What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
T3. Residents have long called for the A69 through Warwick Bridge to be detrunked. Given that the A689 provides an alternative route from the M6 to the east of the village, can the Minister confirm that detrunking this section of the A69 would not be a major change to the strategic road network?
May I invite the Leader of the House to join me in praising the Carlisle band Hardwicke Circus—the only UK band to have toured war-torn Ukraine? Despite its talent being recognised by Sir Paul McCartney, it has previously been suggested to the band that its success will be limited unless it relocates to a large city, like Manchester. Does the Leader of the House agree that success in the music industry should depend on talent, not postcode?
One of the things that Sir David understood well is that the best causes we take up as parliamentarians begin not in Westminster but in our constituencies. Like the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I have had many constituents come to me worried about the growing presence of illegal e-bikes on our streets. Older residents are anxious about their safety, local businesses raise concerns about dangerous, modified e-bikes, and Carlisle’s police officers highlight a worrying trend linking illegal e-bikes to wider criminal activity. That is why, at the beginning of the year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to ban the sale of illegal e-bikes and the kits that create them. Since then, with thanks to Maisie Stewart and Clark Becken in my team, I have had the privilege of meeting manufacturers, retailers, charities, the bicycle and motorcycle industries, and police and community groups, not just in Carlisle but well beyond. The more evidence I have gathered, the more convinced I have become that action is urgently needed to tackle what is a national problem. Perhaps the most striking conversation I had was with local schoolchildren when I visited Newlaithes school in May. Pupils raised concerns with me about illegal e-bikes being ridden through Chances Park. They spoke eloquently and with conviction about the dangers posed to them, their friends and their families when they simply want to use their local park. There is something powerful about the fact that primary school children have recognised a problem that we as lawmakers have yet to address. I would like to be clear: the issue is not e-bikes. It is illegal e-bikes. There is a reason why there is a tight legal definition of an e-bike: because vehicles that are capable of power and speed outside the legal parameters are simply not safe without proper checks, registration and licensing. The police understand the problem all too well. Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner David Allen has been working with me and commissioners throughout the country, backing my call for a ban because, time and again, when the thread of illegal e-bikes is pulled, wider criminal networks unravel, with issues of illegal working, drug dealing and robbery exposed. On a positive note, I have been delighted to spend time visiting and speaking with some of the amazing legitimate cycle businesses and organisations in my constituency, including Rebike Cumbria, which refurbishes bikes, helping people on low incomes to enjoy the physical and mental health benefits of cycling. The company also provides jobs, training and volunteering opportunities in my community. Illegal e-bikes also raise fire risks. I heard earlier this week that there has been a nearly 150% increase in house fires of because of lithium ion batteries. A terrifying majority of those fires have been linked to illegal e-bikes. Taken together, the issues demonstrate that this is not simply a transport matter. It is about public safety, crime, antisocial behaviour, consumer protection and business, and—most importantly for all of us—it is about our communities. Next year, the Tour de France comes not just to Britain but to my constituency of Carlisle. I want to ensure that the tour is a celebration of cycling—good, legal cycling—and I want part of that celebration to be a ban on the dodgy, dangerous, illegal e-bikes that threaten our local communities.
I have been approached by many of my constituents, who are concerned about the impact of the operations of a local recycling company. Residents are complaining about dust covering their homes and poor air quality. We should all be able to enjoy our homes in peace. That is why I have taken the appropriate steps of contacting the company, Slough borough council, the Environment Agency and the Government, but sadly the matter persists. Residents feel that their voices are being ignored. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is an entirely unacceptable situation? What can he do through his esteemed office to help my constituents, so that I can ensure that residents are heard?
15. What support her Department provides to areas with high levels of road congestion.
My constituents regularly find themselves stuck in standstill traffic as a result of Rochford’s struggling road network. I have also heard from Baltic Wharf, a key port on the estuary, and from my farming community, who all report supply chain issues due to the refusal of delivery drivers to navigate Rochford district’s outdated highways. For an area with significant housing targets, strong local businesses and huge potential for growth, that is a real issue. What support can the Minister provide to rural and coastal constituencies, like mine, that want to enhance and modernise highway connectivity?
I am deeply honoured to have the opportunity to speak in the Sir David Amess debate. Sir David’s life was defined by public service, including the 24 years he spent representing the constituency of Southend West. Indeed, it was in Sir David’s memory that Southend was granted city status in 2022. That passion for our stretch of south-east Essex coastline is something I share, and something that makes sense when we consider what it has to offer. From Wallasea Island and Shoebury east beach to Southend pier and the Kursaal, there is plenty to shout about along our shores. Yet although the coast is crucial to Southend East and Rochford’s character, it also poses its own unique set of challenges. Bordered by water on three sides, we are physically isolated, an obstacle compounded by a single century-old link road and our location at the end of the railway line. I regularly hear from local residents, business owners and farmers about the impact that regular cases of standstill traffic has on their daily life and work. The cost of that, however, is felt most acutely by our young people. Teenagers in coastal areas like ours suffer worse adult health than their inland counterparts, achieve below-average GCSE results in maths and English, and go on to earn lower wages. There is, however, good reason to be hopeful. Southend is one of the country’s fastest-growing seaside resorts, with more than 7 million visitors choosing the city for their seaside day trips each year. That is unsurprising when you consider the regeneration efforts of recent years, which I have been proud to play a part in. It is a particular pleasure to see the steps being taken to return our iconic Kursaal to public use. Coastal communities are also beginning to feel the benefit of the turning economic tides generated by this Labour Government. The promise of local government reorganisation and devolution is also set to pave the way for greater community control of spending. In Southend and Rochford district, we know what the solutions to our problems are. We know how to unlock the huge potential for growth that exists along our coast, and in our towns and in our rural areas.We recognise the impact that a new link road would offer, and the opportunities that would be created by improved access to high-tech skills training. That is why I am proud to be reigniting the mission to secure a new link road into south-east Essex, and why I am working to attract new industries and investment into our area. As I believe Sir David Amess understood, the success of south-east Essex is defined by our spirit of hard work and self-improvement. If our communities are given the tools to succeed, I have no doubt that we can achieve incredible things.
The Secretary of State and I have known each other a long time—we served in local government together—and he knows that I am as passionate as he is about bringing power back closer to people, but I have to say to him, in all honesty, that the decision to split my home community of Gedling borough in half and force communities in Gedling into an expanded new Nottingham city council area against their will is bad for my constituents and bad policymaking. I have to tell the Secretary of State that this is a decision that I cannot and will not support. Will the Secretary of State tell me what on earth makes sense about creating two councils for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, when official figures show that from day one, one of them will be £147 million better off than the other? Will he explain to my constituents why the Government have backed the option that did not adhere to the strict criteria set out by the Government at the start of this process? Finally—thank you for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker—given his announcement that he will hold off on making a decision on Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will he re-think on Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, and hold off on making a decision until an agreement can be made in my part of the world?
—Michael Payne. I simply seek to correct the record. I should have, when I made a contribution in the statement, drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Gedling borough councillor. I seek through this point of order to correct the record.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to hear Members’ warm recollections of Sir David Amess, including from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. He was obviously widely respected across this Chamber. Last month, we also remembered my dear friend Jo Cox, whom we continue to miss. My thoughts this week are with the friends and relatives of Ann Widdecombe following her shocking murder. An attack on one parliamentarian is an attack on all of us. I always say that community solidarity is our biggest strength in my part of the world, and I would like to use my time to highlight some of the people and organisations that are shining examples of that. I pay tribute to the Linton Lane centre, which celebrates its centenary this year. I was glad to join its celebrations. Formerly Kirkcaldy boys’ club, it is a thriving cornerstone of life in Kirkcaldy, providing a wide range of services to the community. The Linton Lane centre is led heroically by Mandy Hunter, who celebrates 30 years of working at the centre today. I would like to say thank you to Mandy for her tireless years of service, and to thank all the staff and volunteers at the Linton Lane centre. Turning to Dalgety Bay, after the success of our new banking hubs in Cowdenbeath and Burntisland, we need a new banking hub in Dalgety Bay to ensure that vital banking services are still accessible there, especially to a population that is perhaps not always au fait with online banking. I raised this with a Treasury Minister only yesterday and will continue to push for that to happen. I turn now to two pieces of good news. I was inspired by the work of students at Dunnikier primary school, who produced an impressive display of artwork to celebrate diversity at their school. The school had become the target of vile racist attacks online as a result of holding diversity day celebrations, and I visited to offer my support. What I saw there were children from different backgrounds all with a love for Scotland and pride in their family’s heritage. It reminded me that the real world is different and often better than the online world. These children had a greater understanding of each other than any of the abusive and racist trolls online. Let me say clearly that I am proud of the teachers and pupils of Dunnikier primary, and I hope that they are proud of themselves. I warmly welcome the £515,000 new investment that this UK Government are making in Denfield park in Kirkcaldy through the Scottish Football Association. The current football pitch has been prone to flooding, and the new 3G pitch, which this funding will help pay for, will provide year-round football facilities for men’s and women’s teams across age groups and from across Kirkcaldy. I say a massive well done to all at the Kirkcaldy Community Football Partnership for all their hard work in making that happen. As many Members have said, MPs would not be able to do our jobs without our incredible staff teams, and I am very lucky in that regard. I would like to say a huge thank you to Angela Bailey, who is soon moving on from being my office manager. I will always be grateful to her for her work with me in 2024 and ever since then, and I wish her and her family all the very best in the future. That brings me lastly to a huge thank you and to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the parliamentary staff a relaxing and rejuvenating recess—I think we need it after recent events. We are extremely grateful for all they do in making our democracy function.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated in this wide-ranging debate, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) for their contributions. The degree of praise that I received from Opposition Members is slightly damning of my chances in any upcoming reshuffle, but I thank them for their kind words. Members raised a wide range of concerns and asked many questions. In the time available to me, I will respond to as many as possible, but I will concentrate on those relating to the national planning policy framework. Issues such as the national scheme of delegation of planning functions—our modernisation of planning committees—are outside the framework, but I am more than happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and others about them. The national planning policy framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied. It makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Accordingly, it provides a framework within which locally prepared plans can provide for homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. As hon. Members know, the framework must be taken into account in preparing local plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions. The Government’s manifesto included a clear commitment to immediately update the NPPF. Within three weeks of taking office, we consulted on changes to the framework, finalising them in December 2024. Among the many changes made in the initial revision of the framework were the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets—the Conservatives abolished them when they were in government, which contributed to the low number of net additional completions in our first year in office— a new standard method for assessing housing need, which is aligned to our 1.5 million new homes target; greater support for social and affordable housing provision; a strengthening of policy relating to brownfield land development; a modernised strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release; and support for key economic sectors and clean energy infrastructure. As hon. Members know, in December 2025, we published a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the NPPF for consultation. The proposed new framework represented the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes economic growth. It represents the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago. The new NPPF that we consulted on is wholly restructured. It maintains and builds on the initial revisions that we made in December 2024. It includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors. As hon. Members have noted, it incorporates new, clear, rules-based national policies for plan and decision making. The proposals will make the NPPF easier to navigate for communities, local authorities and developers alike. The new decision-making policies in the framework published in 2025 are designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England, particularly where we have national standards in place and do not need that degree of local variation any longer; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans as they are being prepared. To ensure that those changes made an immediate difference, the Government proposed that the new national decision-making policies effectively override conflicting policies in local plans from day one. As part of that overall change to the framework, we also proposed new polices to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. They include, as has been noted, a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development; the establishment of in-principle support for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements, and around well-connected train stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land; and policies designed to drive urban and suburban densification to secure a diverse mix of homes, including stronger support for rural, social and affordable housing and setting clear expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people. Our proposals also include policies that embed a vision-led approach to transport, further embedding the changes that we made in December 2024; policies that better address climate change mitigation and adaptation; and policies designed to ensure that we are better conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including changes to reflect local nature recovery strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks, and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.
We have had this debate many times. I will come on to housing targets and the fact that if there is an up-to-date local plan in place, the housing targets do not need to be immediately revised. On the specific point about rural affordable housing, the framework makes it easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy. It makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including removing the need for legislative designation. We have received over 20,000 responses to the consultation. We have made very good progress in analysing the responses and making final policy decisions, but unfortunately, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 22 June that he was resigning as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party and the associated constraints on Government business in the period ahead of the summer recess, including the prohibition on initiating new policy commitments, it has not been possible to respond to the consultation and publish the final framework before the summer recess. We will seek to do so in due course. The issue of flooding, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, is of particular concern in her constituency, as she made clear. The NPPF outlines a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in those areas. In plan making, a sequential approach should be employed. That involves applying the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test. In decision making, where necessary, planning authorities also apply the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test to ensure that flood risk is minimised and appropriately addressed.
That is not quite my reading of the Yatton judgment. The judge confirmed that even if a site fails the formal sequential test for flood risk, elements of the exception test remain valid material considerations that can outweigh flood risk under the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d). The High Court made a judgment in that case on the application of the policy, but it applies, as I have set out—[Interruption.] I will give way briefly, but I do want to cover the other issues raised in the debate.
If I remain in post after the summer recess, I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady. Where the sequential and exception tests have been applied as necessary and are not met, the framework is clear that development should not be allowed. I want to push back gently on the assertions made by the hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, that we have weakened the sequential test. We have not weakened the sequential test in any way. We have clarified through changes to the PPG the triggers for the sequential test as well as its application, but we have not weakened it. If it is found necessary to build homes in areas of flood risk, the statutory guidance accompanying the building regulations promotes flood-resilient building work in flood-prone areas through approved document C, and the framework makes it clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts. The draft NPPF that we have consulted on includes a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change. This seeks to clarify how existing policies should operate and aligns the NPPF with recent updates to planning guidance. It also included policies incorporating a new requirement that sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with the national standards for sustainable drainage systems to provide a consistent basis for improving their design. On the presumption in favour of sustainable development, we are trying to drive up the coverage of up-to-date local plans. Several hon. Members have spoken today who represent areas that do not have up-to-date local plans and five-year housing land supplies. We are making great progress in driving up plan coverage. Over 60% more local plans are at examination now than at this time last year, but it will take time to boost coverage. It is important, where policies are not up to date or where there is an insufficient supply of land, that there is a fallback to encourage planning permission to be granted, and that is what the presumption provides for. However, the NPPF we published in December 2024 not only improved the operation of the presumption by clarifying the circumstances in which it applies, but introduced new safeguards to make it clear that its application cannot justify poor-quality development. Under the revised draft presumption published for consultation last year, the default support in principle is turned off in certain situations, including where the development would conflict with sites allocated for specific uses or would use parks and open space or land identified for flood risk management. It would also be disapplied where development does not achieve acceptable standards in relation to harm to nature, heritage assets, flood risk, design and being an effective use of land. I have only a short time available to me and a wide range of other issues were raised. I will touch on each briefly. On our housing target and the standard method we have introduced, in our view the new method better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. That recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing need and helps direct more homes to where they are most needed and least affordable. It also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers, compared with the previous approach that relied on out-of-date demographic predictions and unevidenced and arbitrary judgments. On brownfield, grey-belt and green-belt land, the hon. Member for Orpington knows full well that we strengthened the policy in the December 2024 NPPF on brownfield land. We have gone further in the draft framework that is out for consultation. It is not the case that there is enough brownfield land, particularly not viable land in the right locations on brownfield land registers across the country. In certain exceptional circumstances, local authorities need to release green-belt land. We ask them when they do so to explore all options in maximising brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and where necessary reviewing their green belt. The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. There is no confusion about what it means. Where grey belt is being brought forward, it cannot fundamentally undermine the policies of the green belt across the wider plan area; we included that safeguard in the framework. On train stations, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) was right that we want more development to come forward in sustainable locations around train stations. We obviously took a different approach to all stations, as opposed to well-connected stations, where we are looking for higher minimum densities to come forward. I must be clear that the proposals do not grant automatic permission on suitable sites or remove appropriate local oversight of the development control process. They add weight to what needs to be considered as part of an overall planning judgment, as is the case with all material considerations. I will not dwell on rural or urban housing targets. I have said before and say again that across city regions the new standard method increases targets by 20% and, through that, housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas and smaller cities as well as our larger city areas. I commend the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate these important matters. Over the past two years, the Government have sought to revamp the planning system to ensure that it will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building and high-quality infrastructure in the years ahead. To the point on infrastructure, the new NPPF strengthens expectations in that area as well. More needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited, but the revised NPPF we published in December 2024 and the wholly restructured framework we will publish in due course are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. I thank all hon. Members for their considered contributions today and wish them all, and you, Sir Desmond, an enjoyable and productive summer recess.
I am sure we are all aware of the importance of the role played by civil servants across the whole country. People often devote their whole working lives to these roles, so the least they deserve is to get the pensions they have paid for on time, and for their loved ones to receive their entitlements following bereavement. Sadly, the disastrous performance of Capita saw the backlog rocket to 120,000 in the first four weeks of it commencing work on the contract. I hope the Government manage to get the scheme sorted out as quickly as possible, and suspend payment and all future contract awards to Capita pending a full review. The decision to award Synergy the contract for payroll services across four Government Departments flies in the face of our Government’s commitment to delivering the biggest wave of insourcing for a generation. Could we hit pause and review its ability to deliver before civil servants start to go unpaid, too? Today, civil servants from the Public and Commercial Services Union are starting strike action at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in a dispute over staff restructuring. We appreciate that internal reorganisation is sometimes required, but too often there has been a failure to consult, including over planned closures to civil service offices, including the Department for Education office in Newcastle. I know other Members will have experienced similar situations with regard to other departmental offices across the country. I hope the Cabinet Office ensures that all Departments have proper discussions with the trade unions representing members affected by changes, especially where the closure of offices would be damaging to local economies and communities. An economic impact assessment really should be conducted before such plans go ahead. Could we also please extend a vote of thanks to all our hard-working civil servants and agree to listen to their concerns? Doing so could have helped to avoid many of the problems in the case of Capita. Sir David Amess frequently raised the issue of hepatitis, as he was the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on liver health. World Hepatitis Day is on 28 July, and the UK has committed to achieving the World Health Organisation’s goal of eliminating hepatitis C as a public health concern by 2030. The virus disproportionately affects disadvantaged and marginalised communities. It is preventable and curable. Left undetected, it can cause fatal cirrhosis and liver cancer. I am sure the House will join me in commending the efforts of our NHS, the Hepatitis C Trust, and harm reduction services, which have had considerable success in finding, engaging, testing and treating people who are at risk. Thanks to them, the UK is within reach of meeting the World Health Organisation’s target of hepatitis C elimination by 2030. Another concern of Sir David’s that I share, as my north-east region is the worst affected in the country, is alcohol harms. I pay tribute to the organisation Balance, which has done excellent work in the north-east to raise awareness that alcohol causes seven types of cancer, including bowel cancer and breast cancer. Last year the drugs, alcohol and justice APPG, which Sir David supported and I formerly chaired, published a paper reminding us that although alcohol misuse costs our NHS an estimate £3.5 billion, there has been no alcohol strategy since 2012. As we await a new PM and a new senior team to start work, I want to take this moment to congratulate the Minister for Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, for this week completing orders to enact the updated Equality and Human Rights Commission code of practice on services, public functions and associations, which will come into force on 5 August. There are now no more excuses. All service providers, local authorities and organisations, including our Government Departments, must bring their policies into line with the Equality Act 2010, so that women-only services and spaces are exactly that—for biological women only.
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact of HS2 on west coast main line services between Glasgow and London?
The Commonwealth games festival fund will support a wide range of community events across my constituency, including Canal Quest on 1 August, Bike for Good taster sessions, the cultural programme at SWG3, and activities delivered by the Maryhill Integration Network and many other local organisations. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on the importance of ensuring that communities directly benefit from major events?
In February this year, the Albert bridge in my constituency was closed. This, coupled with changes to Battersea Bridge Road and the surrounding roads implemented by Transport for London, is causing significant delays, disruption and congestion. Despite my painstaking attempts to engage with TfL over the past five months, it is proving quite difficult. TfL is not engaging with the lived experience of my constituents and myself, so will the Secretary of State engage with TfL on my behalf, to ensure that it engages and works with the constituency MP?
Teesside is home to a world-leading maritime industry and an excellent further education landscape. However, one issue that the Tees maritime cluster has identified is a lack of join-up between the two and the fact that there are insufficient qualifications locally for young people to get into the industry. Will the Department work with the Tees Valley combined authority to address this gap and make sure that more young people can get into the industry locally?
Teessiders know what it looks like when Governments stand back and fail to protect steel jobs, so on behalf of the British steelworkers in my constituency who work at Special Profiles in Skinningrove and Teesside Beam Mill at Lackenby, I thank the Government for their decision to step in and protect primary steelmaking in this country. They have preserved jobs and preserved our industry, and the decision will allow British Steel to modernise and prepare for the future, but one of the critical challenges in doing so will be addressing industrial energy costs. I am aware of the decisions that the Government have taken on energy to support industry. What more decisions will they take to bring down costs and make sure that there is a competitive environment for British Steel going forward?
I should declare that I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health. Clearly, a modern service framework is important, certainly for a constituency such as mine in the north-east that has a lot of respiratory health problems, but as the Minister said, we need action rather than legislative change.
I am glad to hear that work is going on, but as the Minister may remember, work has been going on for a very long time—some Opposition Members may remember that past work. The issue is clearly important to people, so we need to see action—again, it is about how we get to that end. I would like to see some commitment from the Government. I recognise that the Minister is not in charge of the acquired brain injury strategy, but could she help us by referring the issue to the relevant Minister for an urgent discussion?
I too want to see a strategy—a strong strategy—and I will continue to talk about that, but will the hon. Lady acknowledge that the strategy has been talked about since before the general election? We needed to see action then, as we need to see action now.
This week, I attended an informative roundtable discussion with experts, including from the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK. I spoke about my dad, who is living with late-stage dementia. This is a pivotal moment for action on dementia, particularly given the advances in research in this field. I am hosting a constituency event to mark World Alzheimer’s Day in September. What steps are the Government taking to strengthen dementia care for those living with dementia and their loved ones?
Local Amber Valley leaders and I support devolution, but we are incredibly concerned about the decision to split Amber Valley between two unitary authorities, particularly because the option selected was not subject to public consultation. It also places a huge burden on Amber Valley borough council during the reorganisation, with double the amount of work. I am thinking about my constituents and their absolute right to excellent public services throughout the process, and the Secretary of State will know, through my many representations, of my concern about capacity to deliver the change. My local authority is considering the next steps, and the Secretary should know that that includes all options available to them. I am pleased to hear about the capacity funding—
Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the lion’s share of the capacity funding for Derbyshire will go to Amber Valley, given that we are the most affected?
8. What steps she is taking to support the delivery of mass transit systems.
Scotland’s new Transport Secretary has criticised the UK Government’s transport policy on High Speed 2 for being dysfunctional, yet after two decades in government, the SNP have failed to deliver a rail link to Glasgow airport. That is a vital infrastructure project that would boost economic growth, improve connectivity and create the integrated transport network that Scotland needs. Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than seeking to distract from their own abysmal record in government, the SNP should focus on delivering that major infrastructure investment, which is within their power and would bring lasting benefits to the people of Scotland?
Illegal e-bikes have no place on our roads. My Department has published guidance to make it clear that e-bikes that exceed the legal power and speed limits are treated as motor vehicles and must be registered, taxed and insured. The police have powers to enforce those rules. The same applies to pedal cycles that have been converted using e-bike kits. Consumers should be made aware by those selling such kits that a conversion may mean that a cycle no longer meets the legal definition of an “electrically assisted pedal cycle”.
My hon. Friend is a great champion of e-bike safety. The Department for Business and Trade has consulted on new product safety regulations and sought views on the targeted regulation of some products, including e-bike batteries and conversion kits. The consultation closed on 23 June, and DBT expects to respond to it in the autumn.
Congestion can cause real problems, and although local councils are responsible for managing their road networks, the Department has been focused on enabling them to minimise disruption. We have legislated to introduce numerous lane rental schemes and are devolving powers to establish future schemes to mayors. That will enable local decision making to target congestion.
I am sorry to hear about the issues facing my hon. Friend’s constituents; I know how much he does to promote their interests. This Government are investing record sums in road maintenance, and we have strengthened the rules on disruptive street works by extending overrun charges to weekends and bank holidays and doubling fines. I encourage him to continue to make the case to Essex county council, which really must do something about disruption on its roads.
I have met the hon. Gentleman in the past to talk about some of the disruptions caused by improvements to the road network in his constituency. I am sure that the Roads and Buses Minister would be happy to continue those discussions.
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns regarding recent safety incidents on the A69 at Warwick Bridge. National Highways is considering in detail with local partners the case for detrunking the A69 and trunking the A689. That is a complex process, and I will ask National Highways to update her when more information is available.
The Government are committed to improving transport connectivity across the country. Through the £2.3 billion local transport grant, Staffordshire will receive more than £96 million by 2030, providing the certainty and flexibility to deliver better connections, support economic growth and improve outcomes for communities. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, as, I am sure, would my colleagues.
I extend my sympathies to the family, who are the hon. Member’s constituents. I would, of course, be very happy to meet them to talk about what we can do to improve safety on that road, as we are doing across the country.
The hon. Lady probably knows that the active travel commissioner, Chris Boardman, is a huge fan of side road zebra crossings and the potential they have. That is why we have said in the cycling and walking investment strategy that we intend to legislate for them in future.
The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns about the use of illegal e-bikes and the danger they cause on our roads. New powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 mean that the police can seize e-bikes classed as motor vehicles when they are being used antisocially without the need to give a warning.
Dangerous behaviour by any road user is, of course, completely unacceptable. We are aware of the concerns raised about the use of illegal e-bikes, particularly in relation to the gig economy. My Department has commissioned specific research into those issues so that we can better plan action to tackle that.
Fulwell community library, which is run by a fantastic team of volunteers led by Richard Beck, provides a welcoming space for people to enjoy books and a cuppa, as I did there the other week. In the centre of Sunderland, Culture House, the new home of our city library, will be opening soon, providing access to books and learning seven days a week, thanks to the investment and decisions of the previous council administration. Will the Leader of the House celebrate the National Year of Reading, and consider giving time for a debate on the importance of library facilities? Does he agree that they are not vanity projects, but core facilities for our community?