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

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

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I will certainly make a note of that.

    Hansard source
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Local Government Reorganisation

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

    Hansard source
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim Dickson

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C8911D2E-E0B1-4A34-8920-26EC3133F253}"> </QNum></strong> It has been suggested that the requirement to sign in separately to use each tolled arrangement in the UK—the Mersey tunnels, the Tyne tunnel, the M6 and elsewhere—is a burden on a whole variety of road users. Mr Whelan, what do you think of the opportunity to create interoperability among tolled arrangements, thereby making it better for the logistics industry and consumers who use multiple tolled arrangements? <em><strong>Michael Whelan:</strong></em> We fully support that and are looking at it as an industry—some operators of toll roads have come together to discuss that. Having one account makes a lot of sense, particularly for freight and logistics organisations. On top of that, interoperability can be expanded into other things, such as signage. Anywhere else in the world, toll roads will have a unique colour or symbol. That is important, because it helps to make sure there is some consistency and knowledge for the customer of what they are approaching, such as about when to pay. When it comes to free-flow tolling, it is important that people understand in advance what the rules are. Hence, we fully support part 7, with some minor amendments that we would like to see to clauses 92 to 94. Those are outlined in the pre-reading, but I think we might have run out of time to go through them now.

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

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{9827DB86-CA58-4850-A611-BB583DD248E9}"> </QNum></strong> Thank you very much for being here to give evidence. The Transport Action Network is on record as being against the lower Thames crossing, under any circumstances and however it is funded. Do you recognise that, as the Committee heard in evidence this morning from the logistics lobby, and as I have heard from my residents, there are not many other ways to deal with the congestion? Are you still against the scheme? What is your alternative to deal with the manifest problems that the Committee has heard about, and that I hear about every day? <em><strong>Ralph Smyth:</strong></em> I may struggle to persuade you on this within the 15 minutes allotted.

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

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    Give us a summary. <em><strong>Ralph Smyth:</strong></em> I was interested to hear other witnesses say that if it was not built, it might mean a shift in some of the trade routes to help to rebalance away from the overheated south-east. If you want to read more, there is a report by TAN on what the alternatives are. I would be happy to send that to the Committee, if it would be helpful.

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

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{3570D8B6-B32F-445A-8D50-C226E52CDC89}"> </QNum></strong> One of the things that has come through from other witnesses today is the need for pace on this project—the status quo is appalling for my residents but every bad for the economy and for various sectors. Matt, would you say that the need for us to pass some legislation, then have an equity competition and then appoint the funders is slowing down your work to make sure that the project continues and completes on time—and hopefully on budget and on spec as well? <em><strong>Matt Palmer:</strong></em> We are moving at pace. The Chancellor at the last autumn Budget—not this one—announced funding to get us to private finance, and we are well into that. We are moving at pace. There is a misunderstanding that we have not started. We have very definitely started: 2,000 people are on site, we have 14 sq km of land and there is a lot of mud at the moment, I am afraid. We are moving well and at pace. Our target is to get a tunnel boring machine, which will be the largest in the world at the time, in the ground in 2028, which will line up roughly with when we go to private finance. All of that is contingent on the fact that we need the legislation through to allow us to get the equity to move on thereafter.

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

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{EBD4A87C-B8FF-413C-A7CC-DD46360CB8D1}"> </QNum></strong> Is this largely the result of having had considerable allocation of Treasury funding already, in order to be able to make a start and, essentially, mobilise and begin the project in the way described? <em><strong>Matt Palmer:</strong></em> The logic is that the economic benefit of the scheme is great. Not only does it solve the problem in the local area; it is a national-level project, so we move at pace, we start the construction and we take a lot of the difficult, time-consuming activities like land assembly—putting plots of land together—and that is what we are doing at the moment. All of that enables a much more stable platform for investors to come in.

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

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C668F61A-2AA8-43E2-9283-6BCF390A35E3}"> </QNum></strong> I agree with your earlier point that it is really important that the tolls are kept affordable in every way, not only for the haulage industry but for motorists and other vehicles. Presumably one aspect of that will be this being an attractive project for which lots of interest is generated in the market, and therefore we get lots of potential bidders— <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> Hopefully not.

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

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    In terms of investor attractiveness, how would you rank the scheme globally against other schemes of similar size, or other comparable schemes? Do you think we are set to have a competitive and very interested set of players looking to bid? <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> It is a really good question. I will try to keep my answer brief, because I could bore you for about a month on this. The short answer is that the big attention for the main global contractors—of which there are, let us be honest, a handful—is currently on the US. The US is undergoing a big programme of what they are calling managed lanes projects, which are about upgrading existing roadways to be either tolled or semi-tolled or managed. I am sure you have not seen Ferrovial or Cintra—all the big Spanish contractors are very focused on the US. Australia is sporadic but yes, there are some large projects—not necessarily transportation projects—that are attracting interest from investors and contractors in Australia. In Europe, you can count it on the fingers of one hand. Actually, that is where LTC may get more attention, as a consequence of the lack of other available opportunities. However, this is a big project. This is a big equity cheque and there will be an awful lot of investors who say—well, I am certainly yet to meet the investor who will be able to write a single cheque for the entire amount. My guess is that this will come down to pools of consortium of capital, very much like those that ended up being on Thames Tideway, who come together because the amount of capital required is just so huge. Do I expect it to be competitive? Unfortunately, yes. Do I expect you to have 10 to 15 single-asset bidders all vying to buy 100% of the equity? Not in the slightest.

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

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    That is very helpful.

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

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{4556A12A-BD52-4994-9C29-4EE85FE6A586}"> </QNum></strong> I am a very strong supporter of the Bill, because it enables major projects such as the lower Thames crossing to be funded, but the tolling issue is important. We cannot talk about individual toll levels, but we can talk about mechanisms by which reasonable—hopefully affordable—tolls will be set for both industry and individual motorists. Could the Minister <span id="57" class="column-number" data-column-number="57"></span>enlarge a bit on how the ORR, with the legislation designed and passed by Parliament, will ensure that tolls fit the definition of “affordable” as far as possible? <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> I understand why you ask that question. The Bill sets the framework for the RAB model, and that will establish the independent regulator. Its remit is clear, and it is there in the first few clauses of the Bill: to take account of the interests of road users. There will be fair pricing, transparency and long-term sustainability as a result of that. You will also be aware that there will be a stakeholder group in which users will have the opportunity to feed in. We have a pretty robust set of reassurances that I hope will satisfy you and your constituents.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    Major Trauma Centres: Helipads

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. I am grateful to be able to speak today. As the Member of Parliament for Truro and Falmouth, I know at first hand how indispensable our air ambulance services are to rural and coastal communities across Cornwall and the south-west. The reason I came to Cornwall was because I was married to a naval pilot who came to fly search and rescue planes for the Navy there. I remember one incident when I took my newly born baby to the crew room to eat broken biscuits with the crew. I went to the bathroom and when I came back, the baby was lying in the middle of the floor on his own—they had all gone out for a shout. That was quite a thing. Of course, that is no longer part of the Navy’s job, and the hon. Member for Strangford talked about the charities that do this amazing work now. The coastal and rural nature of Truro and Falmouth gives my constituency its beauty, but also makes it dangerous when someone injures themselves. When a critical incident occurs in Cornwall, whether it is on a rural road, a cliff path or one of our farms, the speed with which a patient can get to specialist clinical care can absolutely be the difference between life and death. Earlier this year, I wrote to the Secretary of State about fuel resilience and operational safeguards for our air ambulance charities. The basis of that message remains the same today: our air ambulances are an essential component of NHS emergency care pathways, and their operational needs must be treated with the seriousness and national policy support that they deserve. Cornwall Air Ambulance is so well supported by the local population—it does a fantastic job—and now has two helicopters that have been fundraised by the local population, because we realise how crucial it is to our communities. That is why I strongly support the call in this debate for a consistent national policy to establish safeguarded 24/7 on-site helipad access at major trauma centres and specialist hospitals across the UK. In Cornwall, we have seen considerable local progress and investment in the Royal Cornwall hospital at Treliske. However, <span id="226WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="226WH"></span>key challenges still remain locally, in ensuring that outstanding infrastructure works and the access routes at Treliske are concluded without delay, and in ensuring that operational access and refuelling, both on site and at bases such as Cornwall Airport Newquay, are fully supported and future-proofed. When 83% of the public expect major hospitals to be able to receive air ambulance patients at any time via an on-site helipad, we cannot rely on a patchwork of local arrangements or leave critical infrastructure recommendations unfulfilled due to administrative transitions in trusts, for example, or highways authorities. A national policy will provide much-needed clarity on safeguarding helipads from surrounding planning developments, standardise how 24/7 clinical need is assessed and help to unlock target funding when charitable support needs national backing. That would have a lifesaving impact in Cornwall’s rural and coastal communities. This is about equality of access, removing unnecessary transfer delays and ensuring that wherever someone falls critically ill in our country, the air ambulance crew can land safely on site, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. To conclude, I urge the delivery of a consistent national policy to safeguard vital landing sites and ensure that our air ambulance crews can continue saving lives across Truro and Falmouth, Cornwall, the south-west and the entire country.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    Topical Questions

    I am aware that the Secretary of State has already answered two questions about Peninsula Transport’s fantastic wi-fi pilot on GWR trains, but if we are to go ahead with rolling it out for nationalisation on 13 December, I gently ask whether there is a way to nudge the Treasury to make that money available.

    Hansard source