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

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

Sitting MPs
404
Entries, last 7 days
1,235
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Conservative and Unionist Party

Sitting MPs
118
Entries, last 7 days
533
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Liberal Democrats

Sitting MPs
71
Entries, last 7 days
319
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Reform UK

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
23
Members
270,000 CLAIMED

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Scottish National Party

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
10
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Green Party

Sitting MPs
5
Entries, last 7 days
28
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

Plaid Cymru

Sitting MPs
4
Entries, last 7 days
4
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 3 Nov 2026

All parties, latest first

Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Regional Airports: Short-haul Destinations

    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.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Regional Airports: Short-haul Destinations

    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.

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Royal National Lifeboat Institution

    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.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Royal National Lifeboat Institution

    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.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Royal National Lifeboat Institution

    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.

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Topical Questions

    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.

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Topical Questions

    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.

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Topical Questions

    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.

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Topical Questions

    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.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Topical Questions

    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.

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Topical Questions

    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.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Topical Questions

    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.

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentLabourKeir Mather

    Topical Questions

    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.

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <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.

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <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.

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <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.

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <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.

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <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.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <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.

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <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.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <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.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    We hope the Bill will address those concerns.

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <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.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{041A1A1F-5890-47C8-BB37-6188A388CD4E}"> </QNum></strong> The regulation-making powers in the Bill will hopefully address those concerns if there is adequate consultation as we move forward. <em><strong>Thomas McLennan:</strong></em> I have a concern that there is too much emphasis on downstream consultation in the Bill. We want to see a requirement to enable things such as the transfer of liability in the Bill because that has not been consistent in the market to date. We need to see that embedded from the start.

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{5F6CFFF2-1B10-4AE6-9434-B90BC008F8C4}"> </QNum></strong> Good afternoon. You probably heard witnesses earlier express a little scepticism about your ability to deal with the potential cost inflation or exaggeration—whatever word you want to use. You have obviously both been involved in this project from its inception, particularly in terms of construction, and you are running the existing crossing, so you know what the running costs and maintenance costs are. Would you say that, because of that, the scope for being blinded by PowerPoint, for want of a better description, is probably more limited than it could be? <em><strong>Matt Palmer:</strong></em> The lower Thames crossing has been developed in detail over the last six years. Our development consent order fixes that scope very tightly; we cannot build any more or any less, so the scope is very well known. We are now running at 90% designed, so we literally are fully designed, and it has been competitively bid for. It is operating—we are currently on site with 3,300 people—and operating well against that very defined scope. It is, I am afraid, just a simple road. My colleagues back at base will kick me for that, but as a project it is a simple thing to build. We are not building a complex signalling<strong> </strong>system or a control system for a nuclear power station; we are just building a simple dumb asset. As for our ability to control that, control on road construction is historically very good. If you take a <span id="41" class="column-number" data-column-number="41"></span>similar project, which would be something like Thames Tideway, a similar RAB-based model, it is another simple dumb asset—that is no disrespect to my colleagues who built that. These are simple projects to build. They are large, but they are simple, and we know how to build them in the UK. The cost control on it is predominantly driven by the fact that we know what we are building and what it costs.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    Do have anything to add, Mr Godfrey? <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> I would reiterate the point that the development consent order tightly defines the scope of what is being delivered. As Matt said, the project is already well advanced. There are a few other points to bring up. Getting the cost forecast right, which underpins the allowed revenue for the first control period, is really important. That is the baseline against which you are holding the company to account. The instruments thereafter are what you specify in the licence, and that is really important to get right. That is not stuff you put in the Bill, but it is really important that you get it right in the licence and that you have the right incentives for the privately financed entity to deliver against that schedule. You need to make sure that the balance in the allocation of risk is right and that end users are ultimately protected from the risks of cost overruns. As I say, this project is fairly well advanced already; it is not like we are talking about starting one from scratch.

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

  30. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Active Travel

    On behalf of the Government, I add our good wishes to Tom on his final day at the Table. The Government recognise the importance of promoting active travel. On 12 June, we published the third cycling and walking investment strategy, which sets out our ambitious targets for active travel in England. The strategy is supported by more than £4.5 billion of projected investment through to 2030, helping to make walking, wheeling and cycling a safe and attractive choice for everyday trips.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Active Travel

    I agree with my hon. Friend that the Tour de France is an amazing opportunity to inspire more people to walk and cycle, and what a wonderful constituency for it to appear in. Active travel is a devolved matter, but officials from the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland meet regularly to discuss active travel, most recently in September. I pay tribute to the work of Portobello high sch ool. Cycling is a fantastic way to get around while cutting emissions and keeping fit. In England, we are investing £135 million in schemes such as Bikeability cycle training, with over half a million children receiving training each year. Alongside that, we are supporting the delivery of safer networks, enabling more children to walk, wheel and cycle to school. I will look into whether we can visit to enjoy some of the benefits of these schemes, along with my hon. Friend.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Active Travel

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on the news that the opening stage of the Tour de France will be finishing in Carlisle next year. I hope that she will be claiming the yellow jersey at that point. She makes the important point that hon. Members from across the House are concerned about illegal e-bikes. To be clear, those bikes have no place on our roads. At the moment, it is far too easy for retailers to put in the fine print that these vehicles are for use only on private land, and for consumers to then buy them and use them on public roads, without even realising that what they are doing is illegal. I am keen to explore how we tackle this issue as a Government, including through the newly established cross-Government ministerial group. In the meantime, I will be writing to retailers and online market places to remind them about their responsibility to market these products responsibly. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and other interested Members to discuss this subject.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Active Travel

    The right hon. Member raises very important points. We have all seen irresponsible cycling, but let us be clear that cycling on pavements is an offence, except where it is permitted. Police can and do take action against careless or dangerous cycling. As he will know, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced new offences covering death or serious injury caused by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. We have recently written to food delivery companies emphasising the need for them to ensure that their riders are acting legally and responsibly when undertaking their duties. I understand what he says, and I will certainly look further at that issue.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Active Travel

    The hon. Member makes a very fair point. One of the purposes of the cross-departmental working group is to work with Home Office officials and Ministers to understand the limitations on police actions and to see whether we can find novel methods of tackling this issue. We would be very grateful to receive any information that she has from her local constabulary.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Active Travel

    Let me be absolutely clear that this Department does not compromise the safety of anyone when they are crossing the road. The Department published statutory guidance on the provision and design of floating bus stops with Active Travel England in January, and all traffic authorities must have regard to that guidance. It provides very clear advice on floating bus stops and the need to design them with passengers, cyclists and pedestrians in mind. The most concerning and troublesome floating bus stops are no longer being built, but we continue to work on this issue. We understand the concerns, and we are absolutely determined to deal with the matter.

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Active Travel

    I can assure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that there is already an action plan. We have identified a number of issues, building on some of the work and recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, and those will be fed into the cross-departmental working group. The Government hear what the hon. Member and, indeed, all hon. Members are saying about this issue: we need to make our roads safe. We need to get this plague of illegal e-bikes sorted out once and for all, and this Government are determined to do that.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    In 2025-26, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency issued 12.3 million driving licences, processed over 100 million individual customer transactions and issued 18.5 million vehicle registration certificates. We recognise that improvement is needed on the time taken to process medical driving licence applications, and plans are in place to address this.

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    I recognise the hon. Member’s concerns, and I have asked for further information on some the matters he has raised. We are taking steps to tackle the issue. We have introduced a new digital casework system, we are recruiting additional staff, and the automation of routine processes is happening. Things are moving in the right direction. In 2022-23, the average number of working days to complete a medical licensing application was 89; this time last year it was 76; it is now down to 66; and we want to get it down to 45 by March next year. I can assure the hon. Member that we will do everything in our power to ensure that happens.

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    Well, if the agency was failing, then that was the condition we found it in when the hon. Member’s party left office. I am not entirely sure what he is complaining about. He is saying that we are spending more money on the agency, but that is to increase the number of staff, to improve automation and digital services take-up, and to make the service more efficient. There is a plan and it is working—the hon. Member should support it.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentLabourJustin Madders

    Topical Questions

    I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this area. She is right that these yobbos are causing misery for many communities. We are determined to see retailers cleaning up their act, and I am keen to explore how we tackle the issue. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, through my cross-departmental ministerial group, to see how we can take the matter further.

    Hansard source