg in Carlisle. We can all agree that cycling and e-bikes play an important role in active travel. However, many Labour Members have become very concerned about illegal e-bikes that do not meet the definition of an electrically assisted pedal cycle, which are doing great damage to the reputation of cycling. Will the Minister meet me and other Labour Members to discuss a ban on the sale of illegal e-bikes, so that we can focus on the positives of cycling in this Tour de France year?

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Ms Julie Minns

   Business of the House

   I add my congratulations to Harry Kane, but let me also say how proud we remain of the success of our Lionesses—not just on the field, but off the field—in inspiring young girls to play. However, I have become aware that a girls’ coach in <span id="446" class="column-number" data-column-number="446"></span>Carlisle is unable to access the UEFA A licence because her role as a coach in the girls’ emerging talent centre is excluded from the Football Association’s priority criteria, whereas a coach in the equivalent boys’ pathway is not. I have written to the FA, but its response states that it does not intend to change that. Could the Leader of the House advise me how we in this place can make the FA think again and ensure that opportunities available to female coaches in the women’s game are not confined to the large clubs and the top tier?

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Sharon Hodgson

   Airport Drop-off Charges

   <Question HRSContentId="{110D0723-6F95-46BB-A6C9-352400E2C42E}">4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{3DEBF986-FE90-4119-9967-37FF2BF5E501}">What assessment she has made of the potential impact of increases in airport drop-off fees on airport users.</QuestionText> </Question>

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Sharon Hodgson

   Airport Drop-off Charges

   I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am sure he recognises that drop-off charges at UK airports have risen sharply in recent years, with Newcastle now charging £6, while London Stansted and Gatwick both charge £10, even though drop-offs are totally free at most major European airports, including eight of Europe’s 10 busiest. The airports justify it as a much-needed income stream, but for many travellers it feels more like pinching the pockets of hard-working families. The Minister mentioned the review; is he able to elaborate on the promise to review those charges? Will the review address the issues of affordability and accessibility for my constituents?

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Sharon Hodgson

    Business of the House

    This month marks Obsessive-compulsive Disorder Awareness Month. Last week, I had the privilege of meeting young Ellis at Lord Lawson of Beamish academy in my constituency. Ellis was diagnosed with OCD at a young age and has raised over £2,000 for OCD-UK. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Ellis on that incredible achievement, and consider a debate in Government time on improving awareness of OCD and access to support for young people?

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Sharon Hodgson

    Sodium Valproate

    Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being late to the debate. The early start caught me somewhat by surprise. As my hon. Friend is aware—she may have touched on this already—the Hughes report is excellent. It gave a blueprint, right down to the amounts involved, for how a redress model could be put in place and facilitated. It has been over two years since the Hughes report. I know that there has been a change of Government, but this Government have been in for over two years now. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time the Government came forward and accepted the recommendations of the Hughes report?

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mrs Sharon Hodgson

    Sodium Valproate

    I know that my right hon. Friend, with her experience of leading the infected blood campaign, is best placed to deliver for all these victims of mesh and valproate—maybe Primodos as well, although that was <span id="553" class="column-number" data-column-number="553"></span>not covered in the Hughes report. I would like to add one other thing to her list, if I may, and that is payments from big pharma to the health sector. They really do have to be disclosed. At the moment, they are ambiguous and misleading, and lump sum payments can hide a multitude of payments. Does she agree that, to prevent future injustices, it is time for the Government to enact a statutory approach to payment transparency in the health sector?

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Paul Foster

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    The hon. Member’s new clause proposes a cost-benefit analysis of each bilateral immigration and asylum agreement or arrangement in force. How many individual agreements are we are talking about?

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Alex Barros-Curtis

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{54456813-CBD8-4A89-945F-4FFAA2200D5B}">T4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{BF647E39-45F9-4611-8F4A-6FC4E118F3DA}"></QuestionText>The recent announcement that 7 Steel will supply Heathrow expansion with low-carbon steel production will be essential both to decarbonise our transport infrastructure and to protect Welsh workers. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that lower-carbon Welsh steel is used in all major rail and transport infrastructure projects?</Question>

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C540E11D-B5AB-4EF1-91C1-EA47767FFE11}"> </QNum></strong> I want to clarify something, because it is important that we do not speculate. To deliver a scheme under the regulated <span id="9" class="column-number" data-column-number="9"></span>asset base model, it has to have a certain scale and it needs to be developed with that in mind. You said that the model could be used for other schemes. What other projects under development in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline are you referencing? <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> I cannot point to anything else in the Government’s programme that specifically lends itself to that case. I have found myself wondering whether, having been announced and dis-announced many times, the Stonehenge tunnel might reappear under something like it as another key link on a longer arterial route, but I do not have a list.

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E3B15BA1-0324-47F2-B3E1-4FE7BDDFFFF8}"> </QNum></strong> There may not be other schemes. The engineering challenges with the A303 probably outweigh any benefits of using finance through RAB. Could you both set out whether you think independent regulation under this model would give stronger consumer protection, particularly in the light of evidence you have given, Edmund, that the M6 toll and Dartford have perhaps not been managed in the best interests of the public? Will independent regulation be a better solution for taxpayers? <em><strong>Edmund King:</strong></em> I do not know whether there has to be independent regulation, but there should be a greater degree of independence alongside the ORR. The ORR to date has had much more to do with railways than roads. Yes, it is the overseeing body of National Highways, but I think five of the ORR executives are from railway backgrounds and two are from road. It needs to be strengthened there. I still feel that there should be, alongside the ORR, an independent body that looks at things such as the level of tolls and feasibility. If drivers are going to be paying a higher toll to use these crossings, if a crossing is not working for some reason—for example, if there are roadworks or incidents that need clearing up—it should be a two-way process and drivers should get money back. If this really is an independent business model, it has to work both ways. Under this regulated model, you could push it a bit further to give that degree of independence. That might be through the stakeholder group and you would then change how it is reported, but I certainly think it would help. <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> The independence is of more importance on the other side of the equation. If the investment world does not have reassurance that tolls will be set at a level that enables it to remunerate its efficient cost, it will be more suspicious. As I have dealt with in my past, historically, the political pressure has been to keep the charges and tolls down. If anything, consumer pressure is greater politically than it is for the regulator. That is why it is important that the regulator has a clear duty on consumer protection, as Mr King and I are saying.

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{0A967DE4-6713-4CA4-9B75-CAEC659B6BCC}"> </QNum></strong> On that point, for the investor to get a return, it is on them to keep tolls at a reasonable level and the road open. It would be counterintuitive for them not to fix roadworks quickly, because they want people to go through to pay the toll, and you do not want to set a high toll if that would put off your users. <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> They will certainly want the income—there is no question about that. We are comparing it with the M6 toll—one of very few examples of this in this country—where there is an alternative, free-of-charge <span id="10" class="column-number" data-column-number="10"></span>route. Here, the operating cost for commercial traffic to go around to the west of London, for example, would realistically make that a much less viable alternative.

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{F5B11FA4-A985-45F4-8175-F123D67C32D8}"> </QNum></strong> If tolling is used, what is preferable—a statutory regulator with enforceable licensing conditions, or an unregulated commercial tolling arrangement? <em><strong>Ralph Smyth:</strong></em> We heard a lot about regulation in the previous session. If you look at Ofwat and Ofgem, their income comes from lots of different companies. Whatever you might think of some of the water companies, at least that means diversity of income. You can compare that with the ORR. With nationalisation, now—or soon—all the money will be coming from the Department for Transport. It is similar for much of the road function. That is about National Highways. We are talking about only a very small bit if there is going to be only one toll scheme. If you put yourself in the shoes of an investor, would you be confident that that was an independent regulator if pretty much all its business came from one person—the Secretary of State for Transport?

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{2A2A6A06-580E-43B1-8DCA-D4544232DC50}"> </QNum></strong> My question was not whether the regulator is independent. It was whether, in general, your preference is for a regulated tolling arrangement or an unregulated commercial tolling arrangement. Which is better for the public? <em><strong>Ralph Smyth:</strong></em> I am not sure how much difference there is. The problem is that if you build an expensive road scheme with a regulated model, you can want to make it affordable, but at the end of the day, there will need to be a return for the private investor. There is the theory and then there is the reality that this is not a way of creating new money. It is either going to be paid out of public funds or, if it is going to be a regulated system—as other witnesses have said, many of the roads do not have alternatives, but it is hard to see how a regulator can really make much difference.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{018D9F94-1076-491C-81D0-0B46E3D53C33}"> </QNum></strong> For as long as I have known of LTC, although the previous Government perhaps suggested that it would be delivered by public funds, it was always assumed that it would end up going down a public-private <span id="24" class="column-number" data-column-number="24"></span>partnership route. Surely, this model delivers cheaper finance and better certainty for investors. Therefore, under a specific RAB model for the lower Thames crossing, what you suggested about investor uncertainty may not be true. <em><strong>Ralph Smyth:</strong></em> On investor certainty, the problem is that that assumes that traffic will keep growing, but, as I covered in the written evidence TAN submitted to the Committee, the latest ONS forecasts say that from about 2055, the population of the UK will be going down. I heard the Minister say that demand will only increase, but if demand starts to go down, it is a very different picture. That will mean that each user will have to pay more per journey, so it could lock you into higher, unaffordable charges.

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{18CB41F5-0953-469A-8099-6BCCAC8D40BA}"> </QNum></strong> Matt, I think you have already answered my first couple of questions: the legal requirement on climate was set in 2022 in the original direct consent order, and the requirement to use alternative fuels to diesel is not a significant cost driver in a scheme of this scale. However, reflecting on a conversation that you and I have had previously, I was wondering about the cost impact, and the impact on the project generally, of delays caused by uncertainty of finance. Would a Bill like this enable future schemes to have certainty of financing arrangements, and therefore get on site and be delivered more quickly? Is that a fair assumption? <em><strong>Matt Palmer:</strong></em> I think all of us recognise that annualised costs on major projects, especially mega-projects, are very difficult to deal with. They drive perverse cost behaviours, where you are trying to fit into a 12-month <span id="44" class="column-number" data-column-number="44"></span>window, and the Government are currently moving, with the mega-projects piece, towards more of an envelope-type conversation. This is just another extension of that. You end up with a cost envelope that you are working within, with a driven timeframe that you have to deliver to, which then allows the flexibility to execute at the right time—depending on the weather and so on. It is that flex that you need in order to execute efficiently. If you are constraining yourself on cost to a budget every year, which is common, it does drive cost. This model gives you the flex that allows you to drive an efficient construction project.

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{CB9BB7BA-9DAA-4399-AFAE-FCB237356C37}"> </QNum></strong> For those who are concerned that the capital cost of this scheme continues to rise, and it has risen since I was first involved in it many years ago, what mechanisms have you put in place specifically with your contractors to drive down cost in delivery? <em><strong>Matt Palmer:</strong></em> The base cost of the scheme—the cost without inflation—has been fixed since 2020. The great thing about a development consent order is that the scope is fixed. We are still building 52 bridges, 22 km of road and 4.3 km of tunnel. The cost difference between now and previously is essentially driven by inflation. You have got great cost control sat there inside the direct consent order. Our contracts with our contractors then drive to that same scope and control, and there is a pain/gain share: they get into pain if they exceed and they get incentivised to deliver below, which is normal with any project of this scale.

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{4A197DC1-B23C-48DE-8D14-7A8A419AE9B1}"> </QNum></strong> Will, I do not know whether you heard the earlier evidence and the thoughts about how the ORR needs to scale up and strengthen to deliver this. Do you have any reflections and what have you fed back to the Government about what the ORR needs to be able to do its role effectively on this project? <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> I hope my earlier answers go to some of that. If your question is specifically about the scope of what you were just asking Matt, it is important for us that the arrangements around what will be LTC Co. and its relationship with its contractors, and in turn what it is allowed to charge to end customers, is not a simple pass-through-type arrangement. That is really important. You need to make sure that there are the right liability caps in relation to the pain/gain sharing. Are those at the right level? Has LTC Co. or any company licensed under these arrangements—let us concentrate on the LTC example—got the right incentives to be able to control the relationship with the contractors? Through the licence and the price control arrangements we need to create arrangements in which there remains that discipline to control those costs, so it is not a set of arrangements in which, beyond a certain threshold, end users are ultimately on the hook for cost pass-through. The importance that the Bill places on efficiency in the economy and that being at the heart of our duties is something that we would take really seriously and very much welcome. It gives us the authority to be able to act on getting to those kind of price control licence arrangements. Of course, as I said earlier, the first price control arrangement would be set by the Department through that first competition for the first licence. In terms of how we operate on it thereafter, we would look to make sure there is not just a simple mechanistic pass-through in the event that costs overrun, whether for inflation or other cost shocks.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{ED20CB35-6C8A-49D8-BDC2-261E53E2B574}"> </QNum></strong> Minister, we have heard evidence that there is not a massive amount of competition for major schemes in Europe, yet competition is important to drive down the cost of capital. Do you think that the RAB model will help us to secure the best possible deal on the capital for building the lower Thames crossing? <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> I think it will. Obviously the Treasury decision on how this is going to be funded is driving us in a direction where we have to secure private investment. I think the model gives us the opportunity to give the investor certainty over a long period. Clearly, guardrails in there will protect users as well, but as I say, the <span id="59" class="column-number" data-column-number="59"></span>indications I have had so far are that the long-term nature of the project and the way in which it has been de-risked make it an attractive proposition.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{93795708-4AF2-4CDF-B4AC-10C9F32DDA0B}"> </QNum></strong> In the passage of the Bill, do we have to be careful to separate what it is about—a financing regime and addressing some of the legacy challenges of tolling in the UK—and the construction decisions made by National Highways on the type of fuel it might use, which is probably the equivalent of less than 1% of the overall construction cost? <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> As I probably made clear, the Bill is scheme agnostic, so an amendment to require a certain type of fuel would not really help us at all. Look, we have had quite a lot of evidence and, as a Committee, we should take confidence in the measures that are in place to ensure that the costs are kept under control.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{2EE56CA7-8C35-4484-B282-C2DD1BE6F389}"> </QNum></strong> We heard some evidence about 343 projects, which I think Sam from Britain Remade referred to, which included a whole range of projects delivered around the world. I did a very similar study in 2020, with a similar number of projects—I need to look at whether a bit of plagiarism is going on there in that work! We are actually very good at delivering major road projects in the UK—the A14, the Silvertown tunnel and various others. We are very good at delivering major infrastructure projects on time in the highways space in the UK. I think people need to have a bit more optimism about the delivery of this project. <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> I suppose, to pick up from one of the witnesses, I will reference the fact that the road investment strategy—which was started by the previous Government —has set us up with a very sustainable model to develop these large projects over a longer term, giving confidence to the supply chain to keep control of costs and to <span id="60" class="column-number" data-column-number="60"></span>deliver on time and within scope. I think that National Highways is now very well skilled at doing that, which should give us all confidence.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{8AAA0CE2-5F89-4BFE-B32E-F9A71409B067}"> </QNum></strong> The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that you would set out the process for setting tolls, which may address some of the concerns about what toll levels might be. Is that still the case? When will we see that during the passage of the Bill? <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> The tolls will ultimately be part of part of the licence, which is covered by the Bill—

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{F6C33FC6-814A-474E-87B6-F6B0E40D49B0}"> </QNum></strong> But the process for setting the tolls—will we see how they are to be set, with the key principles and how that is to be done, as the Bill progresses? <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> That will be part of the licence conditions, and probably a little too specific for the Bill. Obviously, there are safeguards in the Bill about the things that will need to be considered by the operator.

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{A005F41C-C0C3-42B3-B89B-1F60DA17BB65}"> </QNum></strong> As the licensing conditions are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, will you set out the core principles of what those licensing principles will be as the Bill progresses through Parliament? <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> Yes, we are happy to do that.

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    How much does the hon. Member think that undertaking an annual cost-benefit analysis would cost, given that we are outside the EU, and who would bear that cost?

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    There is a serious point here, but I also recall the hon. Member schooling all of us in this Committee on the importance of interrogating line by line, rather than giving grand, broad political speeches. I am simply asking how much he thinks his proposal would cost. He has brought it to the Committee for us to consider, and that is a reasonable question.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I take the hon. Member’s point about other clauses in the Bill. Has he at any point queried or questioned the Government about the costs, given that he is part of the Opposition?

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    I am sorry for interrupting the Minister’s flow. Does she recognise that we have managed various agreements with the EU without signing up to various pacts?

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{481DB010-FC1D-428C-8F4B-988CECFA3FFF}">T10. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{3DC85BEF-E92A-4071-9230-F1102DD4385D}"></QuestionText>The extension of the fuel duty cut to July 2027 will be welcomed by my Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituents, many of whom rely on their cars for work purposes. What more are the Government doing to help reduce the cost of motoring for those who use their vehicles for work purposes?</Question>

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maureen Burke

    Business of the House

    My constituent recently contacted me after his three-year-old daughter was involved in a terrifying near-miss with a recklessly ridden e-bike. The unsafe use of these vehicles is a growing threat to public safety. In Scotland, enforcement is devolved and regulation is reserved. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on how the Scottish and UK Governments can work together to protect our communities from dangerous e-bikes?

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of the powers he has in mind that councils do not currently enjoy, but should?

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    That is a very interesting line of argument. Is it now the Conservative party’s official position that “use it or lose it” powers should be introduced for brownfield sites?

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings and to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. After the Opposition’s—to put it candidly—languid approach in our previous sittings, I welcome the fact that they have clearly woken up and are now fully participating in the debate. Partly for that reason, we had a remarkably productive first day in Committee on Tuesday. Our debates on many of the clauses and amendments were predictably spirited; nevertheless, they remained civil and, in the main, constructive. I hope we can proceed in that vein today. Before I respond to the new clauses, I will make a general point—a point that the shadow Minister is clearly struggling to grasp. Our ambitions to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation will benefit from the Bill, but they are not entirely dependent on this one piece of legislation. The supply statistics speak for themselves. Let me give the statistics from 2024-25. Overall social and affordable house building: 64,921, the highest level since 2014-15. Social housing on its own: 12,267, the highest level since 2012-13. Council-delivered homes: 10,600, the highest level since 1991-92. That is this Government’s record on social and affordable housing—and, by the way, this was all prior to the initial allocations from our social <span id="114" class="column-number" data-column-number="114"></span>and affordable housing programme, which have now been made. We have increased supply, we will increase it further, and the Bill will make a material impact on doing so. I turn to new clause 1. As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is fully aware, we are committed, in line with our manifesto, to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, to prioritising the building of new social rented homes and to supporting councils and housing associations to make a greater contribution to affordable supply. In the 27 months for which we have been in office, we have faithfully sought to honour those commitments. We have made the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory, an investment that was topped up in yesterday’s Budget by a further £1.5 billion pounds, as the hon. Member rightly recognised. We are vigorously prioritising social rented housing, we are rebuilding the capacity of councils and housing associations to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, and we are reinvigorating council house building. In his more generous moments, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson acknowledged the transformative impact of what this Government have done on social housing supply. I understand—indeed, I welcome and embrace—his encouragement and support for raising our ambition further. However, given the nature of our inheritance from the Conservative party, with social housing supply averaging a historical low of fewer than 8,000 units per year from 2013 to 2024, following the purposeful and deliberate pivot to affordable rented tenures, a target of 150,000 new social homes per year is not currently realistic. A statutory requirement to produce a strategy for delivering such volumes within 12 months of Royal Assent is not a proposition that we can support. I say gently to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that his party continues wildly to underestimate the costs of supplying social housing on the scale that he proposes. The Government’s estimate of the grant funding required to support the delivery of 150,000 social homes is in excess of £20 billion per year. For obvious reasons, the hon. Member’s party has escaped the kind of scrutiny to which the Government and the official Opposition are subject, but if his party wants that 150,000 figure to be taken seriously it will have to set out a credible funding strategy. To date, it has not done so.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate many times, to date we have not set a national social and affordable housing target. That is because, as I have explained on numerous occasions, social and affordable homes come through grant funding and through the section 106 process; it is for local authorities to set out the needs for their particular areas as part of local plans. As he knows, through the NPPF we have strengthened some of the expectations in that area.<span id="115" class="column-number" data-column-number="115"></span> I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 4. The Government have already taken several steps to rebuild the capacity of councils to borrow and invest in new and existing homes, including the fundamental reform of the right-to-buy scheme at the heart of the Bill, as well as a 10-year social housing rent settlement, and social rent convergence. In the Budget yesterday, it was confirmed that preferential borrowing rates for council house building will remain in place until at least March 2028 to support councils to borrow more cheaply for house building. There are no current restrictions exercised by central Government on the amount that councils can borrow via their housing revenue accounts for house building purposes. Councils are now free to borrow in line with the prudential code, which requires them to demonstrate that any borrowing is affordable, prudent, sustainable and proportionate. Those are precisely the types of test that the hon. Member’s new clause envisages. They are essential to ensure that local authority finances are managed sensibly and sustainably while ensuring sufficient flexibility to meet local housing targets. As such, in our view it is not necessary to accept the new clause as there are no restrictions to remove. I turn to new clause 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington. The Government are strongly committed—as was the previous Government, as several hon. Members have fairly pointed out—to a brownfield-first approach, including for the development of social housing. Let me be clear. I say this on every occasion I can: once permissions are granted, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Opposition Members will not have to wait long for the build-out transparency package, on which we consulted some time ago, to be brought forward. On 17 August, the Government published a new national planning policy framework that makes it clear that authorities should plan to meet as many of their development needs as possible on brownfield land. To strengthen support for the development of brownfield land, the new NPPF encourages higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. It also introduces a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so. Furthermore, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, the Government have committed to make regulations requiring strategic planning authorities to have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land. That arose from a challenge we received from the Opposition during the passage of the Act. Taken together, those measures demonstrate the Government’s strong and continued support for brownfield development in national policy. On social housing in particular, national planning policy reflects our commitment to the delivery of social rent homes. It requires local planners to set out minimum proportions of social rent required on new development. As everyone knows, the NPPF is a material consideration of critical importance in planning decisions and local plans are required to be prepared with regard to it. It is therefore the right place to set clear expectations for <span id="116" class="column-number" data-column-number="116"></span>how and where development should come forward. A requirement to produce a separate brownfield land social housing development strategy would be unnecessary and duplicative, as existing policy and relevant plans already sufficiently achieve its aim. On the point made by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, policy in this area is already aligned; we do not need a separate brownfield land strategy. Such strategies are, as I have previously dubbed them, the last refuge of an Opposition scrabbling around for meaningful policy amendments to a Bill. For those reasons, and having given those assurances, we cannot accept the new clauses.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    I thank the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Orpington for tabling and speaking to their new clauses. This Government are determined to ensure that social housing tenants live in safe and decent homes, and that they are listened to and have access to redress when things go wrong. However, I am not persuaded that these amendments are necessary. In the spirit of cross-party generosity, I will say that the powers taken under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government did not do all bad things; there were some good things that the previous Government did, and we should acknowledge them. The Act provided the powers for that regulatory framework, which provides strong mechanisms for tenant voice and regulatory oversight. In 2024, the regulator introduced a new proactive regulation regime and has since begun inspecting all large landlords at least once every four years. The regulator issues a consumer grading after those inspections, so that it is clear to tenants and the public how well the landlords are performing. In addition, the regulator retains the ability to engage with landlords outside these routine inspections if concerns are raised.

    Hansard source