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

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

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   I thank my hon. Friend for the representations on Lancashire’s reorganisation and on devolution that she has made over a long period of time. I accept that we have not set out a list-by-list, county-by-county timetable showing exactly when reorganisation will come, but we have said that we will conclude the considerations in the new year. Wherever the counties find themselves in the programme, when it is eventually developed, they will know one way or the other in that February to March period, and we will work through them as and when. My point was that if we are in a position to announce them earlier, we should do that rather than keeping areas waiting unnecessarily—that is the idea of the approach that we are taking. My hon. Friend correctly makes a point about Lancaster’s city status, and that applies to cities across the counties that are in scope. It would be absolutely wrong if a city risked losing its status just because its city status is aligned to a local authority that is being abolished rather than to a geographical area. I can give an absolute assurance that even if we have to introduce new legislation to preserve that status, we will do whatever we have to do to ensure that no city loses its city status through reorganisation.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   Working backwards, the reason we carried out the review was to ensure that we, as the Ministers who were making the decisions, were satisfied that the decisions were being made in a rational way, with the evidence base secured, and that where there were outstanding questions, we tested them in the process. Obviously, we were not the Ministers who made the decisions in July, so on coming back in, we needed to be absolutely sure that what we were putting our names to was correct. That is what we are doing. That may mean that the same conclusion is reached in many areas, but importantly that conclusion will be reached as a fresh decision. We are going to go through that process, which is why it is taking time, but if we had come here and said, “Do you know what? We have completed the whole programme review and the financial review, and we have done every single outstanding county in England in a few weeks,” hon. Members would have cast doubt on just how much time we had given to each of the counties and their proposals. We are determined to make this decision robust, for it to be right and to put in the time needed to ensure that we fully go through the proposals, the consultation and the financial assessment. Where local areas have put forward an argument in support of their proposal, we are testing that line by line. For example, if a local authority is requesting a boundary change or to grow its boundaries, and that is predicated on matters like housing numbers, economic growth or travel-to-work areas, I want to see those things. I want to see the travel-to-work map, the form that the urban development takes and so on, so we are testing those proposals to ensure that we are satisfied. To return to my previous point, I have not seen a single proposal that I consider to be the perfect proposal, but our job is to ensure that we get the best possible proposal using the information that we have received, and we are undertaking that work. On the hon. Lady’s point about Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—obviously, the point applies to West Sussex as well, as they essentially go into the same pool—I would <span id="469" class="column-number" data-column-number="469"></span>not necessarily assume that because those authorities were at the end of the decision-making process in the previous round, they will be at the end of the process in the current round. We will make a decision on which ones we are going to bring forward shortly. On the hon. Lady’s point about legal advice, which was also mentioned by the shadow Minister, it is long-standing Government policy that we do not publish that legal advice.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   My hon. Friend makes the case for reorganisation well. It is less important how we perceive the structures of government in this place; in my view, it is more important that local people know who to hold to account for decisions made in their name and with their taxes. The truth is that in two-tier areas, there is confusion about which council to hold to account for the delivery of services, and there is a duplication of services. The fact that we have multiple chief executives, multiple finance directors, multiples HR directors and so on means that—in a period with there are all the pressures on adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation, and when we desire to start rebuilding neighbourhood services so that people can see improvement in their area—we have to do absolutely everything that we can to direct money to the frontline and to the local services that people can see.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   All the local authorities that were engaged in LGR, whether they were part of the four subject to the court challenges or the one that we are withdrawing today, will receive a payment for the work that they have done. The reorganisation programme is going ahead, so we are going to return to Hampshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk to complete that work.

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   As it stands, we are satisfied that there is not a requirement for areas to develop new proposals. We will consider the proposals already submitted and the evidence base, as well as the consultation that went alongside. However, there have to be fresh ministerial decisions that are objective and that we approach with an open mind. There is no further requirement on councils to do that front work. However, we are going to introduce a “minded to” process. When decisions are made, they will be “minded to” decisions. The idea is that we need to rebuild good faith in local government. If areas have concerns about a proposal that we believe is a “minded to” decision—if that proposal is not quite right for an area, or there are concerns about its potential implementation or what it means for local communities—there has to be something in the process that ensures that the Government are open to listen. We believe that is best done through the “minded to” process.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   It is important that we have a programme that is consistent across the country. We cannot say, “Well, because there seems to be a bit more local consensus in one place than another, and maybe the legal risk is a bit less, we can suddenly kind of shortcut the process.” That means that Gloucestershire, like everywhere else, will go through the “minded to” process. The letters going to councils today will give interested parties around three weeks to make representations. We then need to consider our response and do any more development coming from that. That will mean that the 2027 election for the shadow unitary just will not be possible. Another thing to have in mind is that, even though we are doing our best to tie this work down and make it robust, any decision of Government can be challenged in court, including the one in Gloucestershire. The worst outcome is that we pretend that May ’27 is an option. We are going to get to the end of the “minded to” decision in January, and it will take a couple of months to look at it; there will be no time at all for returning officers and political parties to find candidates for the new shadow unitary. There is a chance that a decision could be judicially reviewed in that process, <span id="471" class="column-number" data-column-number="471"></span>and that would probably be the worst outcome. It is a fact that this work will take a bit longer, but that gives more certainty to councils so that they can prepare.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   We have confirmed multiple times that the 500,000 population size was a guiding figure, and we were very mindful during the course of reorganisation that some councils went above that, with Gloucestershire being one example—I think the population was in the mid-600,000s. Other councils did not believe that was the way forward for their local population, for different reasons; sometimes it was because of a spread of different identities between a coastal community, an urban city or a rural shire surrounding it. In those councils, the view was, that the council should better represent the identity of the area, rather than being a single unit. That figure was always a guide. There is not a window in this process for new proposals, but there will be a “minded to” process. When we confirm our preferred option, if there are proposals for tweaks that would make it better, we will be open to receiving them during that process.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   We said that the meeting would take place after the review, as we wanted the review to take its course. It has obviously now concluded, and I have made a statement today. We have a list of about 40 to 50 MPs who have requested meetings in debates and in writing, so we will have a Monday evening surgery every two weeks from 7 pm to 9 pm. We will make sure that MPs are given a slot at the earliest possible opportunity.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Local Government Reorganisation

   My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the criteria for reorganisation is that it has to be compatible with devolution going forward. I hope that Members saw the announcement yesterday for 10 new devolution agreements across England—that is significant investment coming our way. When we look at the map of England, there is that belt around the midlands where economies and communities say that they look in different directions. We need to work through what a good settlement for those areas looks like in practice, but I absolutely take on board my hon. Friend’s points. I thank him for all the work that he does on this issue, and I am very happy to meet him.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I just do not agree with the analysis that we can stay as we are. I do not think we can stay as we are from a public service delivery perspective, a devolution perspective, or a financial sustainability perspective. The world has changed, and the demands for people-led services—in adults’ and children’s social care and in temporary accommodation—are overwhelming councils. We have to make sure that we free up the money from the system that is currently used for executive pay and back-office support and direct it straight to neighbourhoods and people-led services. That is not at all to decry the good work that district councils do. I respect those councils, but we have to take this in the context of the 50-year period of reorganisation.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I thank my hon. Friend for all her representations on this issue over a long period of time. I can definitely commit to moving as quickly as possible. All the points she has raised—about identity, good public services and so on—are in our mind when we consider the proposals.

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I am delighted that the hon. Member has managed to find his seat today—he looks quite comfortable there, and there is not a prayer card in sight, as far as I can see. Actually, he makes the important point that local politics matters. What we do not want to do through reorganisation is take away the local, so the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 requires us to bring forward neighbourhood governance arrangements before Christmas. We want to try to have a unit of government within a council—to hardwire it and mainstream it, so that local councillors are given the respect that comes with being frontline councillors with the powers and resources to get things done in their area. We can do that at a bigger level and in a different way. To be clear—although I know the hon. Member did not mean it—the Reform party is not taking the Government to court; local authorities have decided to issue claims. We need to make sure that we are not using local authorities for party political reasons.

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    My hon. Friend makes a very fair point about the impact of the delay. That has impacted a lot of council staff who have been working on this; it has definitely impacted chief officers, legal officers and councillors, which is why we committed to return as soon as possible. I think we have honoured that through <span id="474" class="column-number" data-column-number="474"></span>the work we have done so far, but we will move at pace to make sure we can act as quickly as possible. Obviously, securing devolution and investment for the counties of Leicestershire and Rutland could be transformational for their communities and their economy.

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The cost of transitioning from the two-tier system to new unitaries is covered by councils in their proposals. They tell us how they will finance the transitional arrangements that they are asking the Government to consider. For the first time—Government have not done this before—we have introduced a multimillion-pound budget, £900,000 per new unitary, to support the transitional arrangements on top of that, so I do not believe that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has framed his question reflects the reality. The Government are meeting the councils halfway.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Obviously, we were delighted to announce the devolution agreement yesterday. That will definitely bring new resources and powers to my hon. Friend’s area, but it has to be built on a strong foundation of local government that can be sustained. As for how MPs can engage, the “minded to” process for when decisions are issued gives us a window in which MPs and other interested parties can make representations.

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    As with LGR, devolution is locally led, so it is for local areas to come to Government to say, “We have a broad agreement that we want to be in talks about devolution.” We then bring that into a programme and speak to the Treasury about financing that programme, which is where we got to yesterday, so this is great news for the 10 areas that are in scope. The next stage is a consultation, probably around December, and then local authorities will be taking local decisions to form the strategic authority, probably in February and March. Once they have done that, we will move the statutory instruments—the legislation—here in the House.

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    At the moment, we will be going on the proposals that we already have. If those proposals generally contain the type of outcome that my hon. Friend wants and we are minded to go with them, there is an opportunity during the “minded to” window to make representations: “Actually, those proposals could be improved if this modification were made.” If we accept that as an argument and want to make a modification order, we will then need to go through a separate consultation process. That will probably take a bit longer, but if it is the right thing to do, we should be open-minded about doing it.

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    <strong> </strong>The pace of change is quick—we know that—but the economic and social requirements for that pace are vital. If we do not move quickly, we will have no chance of ensuring growth can reach every postcode in the country, which is our promise, and no ability to ensure the funding required for those who need social care, care in their local communities and vital neighbourhood services. It is, therefore, the right thing to do. On the hon. Member’s point about whether we are imposing this, to be clear, the English devolution White Paper that was published in December 2024 invited councils to be part of the voluntary programme, and every one of the 21 outstanding counties applied.

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    At the moment, the proposal regarding the “minded to” decision is to expand the boundary of Brighton and Hove city council to include the communities of Saltdean and Peacehaven further down the coast. However, that is a “minded to” decision, so there is an opportunity for communities to make representations, alongside MPs. I give my hon. Friend credit for the representations he has already made on this over quite a long period.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I understand that all MPs were invited to the meeting at No. 10 North about devolution, which is good news. That shows just how importantly we are taking this; it is a Government-wide priority and we are working across our different teams to ensure that it lands. I hope the hon. Gentleman also recognises that, for Cornwall, we are working as hard as we can to recognise that different places are in different positions on devolution, but, ultimately, we want to complete the map, either through a foundation authority or through an MSA.

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    First, I thank my hon. Friend for the representations he has made on behalf of Exeter over a long period of time on this, both regarding reorganisation and devolution. He raises a very fair point, which is that we were trying to align reorganisation to be in place before devolution, but the fact is that those are now going to run to slightly different timetables. It raises a question: if this is about an economic project—which it is—the city economic drivers and the travel-to-work areas ought to have a voice in that. I cannot make commitments today, other than to say that I acknowledge the point my hon. Friend makes and will take it away.

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    With Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and also with West Sussex, we are still earlier in the process, so we will confirm in writing what that will be. However, all decisions will be “minded to”. My hon. Friend makes a very strong case about the economic benefits of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and that being built on strong foundations. Also, I congratulate him on his appointment as the Government’s co-operatives champion; he has always been my co-operatives champion, but it is nice that he has been recognised.

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The “minded to” process will allow anyone in the area to make those points in representations. If there is new information that we have not considered, I would be happy to receive it.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Hampshire was one of the areas where decisions were withdrawn earlier in September, so we will be reviewing that process. As I think I said before, it should not be assumed that, just because areas <span id="478" class="column-number" data-column-number="478"></span>were in previous batches, that will be the order in which we will take them. We will confirm how we will batch those up, or not, in the coming weeks.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The hon. Member makes the case as to why the district elections are important. We cannot have a situation in which there is a democratic deficit, where one part of the partnership in the reorganisation—the transfer of assets, workforce and liabilities, and the rest of it—does not have a say. As she says, the vesting day on this timetable will be April 2029. I am afraid that the idea that there should not be a democratic-mandate reset to negotiate that transfer just does not hold.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Now that the review has concluded, the individual meetings requested by a list of MPs will take place, and we will contact MPs in the usual way for those Monday sessions. Notwithstanding that, the “minded to” process will allow formal representations even beyond that.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    As I say, all the localised costs of reorganisation are included in the financial profiles that councils send to the Government; councils themselves determine what type or form of arrangement they want to put forward for their area. Alongside the boundary proposal, they have to do a financial assessment of the transitional arrangements and the cash implications, and that is all set out in the proposals.

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on his representations. It is probably fair to say that I cannot get through the voting Lobby without him making those representations, but he does so for the right reasons. He cares about the place that he represents, and he wants devolution in Lancashire to be a success. In that, we are entirely as one.

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I will review not only the proposals that came forward, but the consultation that was carried out at the time, and I will test the assumptions. On one side, there is the idea that big is beautiful, and that having a single unitary will save money and all the rest of it; on the other side, there is the idea that local is better. In today’s debate, we have heard that there are very different views on that, and I tend to find that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I am trying to get a compromise that people accept, but clearly we cannot pre-empt the findings; we are coming at this with an open mind.

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    To be clear, the invitation for areas to make submissions to the LGR process was entirely voluntary; there was no mandation. When councils submit a proposal, that initiates LGR. This is a Government-wide programme, but it is taking place because we have received proposals <span id="480" class="column-number" data-column-number="480"></span>from local councils that we are now required to review. However, I take on board my hon. Friend’s point about being mindful of the impact of the process on council officials and councillors.

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    Hampshire is an area that we will look at afresh, just as we will look afresh at other decisions. I have not predetermined what might happen, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. This is an imperfect process, but ensuring that the decision reflects community identity is definitely at the back of my mind.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about consultation. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), and I have done a lot to engage with local government, and many of our drop-in sessions have been about devolution, so I push back on the idea that we have not done that, but we could always do more. Further talks might be required, but let us not detract from the benefit of this multibillion-pound investment to our communities. As local MPs, surely the reason we come here is to make sure that our areas get their fair share.

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    We do not align the decision on one county with the entirely separate legal decision on the county next door; all we can do is act on the basis of the proposals we receive. These are not always easy decisions, and they are always a matter of balancing competing interests. As I said, I have not yet seen a perfect proposal, but we are trying to get to the best possible solution in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and all the other places <span id="481" class="column-number" data-column-number="481"></span>that we have mentioned today. We are in the middle of the “minded to” process, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations, I would be very happy to receive them.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I think I have enough on my plate without taking that on.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    We published the criteria at the start of the process, and those criteria stand. They are unweighted; the idea is that they give us the freedom to take into account that England is very diverse, and what is right for one county might not be right for another. In the end, decisions have to be as sustainable as possible. They have to balance efficiency and identity, and these are not easy decisions. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the opportunity for a modification proposal, we are now receiving proposals, and there is no additional window to do that. Also, consultations have already been carried out. However, there will be a “minded to” process for all these decisions, so that he and others can make representations. In the case of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and also West Sussex, I am very happy to confirm the details by writing to Members shortly.

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The way we approach “minded to” decisions is not to assume that the council will be the conduit for every view in an area. In a single area, there may be very different views from different political groups, local charity organisations and other public service providers. The deliberate intention is for councils, local residents, the business community and whoever has an interest to make representations, and our view is that three weeks ought to be enough time to do so.

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I definitely accept the right hon. Member’s point that having an itinerary of areas, with a clear date alongside them, would do what he has asked, but that is not where we are. We have decided that we ought to confirm the decision for an area as soon as possible, rather than waiting for this to be patched up, in the way that may have happened previously. On whether elections should go ahead, I have made the point that these district councils will be in place until the vesting days of the new local authorities. We cannot have elections being cancelled, creating a democratic deficit. Councils must have representatives around the table, with a mandate given to them by the public.

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    The hon. Member is almost suggesting that the further delay is for the sake of delay, but new decisions have to be taken. When I review previous decisions, I am not just saying, “Well, we’ll just allow them to go through.” We are withdrawing decisions entirely for areas, and we will make new decisions from the point of proposal, with a consultation and based on fresh evidence. He says that his is a compelling proposal, and asks why we would think otherwise, and what he proposes may well be the outcome, but it would be wrong to predetermine it.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim Dickson

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E0F279A9-6E97-4814-B645-D55FFAD3C95F}"> </QNum></strong> It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here. You will not be surprised to know that, as the Member of Parliament for Dartford, I have residents who are hugely inconvenienced by the overcapacity of the current Dartford crossing every day and who really welcome the plans, which have been advanced very well under this Government, to build the lower Thames crossing. One concern for them is that there might be perverse incentives via the tolling to use one crossing rather than another. Do you have views about how we could make sure that does not happen and what the ORR would need to do in negotiation with the licence holder? Do you have any views about local resident discount schemes, including how well they have worked elsewhere and whether they should be a necessary part of any future arrangement, although that may not be in the Bill? <em><strong>Edmund King:</strong></em> Those are all relevant questions, even down to the time that the toll applies—is it 24 hours a day or 6 am to 10 pm, as it is currently? Are motorcycles free? What is the resident discount? Could there be a resident discount? We believe that there should be, because frequent users, such as those who live on one side of the crossing and work on the other, are already paying motoring tax in other ways, but is this a tax on jobs? Those issues are vital. It is also vital to get the support of local people, whether they be businesses or drivers. Giving those concessions would help win that support, particularly when we know that the construction period will cause a lot of congestion and adverse effects. Those are all valid points. <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> All I would add is that this is one of the challenges with creating an overarching framework in the Bill rather than something specific to the Dartford and lower Thames crossings. I do not doubt that in the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR, there will be explicit reference to the need not to create the sort of problems that you envisage and to set toll levels in such a way that manages the traffic flow between the two crossings, but we have not yet seen that.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim Dickson

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E0A4F0EC-DEB6-46E3-BF10-27BD11CB52C5}"> </QNum></strong> Ben and Declan, you have set out very clearly the effect on your sector of the Dartford crossing being hugely over capacity. I have talked about how it affects hugely my residents’ quality of life and air quality. It has been suggested by some that we do not <span id="19" class="column-number" data-column-number="19"></span>need the project and should look at modal shift instead of, rather than alongside, the solution of the lower Thames crossing. What do you think would happen if the lower Thames crossing was not built—what is your scenario over the next decade? <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> I think it would inhibit economic growth. Thinking about the modal shift piece, using the right modes for the right kind of journeys in our logistics system is really important, but it is not simply about getting more off congested roads and more on to rail. Rail can play a particularly strong role, as you would understand, where there are railway tracks that connect to ports and are bringing in containers. As this area gets congested, I do not think that would automatically lead to the logistics sector switching to rail, because of the lack of rail connectivity. It could, over time, lead to less use of the short straits and more use of container shipping but, really, those dynamics are shaped by where the goods are coming from in the world. It would largely just be a bottleneck. It would increase the costs, over time, of exporters connecting to new markets. The current situation will invariably be inhibiting businesses from thinking about going to export, because it has an effect on the costs. We want to see that resolved. In short, it would be bad for the economy if it did not happen. <em><strong>Declan Pang:</strong></em> We are very much behind it and we are grateful for your efforts in campaigning for it. We are pleased to see that the development consent order was approved. It is already having a significant impact on the economy, given the level of congestion. It is vital that we get it delivered.

    Hansard source