What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
11,997 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I also have constituents affected by the sodium valproate issue. I wonder whether she agrees that it is a double injustice—first, that the parents, Emma and Janet, had to fight to get recognition and change in the prescription of sodium valproate; and secondly, that they have to fight again to get compensation for the very real damage caused.
I know from the Minister’s previous work that she will be conscious of the issues, but we are two years on from the Hughes report, which made it clear that we need to act. This is an important issue, and it feels like a group—primarily of women—are being left to one side to wait their turn or bide their time. Can the Minister assure me that she will be in the Department, making sure that we get a real answer on financial and other redress? I am sure she will be doing that, but we need to see some action.
As the Minister knows, I support local government reorganisation, and I welcomed the original pause of the decision to split Amber Valley in two. I know that the Minister is taking the time to carefully review the situation, and I thank him for the thorough and thoughtful manner in which he is doing so. However, delays bring uncertainty about council officers’ futures, planning services, and delivery of projects for the people of Amber Valley. Given that splitting Amber Valley is the only point of contention between the boroughs and districts of Derbyshire, can I urge the Minister to commit to a swift and firm timetable for Derbyshire? This can be sorted out quickly.
<Question HRSContentId="{14E40FDE-7C3B-4E72-8162-4A21988F99F1}">T7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{E451A23B-3D7E-4930-8060-CA6A68674FD3}"></QuestionText>As the Government prepare their taxi and private hire vehicle Bill, will the Minister ensure that local authorities such as Sunderland have the enforcement powers and resources that they need to regulate all vehicles operating in their area, regardless of where those vehicles are registered?</Question>
The hon. Member said that he believes in making evidence-based decisions, but he is unable to say what it would cost to make this change. If that is his belief, can he explain what the cost of the new clause would be?
My constituent Hazel McLeod has brought generations in Winchburgh together—pupils from Winchburgh and Sinclair academies, together with members of the senior community group Good Companions—to create a book of residents’ memories called, “What do you see when you look at me?” The book received the “highly recommended” award at the global Intergenerational Excellence Awards 2026, which recognised 13 projects worldwide. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating everyone involved, and commend Hazel’s sterling efforts throughout the years, and make a statement on the value of intergenerational projects in preserving local stories and strengthening community spirit?
<Question HRSContentId="{E28432DF-E185-4743-AA1D-6B7D1058CD70}">12. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A4CC7DF7-3BB4-41F6-B23A-9833258EBD5F}">What steps she is taking to improve rail services in Bolton North East constituency.</QuestionText> </Question>
When I worked in Manchester, my train from Hall i’ th’ Wood station was regularly delayed, cancelled or overcrowded thanks to Northern Rail’s two-carriage service at rush hour. Ten years on, commuters at both Hall i’ th’ Wood and Bromley Cross stations are still being failed by Northern Rail, and, with no Metrolink access, it is no wonder that Boltonians feel left behind. What are our Government doing to connect Bolton to the 21st century?
The shadow Chancellor says we will be less secure. After 14 years of Tory Government, our armed forces were reduced to a size smaller than at any time since the Napoleonic wars. How secure were we during his time in power?
This Budget comes at a time when conflict in Europe and the middle east —not of our choosing, not of our making—has hit the cost of living hard here at home, while the threats facing our country make investment in defence and national security more important than ever. As today’s debate was opened on the Government side by the Defence Secretary, I want to make a further point, which is that economic security and national security go hand in hand. That is particularly important in my constituency, <span id="538" class="column-number" data-column-number="538"></span>where the aerospace and space sectors are vital parts of our local economy. Indeed, as I have said many times in this place, over a quarter of satellites in space contain components made in my town of Stevenage. To have that security in the long term, though, we have to make sure people get through the attack on our cost of living now. That is why this Budget does so much to provide that breathing space, such as helping with soaring energy bills. We have the £100 household energy payment, which will help 36,000 homes in Stevenage and our villages, and the extension of the electricity VAT cut. The lowest-income pensioners will not be paying income tax as a result of this Budget, and our retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in Stevenage will benefit from not facing a real-terms increase in business rates over the next two years. Taken together, these measures all help, and it is no good the Opposition belittling any of them. When it comes to security, as the Opposition have accepted, the defence investment plan is fully funded. That means that our defence industry can now get on with providing the equipment and support that our armed forces need. We in this House are all united in supporting Ukraine, and I am glad that we all welcome the extra support for Ukraine, but the Opposition had 14 years in government, and they lecture us about defence now. In that time, as I have already said, our armed forces were belittled. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) talked about calling on the last Government to increase defence spending, but they never did it, and now the Conservatives say that they will cut welfare. Welfare ballooned under the last Government, and now they say that they are going to cut £30 billion. They have no plans; they ask us for a plan, but there is nothing from them, so why should we believe a word they say? This is a time to think about providing breathing space for our constituents. I commend this Budget to the House.
The Government recognise that airport drop-off charges can be a source of frustration for passengers, particularly where payment arrangements are unclear, signage is difficult to follow or motorists face additional charges for late payment. Recognising those concerns about the impact of airport drop-off charges on passengers, the Government have committed to undertake a review to ensure that travel remains accessible and passengers are treated fairly.
Let me be clear: we expect airports to treat passengers fairly and to ensure that travel remains accessible. The review is going to look at the impacts of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services. The detailed scope will be developed as part of the <span id="420" class="column-number" data-column-number="420"></span>review process, but it could include affordability, accessibility, travel behaviour and the experiences of different groups of passengers. More broadly, the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, which has just been through Committee, seeks to modernise the United Kingdom’s aviation legislative framework. One of its key objectives is to strengthen consumer rights and protections, particularly for those who travel with disabilities.
The shadow Secretary of State does not seem to want to face up to the fact that this Government are taking decisive action to help our airports and airlines, whether it is signing off airport expansion across the country or modernising our airspace to provide community benefit alongside efficiencies. I have already been clear that the review will look at questions of affordability and access to airports. That is the right way to ensure that we have a system that is proportionate for consumers and airport users while addressing the fact that, as he mentioned, planning considerations are often built in with mode share targets that are linked to airport drop-off charges. This Government will take a proportionate approach to that review and to the aviation sector as a whole.
Through our Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, we are cutting down on the cost and the stress of flying for families across the country. Our changes mean that airlines on all UK flights will be required to seat children under the age of 14 with a parent free of charge, and that simple name errors on bookings can be fixed for free, ending unfair and irritating charges.
This Government welcome the £1.1 billion investment into Stansted by Manchester Airports Group, which will transform the airport and provide wider benefits to the local area, including Harlow, for which my hon. Friend is a determined champion. The investment is a great example of the conditions for growth in the aviation sector that this Government have created. It is going to support jobs, local businesses and skills, with the planned expansion of Stansted airport college in collaboration with Harlow college, supported by £5 million of funding by the Department for Education. This shows that the Government have a strategy that is delivering for both the aviation sector more broadly and for communities like Harlow.
Regional airports are vital gateways for passengers and major sources of local employment. The UK aviation sector operates in a commercial market, with airports attracting passengers and airlines responding to demand through route development. The UK Government support airport growth across the country. Through the Aviation Council, which I co-chair, and its regional connectivity working group, we are examining the challenges and opportunities facing regional airports.
We need to ensure that regional airports like Exeter and Newquay have the connectivity into larger airports that they need. Through our consultation on the Heathrow expansion national policy statement, we were dedicated and focused on how to increase that connectivity via either public service obligation connections or routes into the airport through a regional fund to better facilitate those connections. More broadly, whether it be through airspace modernisations to facilitate better connectivity or by ensuring that regional airports are better protected against fluctuations in the price of jet fuel, the Government are committed to taking <span id="427" class="column-number" data-column-number="427"></span>comprehensive action to support the sector, recognising that it can serve as a catalyst both for economic growth and for the economic connectivity for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that he rightly points to.
PSO routes are crucial to connecting areas of the country such as Cornwall, which serve as regional economic catalysts to the nation’s capital. I note that since the end of the London-Newquay PSO in April, commercial connectivity has been retained, but I know that my hon. Friend is eager to see this work go further. The Department remains open to continued engagement with Cornwall council and options to maintain connectivity, and I will bear in mind his points about more flexibility in PSO arrangements as part of those discussions.
This Government are proud to support the RNLI and the work of its volunteers to save lives at sea. The RNLI is a charity that is independent of Government, but it is a crucial delivery partner of His Majesty’s Coastguard’s maritime search and rescue service. I greatly value the contribution of the RNLI and all its volunteers and staff for their lifesaving efforts and wholeheartedly thank them for their service.
I could not agree more strongly. I pay tribute to the five volunteers recognised in my hon. Friend’s constituency and to RNLI volunteers across the country, who provide a vital public service. I am clear that there is no space for the disgraceful abuse and intimidation we have seen recently directed at volunteers and staff. I have written to the RNLI to express my support and condemn this behaviour. I am visiting an RNLI station in Bridlington later today, and have hosted a “cuppa for the crew” in my constituency, which I encourage hon. Members to do. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the police have confirmed that RNLI lifeguard crews are recognised as emergency workers under the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, and therefore anyone who assaults them could face up to two years in prison—and rightly so.
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of their being emergency workers, criminal penalties apply to any such abuse, discrimination or assault. The Government take enforcement of that incredibly seriously, and it is something that I will be certain to monitor extremely closely alongside my Home Office colleagues. Along with the Prime Minister and other colleagues in this House, I have written to the RNLI to express my support. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that they <span id="429" class="column-number" data-column-number="429"></span>represent the best of British values. Coming from ordinary backgrounds themselves, they volunteer their time to go out to save people at sea. They are the best of our society and they deserve our protection, respect and support. This Government will stand behind them every step of the way.
Welsh steelmaking remains a key part of the UK Government’s steel strategy, with Wales expected to account for around half of future UK steelmaking capacity. We are committed to a sustainable UK steel sector and encourage the use of lower-carbon materials, recognising that electric arc furnace steel can provide a lower-carbon alternative in infrastructure projects across the country.
As the hon. Member has referenced, SWR is developing proposals for a refreshed timetable, which focuses on improving reliability and the resilience of services. Plans will be shared through public consultation with passengers and stakeholders later this year, and I encourage his constituents to contribute to that. In the meantime, I will ensure that I facilitate a meeting with the Rail Minister on the topic he raises.
GTR is working with Network Rail and local partners to explore potential timetable, rolling stock and infrastructure improvements to increase capacity through Harpenden. That follows long-term demand forecasting, which indicates continued passenger growth driven by planned housing development and the expansion of Luton airport, which the hon. Lady references. I will be glad to continue working with her to ensure we get the capacity improvements that we need over time to meet the needs of her constituents.
We of course recognise the strategic importance of the Ely area capacity enhancement programme, and the significant benefits that it could <span id="433" class="column-number" data-column-number="433"></span>deliver for passengers, freight and economic growth, both in the hon. Lady’s constituency and across the region. We will actively consider this scheme as further funding opportunities become available, and I will do my level best to ensure that she is involved in those conversations.
The Government recognise the importance of this project, which is why we approved the development consent order. It is now for Gatwick airport to progress with this privately funded project. My officials continue to engage with the airport to understand how Government can help with the project’s delivery, and I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to work with me on how we can best support that process.
The hon. Member is determined to achieve better ferry services for his constituents, and I am pleased that he reflects on the cross-Solent group, the work it has done and the progress it is making. I am keeping a close watch on its proceedings. I expect all its members to contribute in meaningful ways to find practical, local solutions to these challenges, and we will of course keep options under advisement. For ferry services, the Government believe that locally led solutions are often best in matters such as the one that he describes.
It was a pleasure to visit the port of Immingham a few months ago. Rail connectivity to our ports, encouraging modal shift, and electrification’s role in increasing the efficiency of the growth in the amount of freight taken to our seaports are of real personal interest to me. I will therefore happily take this conversation forward with the hon. Member and think about how we can facilitate better connectivity to our ports through electrification of our railways.
I thank the right hon. Member for his work in representing the coastguard service in his constituency and across the country. I reassure him that work progressed over the summer both on questions relating to backdated liabilities and on future workforce <span id="437" class="column-number" data-column-number="437"></span>arrangements as they apply to His Majesty’s Coastguard. I hope to have more to say in the future, but I will maintain my obligation to keep him and hon. Members across the House updated as closely as I can on developments as they unfold.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{FAC752DB-F60A-422A-A9EC-EC242320581C}"> </QNum></strong> It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. Thank you to the witnesses for coming in. I will follow up on some of the questions from the shadow Minister, but in terms of the operation of clause 3(1)(c), it refers specifically to the maintenance of the licensed area, which is the part of the highway where capacity is being increased as part of the legislation, so it is not a general maintenance issue across the whole network. There is a narrative that the Bill is a Trojan horse for widespread road charging. We have made it very clear that the operation of this legislation will be for specific and limited circumstances. Is there something more that we can do or say to reassure you that there is no secret plan to widely use this? <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> I certainly do not think that it is a conscious Trojan horse, if I may say that, but having been involved in similar drafting exercises before, one always wants to destruction test whether something could be used in a way that was not anticipated. When one looks at the proposals for the Dartford crossing and the lower Thames, you are bundling the existing crossing into the package, as it were, that the private sector licensee is going to run. One wonders whether there might be other instances where something will be brought into the ambit of the licence that we will not have been expecting or intending at the point of passing the legislation, for which we might need further tightening of clause 3. <em><strong>Edmund King:</strong></em> Part of the problem with Governments and tolls is their previous record. If you go back to the original Dartford crossing, the tolls were meant to be removed when the bridge was paid for and certain maintenance was put aside; that occurred in 2003, and subsequent Governments have not removed them. Drivers do remember that Governments have rescinded their <span id="7" class="column-number" data-column-number="7"></span>promises, so there is that mistrust. Having said that, when we talk to drivers about new infrastructure—and about it being new infrastructure, not existing infrastructure—they are much more open to it being tolled because they can see the benefits in time savings, reducing congestion and so on. Certainly with the lower Thames crossing, they can see the benefits from that.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C83C939B-9178-40B7-9194-32ACD6A18A0D}"> </QNum></strong> I have just one more question. You mentioned the importance of having an independent body to oversee the interests of road users, and you referred to the potential tension between the needs of the investors, road users and other stakeholders who may have an interest in this. What more would you like to see from the ORR to deal with your concerns in that area? <em><strong>Edmund King:</strong></em> Clause 83 talks about a stakeholder group being appointed by the ORR even though the chair is approved by the Secretary of State. In a way, if the ORR is the regulator, surely the stakeholder group should be more independent. We would rather see that clause changed so that the Secretary of State appoints the stakeholder group, so that it has a degree of independence. If the regulator appoints the stakeholder group, surely it will say what the regulator wants it to say, so more independence could be built in there.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{FAA745C3-B328-49D7-A290-F15C68AC81B3}"> </QNum></strong> Good afternoon, gentlemen. It would be quite helpful to hear from Mr Garratt and Mr Pang in a little more detail about the current importance of the area for the whole of the logistics network. In particular, it might be useful for Committee members to hear what the current arrangements are when hazardous items have to go through the tunnel, because that is a big challenge at the moment. <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> The current situation lacks resilience. The sector uses the Dartford crossing, which crosses east of London, as a part of what I describe as a core route for the whole country; it connects Scotland and the north, the midlands, the south-east and Europe on that trading route, particularly in trading across the short straits, which handle more than half of all goods traded between Britain and mainland Europe. It is a really important part of the network to get right and it is currently overloaded. As we know, it is causing significant congestion, which adds costs. As you have noted, that is not simply an even matter of a busy road; it is also the crossing being closed to allow hazardous goods to cross, which everyone else has to wait for. That has a significant impact across the whole network. It is not sustainable. That also takes into account the assumption that the crossing is broadly open all the time, but things will need repairing over their lifetime. Across the rest of the transport network, there is the structures fund and National Highways is focused on other structures that will need repairing at some point. We have a resilience challenge as well as a costs challenge because of that capacity issue. <em><strong>Declan Pang:</strong></em> We absolutely need to increase the resilience of that particular route as well as the whole road network. Vehicle miles are increasing and congestion is forecast to increase, so this is a problem we have to get ahead of. That means making sure we can increase trunk road capacity.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{679A9003-D55A-4E16-8988-8098BAC00FE6}"> </QNum></strong> I have one further question for you both. You have talked about the impact of increased tolls. In terms of the overheads for the organisations you represent, could you give us a sense of what proportion tolls would be of the costs of running a business? Is there any way you can equate that to the delays that congestion causes? Is there a balance or a trade-off there?<span id="16" class="column-number" data-column-number="16"></span> <em><strong>Michael Whelan:</strong></em> I can only really talk about the M6 toll; I will not be broader than that. What our customers pay for—they choose to pay; there are alternatives they could choose—is reliability and travel time saving. Interestingly, we have recently seen that HGV growth on our road is up more than 50% compared with pre-covid numbers. That is predominantly because of the reliability that we offer. We have also found that the freight industry in particular finds savings in terms of lower fuel costs, time and making deliveries on time. In terms of where toll money goes, we are 100% privately funded; we do not receive any funds from the Government. The money goes first of all to the Government. Like every other good law-abiding citizen, we have to pay our taxes and we do. Then it goes into maintenance, and because we are owned by pension funds, at the end of the day the residual money actually goes back into pension holders’ pockets. It is a cycle of pension investors cycling around the money. I hope that answers some of your questions.
That is very helpful. I wonder whether the other two witnesses have anything to say from the other side of the road, so to speak. <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> It is a challenging calculation. Look at how much the logistics sector is currently paying to cross the Dartford crossing: it is about 40% of the road use but it is more because HGVs and larger vehicles pay more than that. We can assume they are paying over £100 million a year to cross it, as a rough calculation. The cost of congestion to drivers is about £200 million a year. We can add on to that—we do not have the numbers, but we know beyond that is the cost to wider supply chains and the cost of unreliability. We can make an assumption, thinking about the experience on the M6 toll, that the sector would rather pay up front for reliability than pay during the day for a lack of reliability, knowing that the costs for that are much bigger than the £200 million because of the impact across supply chains. <em><strong>Declan Pang:</strong></em> The most important thing for our members is reliability. They want reliability and consistency of journey times. Congestion can be very unreliable, which drives a significant amount of cost into the supply chain, so that is, first and foremost, the most important consideration. Clearly, if we ended up in a situation in the future where we had multiple tolled routes, the cumulative impact of that situation would be deeply concerning to us, but I appreciate that the Bill is looking specifically at the lower Thames crossing.
With its wheels. <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> With its wheels, indeed—in terms of using a toll road to improve reliability in that space. The risk of rolling this out to other roads was highlighted earlier. We would have concerns about that. That is why I mentioned that this is a particularly important route for UK trade. We would not want to see the powers in the Bill used to push out tolling much more generally without new capacity. There is language in the Bill about associating it with new capacity, and again, we would seek further ministerial reassurances that the Bill is focused on that and not widespread tolling. <em><strong>Declan Pang:</strong></em> I would just add, in relation to the role of the ORR, the stakeholder group needs to be strengthened much more in terms of how it is described at the moment. There is no statutory requirement for a representative of freight and logistics to be in the group. Really, it is quite vague as to who would be sitting in it. In theory, you could have representatives from toll companies or from the DFT, for example, and exclude any industry or road users. Clearing that up and making the governance of that much clearer is vital. I agree with the previous witness who talked about having a more independent role for a stakeholder group, which would make it much more impartial. <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> We would concur with all of that.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{0584C99E-02F2-4F61-B3E4-DAE5A4CE6B0C}"> </QNum></strong> I will briefly follow up on your comments. Obviously, this Bill is designed to cover the trunk roads network. It is correct, isn’t it, that mayors currently do not have any specific control over those? <em><strong>Ralph Smyth:</strong></em> That is correct, yes. It is almost like an area that devolution has forgotten. We hear about the importance of roads; we heard about that from the previous witnesses, so it does appear a bit odd that there is not much there. One thing is that currently there is a duty, whether you are a local highway authority—county councils and so on—or the strategic highways authority, which is National Highways at the moment, to co-operate, but this Bill will create a new type of private highway authority and it will not join up. Some of the schemes that have seen funding withdrawn in road investment strategy 3 are very close to urban areas, and if they were funded via this route, that would not be an integrated approach and would be very different from what we are hearing about for the railways, where the Government have talked about the need for a single guiding mind.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{DC25CE16-3646-46B1-8B5D-CC1A78F449EE}"> </QNum></strong> Good afternoon, gentlemen. Mr Hopkinson, you have expressed concerns about the limited incentives for cost control—presumably that is mainly in the construction part of the scheme; obviously, we are talking about the lower Thames crossing here. The Bill gives the ORR the ability to set licence conditions on economic allowances and expenditure controls, and provides for the investors to make a reasonable return. Those safeguards are set out. Do you not consider those sufficient and would you like to see something in addition? <em><strong>Ben Hopkinson:</strong></em> I am well aware that there are safeguards and that the regulator is tasked with ensuring that there are not runaway costs. However, the ORR has never done this before. No regulator has ever done a RAB for a road before. There is a real risk that if it sets the return too high, motorists will pay significantly more, but if it sets the return too low, then no one will want to invest. While in theory the model makes a lot of sense, I am a little worried about the practicalities of the ORR accidentally setting a rate too high or too low. In other sectors where rates are set by regulators, there are often risks, especially when there are macroeconomic shifts—higher interest rates, for example. Regulators are sometimes slow to update to that. There are concerns there. With a concession model, as used in France and around the world, there are much better incentives for contractors to keep costs down because they are the ones bearing them, not the potential motorists.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{D1BFBC49-6E73-4324-A6D6-C595A8CCE513}"> </QNum></strong> But you would accept that in that model there is no control from the regulator? <em><strong>Ben Hopkinson:</strong></em> Well, there is a bit of control. There is also the market pushback; if tolls are set too high, people simply will not use the new asset. In that circumstance, the private constructor bears the revenue risk of it being set too high. There is also the overall agreement that the concessionaire strikes with the state initially. One other concern that I have about the RAB is that there is not necessarily a sunset clause. In France, it is very common for roads to return to public ownership after about 60 or 70 years. There is a chance here, under the RAB, that there is no sunset and so they are permanently away from state ownership. I know that the Bill does provide for some sunset clauses if they impose them, but that is not the default here. That is another concern that I have about the RAB model.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C78817D4-69AB-4D0B-9F50-03AE90984246}"> </QNum></strong> As you rightly point out, there are a number of opportunities for licences to be terminated. I would suggest that risks on revenue for too high a toll charge would apply equally in this model as they would in concession models. Sam, you spoke about the planning delays and have set out the significant costs and delays because of that. In terms of the lower Thames crossing, is it your understanding that those risks are now past? <em><strong>Sam Dumitriu:</strong></em> In general, it appears so. However, we have seen some cases for example, in energy infrastructure, where you can have a development consent order passed and construction under way, but then encounter further planning-related delays. For example, the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is potentially the most expensive nuclear power station that the world will ever see. One of the issues is that, after spending around £700 million on fish mitigations, it is still in the process of trying to get the permit that unlocks the final phase of construction. If it does not get that permit, it then has to apply for a DCO variation, so there can still be planning risk even if you address the up-front challenges. Hopefully some of the changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 around environmental delivery plans—if they start being rolled out much further than the initial pilot—and potentially also changes to judicial review, which can delay some of these things as well, will address those. In terms of the point about safeguards, there is one reason to be slightly less pessimistic than Ben. One advantage with the ORR that you do not have with Ofgem or Ofwat is that in National Highways you have a state-owned body with access to cost information. What you tend to see with these other sectors is more opaque, because it is fundamentally people in industry paying very expensive economic consultancies to produce lengthy PowerPoints to tell you how much something should cost. If you have National Highways building toll projects funded via RAB, you have that information, which should allow you to see through some of the perhaps excessive claims on cost that you can see in other sectors. That is a positive, but you still have the fundamental problem of the RAB, which is slightly less incentive to keep costs down unless you have very good information and a regulator that is very on it.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{DABC1826-833B-4C5E-8FF4-6AE9DD348DAA}"> </QNum></strong> You said a little about how consistency across the country would be helpful for your members. I just want to take you one step back: is the principle of barrierless charging one that your organisation would support? <em><strong>Thomas McLennan:</strong></em> We have had very mixed experiences with barrierless charging, so I do not think we can give a pure vision on that right now. We have had some use cases where currently there is not even the ability to transfer liability to someone who has hired a vehicle—the operator does not allow it. Then there are other instances where you can do bulk uploads, the system works really well and it is effectively smooth sailing.<span id="37" class="column-number" data-column-number="37"></span> What we always see is that the removal of barriers means a lot more penalty charge notices. That obviously makes sense, because previously you had to pay to get across, and then the barrier is removed and lots of people do not pay, so there is a sharp increase in penalty charge notices. All of our members have reported that to us. The question is what happens after that. The inconsistencies mean that you can then have a duplicative effect of enormous administrative burdens on everyone involved, which have to be paid to make that work. We would say that if we are going towards barrierless charging from the get-go, which we understand has congestion benefits and so on, it needs to be done so that you do not shift the burden of someone paying at the barrier downstream to someone then having to figure out how to transfer liability or chase up on that, removing people’s ability to challenge the fines because they have just been paid, and so on. We need to look at all those things in the Bill from the start and structure them there.