Topical Questions
The Government recognise the vital role that community transport plays in connecting people with communities, enabling access to employment, education and essential services such as healthcare. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Business of the House
In South Derbyshire, an initiative developed by my constituent Dan Motley, my team and me has been taken forward by South Derbyshire district council. It encourages businesses to publish clear accessibility information. This helps disabled people, their families and friends to make informed choices about venues to visit, while recognising the economic value of the purple pound. Ahead of Purple Tuesday on 3 November next week, which celebrates the purple pound, will the Leader of the House consider a debate on introducing mandatory accessibility information standards for businesses, to ensure that disabled consumers can access clear, consistent information. and to give more businesses the confidence and guidance to become accessible and inclusive?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
Councils across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have worked collaboratively throughout the whole local government reorganisation process, even when they have disagreed. I have long advocated for our region to have three unitary councils, not just two, and I hope the Government will agree, but there are of course questions about where boundaries should lie. What avenues will be available, or are available, for councils to submit modifications to proposals if consensus can be built on improvements?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. In the context of the criticism of tax changes for banks, how does he respond to the chief executive of Barclays describing changes along the lines of ones that we have made as “bearable”?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
High energy costs are one of the biggest issues facing both my constituents and the small businesses that our economy needs to thrive, so I am delighted that the Chancellor announced that gas standing charges—which we all know are not fair—will be removed. That comes on top of cost-of-living policies already announced by the Prime Minister, such as removing VAT from electricity—a measure that the Chancellor has now extended—on top of a direct £100 household energy payment eligible for band A to D households. On top of the £150 taken off energy bills at the last Budget, these things add up.<span id="523" class="column-number" data-column-number="523"></span> Focusing on energy costs is the progressive thing to do. The poorest 10% of households pay the greatest share of their money on energy, at over 12%. The measures provide support for those most in need: the families, and particularly the children, in poverty in North West Cambridgeshire and across the country. Indeed, the whole Budget reflects progressive principles: 80% of households—all bar the top 20%—will have more money in their pockets from this Budget; the ninth decile breaks about even; and it is only the top 10% that are being asked to pay that little bit more—and it really is only a little more, at 0.1% of their income. That is very much the Labour way. All the support that we are providing must of course be paid for, and a key part of that will come from delivering growth. And we are delivering growth. Our economy was the joint fastest growing in the G7 in the first half of this year. That comes alongside the news that the IMF forecasts that we are set to deliver a bigger reduction in borrowing over the next few years than any other G20 country. We are one of only two G7 countries to cut our deficit this year, despite all the global headwinds that we face. In many ways, I feel sorry for the Conservatives, because they have the very difficult job of reading a Red Book full of good news and trying to make it sound bad—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I welcome the discussion in the Budget about lowering business costs, both through business rates relief and freezes. We have heard a lot of criticism that there is nothing in the Budget for hospitality, but about 50% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in the east of England will not be paying any business rates at all. The reforms to regulations will be saving businesses up to £5.6 billion a year if we hit our target. I encourage the Government to ensure that that also applies to our life sciences sector. I have spoken previously in this Chamber about options for reforming clinical trial regulation such that we save business and the NHS time and money and attract more investment—not necessarily by cutting regulation, but by streamlining it and reducing duplicated effort. An awful lot of different regulators look after clinical trials at the moment, and I think there is a lot of potential to streamline some of that down, save a lot of money and bring more investment into that area. I will turn briefly to another area I would have liked to see more work on, and something I hope the Government might consider taking forward in the spending review, which is gift aid and the tax exemptions given to charities. There is very little scrutiny over that expenditure, which is sizeable, with more than £5 billion of reliefs for charities in the tax year to April 2026. Of course, the vast majority of charities spend that money well and on good causes, and that is to be commended. However, due to fundamental problems in the law, it is far too easy for organisations that provide very little or no benefit to the public—in some cases, they may even cause active harm—to obtain charity status and, in so doing, claim public money through gift aid and tax exemptions. That fact damages the whole sector and those within it who do such good work. In July 2025, <em>The Guardian</em> reported that the Kasner Charitable Trust transferred £5.7 million to support an illegal settlement in the occupied west bank. In theory, therefore, the UK taxpayer could have funded an illegal <span id="524" class="column-number" data-column-number="524"></span>settlement by over £1 million in gift aid through that transaction alone. The fact that that was permissible under our current system clearly shows that major reform is needed, including to Treasury rules, and that significant amounts of taxpayer money could be saved, because that is not an isolated example. There are many similar organisations—taxpayer-funded charities—that are preaching horrendous misogyny, homophobia and other forms of hatred. This is a monumental waste of our constituents’ money, which we could be redirecting both towards our public services and to tackle violence against women and girls at the same time. I know that that is a priority for this Government; they are showing it in the measures in this Budget, such as the £15 million announced to create a misogyny prevention fund, which will have a real impact. However, such measures are hugely undermined when the taxpayer is also subsidising major organisations like this. Earlier this week, there was a report of a mosque in which preachers were advising husbands that they could hit their wives. Just yesterday, I became aware of a church with awful posts on its website that deny the existence of marital rape, alongside all sorts of other horrendous misogyny. That church had an income of £5 million, £1 million of which could be taxpayer funding. That has to stop, and I implore Treasury Ministers to consider what options they have to ensure that it does.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has just come to my attention that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made a particularly nasty age-related comment during my speech. I wanted to see, first, if that was in order and secondly, if he might like to say that so that his young constituents can hear what he thinks of them.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
First, may I associate myself with the condolences expressed by the Transport Secretary and others about the terrible tragedy in Spain yesterday? There are many bottlenecks on the national rail system that are holding back rail freight growth. I welcome the Government’s announcement of the interim rail freight growth target of 40% by 2040, but without a clear and deliverable strategy, the Government risk falling behind on the expansion of rail freight, which is such an important sector for us all. When will we see a rail freight growth strategy, or will we have to wait for the overall rail enhancement strategy?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
This Budget gives my constituents and people up and down the country much-needed breathing space and fresh hope for our long-term future. It tackles the big issues facing our country, from the cost of living pressures facing all our constituents to the need to bring growth back to our economy. The Chancellor was honest about the impact that the war in Iran has had on our economy, energy prices and supply chains. I remind the House that we Labour Members opposed that war, but the Conservatives supported it. I will address the impacts of the Budget, first on my constituency, and then from my perspective as Transport Committee Chair. I am pleased that the Budget delivers for house building, and will mean more council and social housing, as too many families in Hounslow, Brentford and Isleworth live in temporary housing. There is also the new Your First Home scheme, which <span id="498" class="column-number" data-column-number="498"></span>will support many who are earning, but do not have a deposit to get on the housing ladder. The Treasury listened, and raised the sale price cap for the scheme in London. I am grateful. Over the past year, I have met businesses across my constituency, from restaurants such as Sam’s Waterside and coffee shops such as Ballucci in Isleworth and Hounslow to small specialist manufacturers Ormiston Wire and Newmont Engineering. Their common message has been that costs, particularly energy and business rates, are too high. I am therefore pleased that the Chancellor has committed to taking more businesses out of paying business rates—900 each in the Hounslow and Richmond boroughs—and frozen business rates for many more. I know that to support businesses, we need to get more money into people’s pockets. Increasing the national living wage and the minimum wage, addressing energy bills, keeping commitments on tax and introducing the new pension tax allowance, among many other measures in the Budget, are all much welcomed by my constituents. I also welcome London now having the fiscal devolution that our city has long deserved, bringing it more into line with other world cities. It allows the mayor to kick-start projects across the capital, one of which is the West London Orbital, a much-needed rail line linking Hounslow to Hendon via Old Oak Common, opening up development and employment opportunities across a swathe of west to north London. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will mention several transport-related elements in the Budget that I welcome: the Government’s work to bring international rail services to Stratford, which will increase rail connectivity and choice; the work to address the costs for electric vehicle drivers using public charging points; and the decisions on fuel duty, which not only benefit car drivers but save a light goods vehicle driver £472 on average, and the average heavy goods vehicle driver nearly £4,000 per year. Given the impact that fuel prices are having on the critical logistics sector, we all end up benefiting from those changes. Rail infrastructure costs far more to build per kilometre in the UK than in any equivalent economy; I refer to my Committee’s February ’26 report, “Rail investment pipelines: ending boom and bust”. I welcome the announcement of the review of rail infrastructure costs, and the publication of the more extensive infrastructure pipeline. The review’s terms of reference responded to many of the issues discussed in our inquiry, including investment certainty, with clarity about at what point costs are fully understood and when funding will be committed. That drives efficiency, safeguards workforces and enables skills planning. Investment certainty is certainly needed if we are to allay the concerns of the rail supply chain and its investors. Although the Government review is restricted to rail, its scope is otherwise very similar to the scope of the Competition and Markets Authority’s review of road and rail procurement, so I want to know from the Government how the two will relate to each other. Strangely, in their response to our report, the Government denied that there was such a thing as boom and bust in investment; I hope that the review will be more open-minded on that front. I am glad that the Chancellor has heard the pleas of the owners of airports and private rail infrastructure, such as St Pancras and High Speed 1, who are concerned <span id="499" class="column-number" data-column-number="499"></span>about the exceptional and unpredictable rateable value increases. I hope that a rational and predictable system can replace the current mess, which is holding back long-term investment in our rail and aviation infrastructure. I welcome the work that the Treasury is doing to enable the Prime Minister’s drive for devolution and partnership with local leaders. Northern Powerhouse Rail and a whole host of local transport projects will deliver local growth across Britain. Finally, the Chancellor is also backing British bus manufacturers, with a new look at bus procurement, which is very welcome indeed. I conclude by thanking the Chancellor for tackling the big issues that face our economy, and for a Budget that delivers both for constituents and for the whole economy.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Last weekend, the Alfred East art gallery in Kettering reopened after being shut for six years. I have such fond memories of visiting it as a child, so I am so pleased that the next generation of young people in Kettering will be able to experience the same. Would the Leader of the House join me in thanking Billie, Adam and all the gallery team in Kettering for making this possible, and in encouraging everyone in Kettering and the surrounding areas to visit the gallery? It is free and a brilliant cultural experience.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
I hold the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan)—he is no longer in his place—in high regard, but I thought it was very telling that he would not take any interventions. The Scottish National party is desperate to paint the gloomiest possible picture of this Budget, but its argument does not hold. The reality is that the Budget is full of measures that will be very widely welcomed, in Scotland and by my constituents. Measures such as scrapping the standing charges for gas and extending the freeze on fuel duty will be extremely welcome to my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife. I am delighted that the Budget also means that pensioners will see their state pension rise by nearly £500 a year, and that the Government have acted to ensure that pensioners receiving only that income will not have to pay income tax on it.<span id="517" class="column-number" data-column-number="517"></span> I make the case again to Ministers for the nearly 850 retired miners in my constituency who are members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I hope that Ministers will act swiftly to ensure that all the funds in the scheme go to retired miners. However, we must also remember the context for every pensioner in my constituency—the action taken to increase their pension, and the action on rising energy prices, which, as we approach another cold Scottish winter, have been a subject of deep concern to my constituents. The £100 energy payment being introduced for households in council tax bands A to D is particularly welcome. Thank goodness the SNP has actually seen sense on one thing, and is ensuring that this policy from the Government will be implemented in Scotland. In my constituency, nine out of 10 households will benefit. That is vital relief from the rising energy prices that we face because of global economic challenges. That is the real, practical support for families that the Prime Minister promised, and that this Budget delivers. The Budget not only provides breathing space in tough times; it also sets out investment that brings huge opportunities for the future of our communities in Glenrothes and Mid Fife, with the prospect of skilled work and good jobs for our young people. Along with the Defence Secretary, who gave an excellent speech at the start of this debate, the Chancellor has committed the funding for the defence investment plan. His contract decision that the new dry docks for Faslane will be built not in a foreign shipyard but here in the UK is a wonderful opportunity for the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved from closure by this Government. If the new dry docks are built by the skilled workforce at Methil, that will secure the long-term future of the yard and drive its recruitment even higher. Methil is a community with a proud industrial history but high levels of social deprivation; this is a wonderful opportunity for reindustrialisation in our part of Scotland. It is not only in defence that there is such potential to grow our local economy. We have thriving renewable energy businesses, and the decision to proceed with the Jackdaw project has been widely welcomed in the Scottish energy sector, because it will provide employment in an industry whose workforce will be vital if we are to succeed in making the transition to renewables, and to sustain skills and employment in our energy sector. The £18 million pledged to the University of Edinburgh to boost our national capacity to design and test our own semiconductor chips is a decision that will be warmly welcomed across the Forth in Fife, where industry-leading companies such as Clas-SiC Wafer Fab and Semefab are based. Their highly expert staff export their products right across the globe. That is another example of how we are taking advantage of the revolution in artificial intelligence to ensure security, and to realise economic benefits for many of our high-tech, high-skilled industries in Scotland. This is a Budget for breathing space, a Budget to protect our economic stability and a Budget for investment in the future of our communities. I commend the Chancellor for recognising not only the challenges that we face as a country, and offering families respite from them, but the many opportunities that we have to strengthen growth in our economy in the future.<span id="518" class="column-number" data-column-number="518"></span>
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
During this debate, there have been accusations of ideological stances from both parties, particularly on the right to buy. To bring us back to a practical question, does the hon. Member not recognise that new clause 26 would be a duplicative measure, adding to data that is already collected? Does he not agree that up to three additional sales would be necessary just to replace one home, particularly in London, which he and I represent different parts of?
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I oppose the new clause. It fits every criterion of a piece of divisive rhetoric by focusing on an issue that has a relatively small impact within the broader picture. It seeks to amplify fear because it is based on an inadequate assessment of what is actually the issue here: the overall supply of genuinely affordable homes. There have been a number of—I hope—mistakes, or some misspeaking, in the Opposition’s remarks on what a taxpayer is. I am sure that in any closing or future remarks, Opposition Members will acknowledge that people with indefinite leave to remain do pay tax and therefore should be considered taxpayers. They have implied that it is only taxpayers who pay for council homes and social homes; it is also those people who pay rent. I believe they might want to correct those remarks. I want to ask the Opposition a few practical questions. First, what would they propose happens to the very small number of families with British children where the lead tenant, for whatever reason, is not a British <span id="169" class="column-number" data-column-number="169"></span>citizen? Would they really see those British children denied the opportunity to live in a safe, secure, warm and well-designed home? Why on earth are they bringing this proposal forward without acknowledging the role of people with settled status? Finally, one question that has not been asked: have the Opposition speakers spoken to their colleagues about the approach to the common travel arrangement that they have brought up today?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
This month, there has been a series of serious road accidents in Bracknell, Warfield and Crowthorne in my constituency. In one incident, a young man, Shayan, very tragically lost his life at the scene. Will the roads Minister meet me to discuss these incidents, and listen to Shayan’s family’s plea for more action on road safety?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Last week, I visited the Horizon Group in my constituency, which has developed HERO—a solar-powered safety warning device made for remote environments. The product provides essential safety messaging about unmanned crossings and access points in some regions of the Network Rail network. Innovations like this keep people safe. Does the Leader of the House, like me, welcome the Chancellor’s statement yesterday on the importance of supporting innovation by British industry?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
I welcome today’s statement, the new transitional funding and the Minister’s work on this issue so far. My understanding is that <span id="479" class="column-number" data-column-number="479"></span>Lancashire’s case for reorganisation is stronger and more robust than it was just a few months ago, if a little delayed. Can the Minister confirm today that this new window of engagement is an opportunity for Lancashire to remake its case for our future—we have had the very welcome announcement of a new mayor—and an opportunity for me to keep lobbying him for a smaller east Lancs unitary, and perhaps new electoral boundaries, rather than the existing county divisions?
- Hansard source
Regional Airports: Short-haul Destinations
Earlier this year, we saw an issue with Cornwall council being unable to secure any eligible bids for its public service obligation service from Newquay airport. Since then, the council has been scrabbling around trying to secure new commercial routes, which is very welcome and much needed. What consideration has the Minister given to more flexible PSO arrangements that might allow airports such as Newquay to bid in with a more commercial outlook on how we get that support?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
We had huge wildfires in the Welsh valleys last summer, so I welcome last week’s summit, which announced the UK’s first permanent military firefighting capability. When I met firefighters after the summer, I heard anecdotal reports that some fires were being started deliberately. Could we please have a ministerial update on further next steps after the summit? We need many more preventive ideas to address this dreadful issue.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has put the points I was going to make very eloquently, but I want <span id="167" class="column-number" data-column-number="167"></span>to take the opportunity to say, as the Member of Parliament for Barking, that a high proportion of my constituents are from different heritage backgrounds. The truth is that constituents who have secured indefinite leave to remain have lived in this country for a number of years and have made a significant contribution to our society, not least through the taxes that they have paid as they have worked here legally. The very argument that we should be fairer in our approach to allocating social housing is reflected in our system, which allows those who have paid their taxes and secured indefinite leave to remain to then access social housing when in need. Those who have no recourse to public funds cannot access the social housing in the first place. I appreciate the argument that we must have a fair approach to allocating resources. I accept that, and my constituents in Barking also want a fair approach, but what is fair about not recognising that many people cannot afford to apply to become a British citizen but do have indefinite leave to remain and have contributed by paying their taxes, so they should be able to access the same rights as everybody else? This is a divisive and unnecessary new clause. I do not think that it speaks to the spirit of the debate we have heard so far. It will do nothing to contribute to the additional social homes that we need in this country.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)
That is an interesting question. I would happily have a conversation about welfare and where we draw the line, but the Bill is about social housing. It feels very unfair to draw the line in a way that fails to recognise that once a person has indefinite leave to remain, they have contributed through taxes, through being here a long time and through having legal status. I do not accept that the new clause does anything other than cause division. I do not think that it makes a positive contribution to the net increase of social houses that we desperately need. There are better ways to improve a piece of legislation without creating division and hostility, which my constituency of Barking feels the brunt of when debates like this happen. I urge Members to reject the new clause and recognise that while there is a lot to do to provide additional social housing, targeting groups of my constituents—who would be disadvantaged by this new clause—is not the best way to go about improving the pressures on social housing in this country.
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Sodium Valproate
<em>rose</em><em>—</em>
- Hansard source
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.