Local Government Reorganisation
I think I have enough on my plate without taking that on.
What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I think I have enough on my plate without taking that on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Q 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? Edmund King: 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. Steve Gooding: 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.
Q 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 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? Ben Garratt: 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. Declan Pang: 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.
Q 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? Michael Whelan: 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.
Q 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? Ralph Smyth: I may struggle to persuade you on this within the 15 minutes allotted.
Give us a summary. Ralph Smyth: 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.
Q 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? Matt Palmer: 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.
Q 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? Matt Palmer: 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.
Q 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— Andrew Truscott: Hopefully not.
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? Andrew Truscott: 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.
Q 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 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? Justin Madders: 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.
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, 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.
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.
After Storm Austen last week, with its echoes of Storm Goretti, I wanted to recognise some of my Cornish parish councils for setting up emergency plans; Salt Wind Catering for working with the National Grid to provide some of the warm food that people needed; National Grid and its team—particularly Jacob Wallace—for their work; Cormac for sorting out the trees so quickly; our farmers; and Radio Cornwall. I think a lot of their actions and what we did in Goretti led to the “Be Ready” scheme that the Government rolled out last week. Could we have a debate in Government time on support for community resilience in the face of the effects of climate change and severe storms?
It is right that all options proposed by Nottinghamshire authorities be looked at fairly and properly, so I welcome the Minister’s confirmation, but today’s update makes it clear that LGR is extremely complicated, should never have been a term-one priority, and has destabilised the very organisations on which we rely to deliver so many services. Having led a local authority, I cannot emphasise enough how big an impact this is having on our councillors and council officers, so I hope the Minister can clarify the situation. Are there scenarios in which “minded to” may mean that LGR does not go ahead? Are councils able to make representations to that effect, and who is being held accountable for the announcements on 16 July, which should never have happened?
My constituent Matthew Cox has foetal valproate syndrome. This time last year, he wrote to the Prime Minister. It took several months for him to get a response. He wrote again to No. 10 in March, and I wrote to the Health Secretary in July. There have been no responses, and the response that Matthew did receive was not an appropriate response for someone with learning difficulties. Will the Minister take Matthew’s case away specifically, and ensure that he gets the response he has been looking for? He and his mum welcome the hope that a new Labour Government brought on this; it is essential that we deliver for them.
Q Both yourselves and the previous witnesses have talked about stronger independent regulation being something that you would support. Obviously, we have the M6 toll, which is a current operator. How well do you think current regulation works for the M6 toll? Is there anything that we need to change that is relevant to this Bill? Those questions are probably for Ben and Declan. Ben Garratt: It may be that there is a market dynamic around the M6 that means it is working reasonably well, in that there is a good alternative route that is not always congested. I assume that Michael would feel that they are playing in a competitive environment. Logistics businesses, as we said, are often choosing to use it. It is a slightly different situation in other parts of the network when the current crossing is full a lot of the time, so it could be more of a distress purchase, let us say, to use the alternative route. Therefore it is important that it is regulated and that there is a role for the regulator in ensuring fairness, which the broader market might not necessarily apply in all parts of the network. Declan Pang: The role of the regulator is certainly very important. As part of the process we need an independent element to that and to strengthen the role of the stakeholder group as an independent group. On the specific aspects of the Bill that relate to toll amounts, clause 25 talks about classes of road vehicle in respect of which tolls are payable. We have some concerns about how that might impact different types of haulage operation and HGVs, which may disadvantage certain types of businesses. That is an example of something that we think needs to be a bit more consistent, given what we have with the M6 toll at the moment.
Many local towns like Rye and Bexhill give free Saturday parking during the festive season to boost local high streets, but not Hastings. That is why last year I launched a campaign calling on the local council to roll it out in Hastings, too. Does the Leader of the House agree that after the Government took decisive action in the Budget yesterday to support local businesses and cut business rates, Green-run Hastings borough council should get in the festive spirit early and support my campaign for Christmas parking in Hastings?
For too many disabled people, the railway remains a system of barriers rather than connections. To improve disability access at stations, we continue to deliver step-free access through the Access for All programme. Since July 2024, we have completed improvements at 31 stations across the country; a further 22 are in progress on site, and 36 are in design. Last month, we committed to make level boarding from train to platform a baseline expectation for all new Great British Railways trains.
My hon. Friend paints a vivid picture of how critical accessible stations are, not just to her constituents but to people travelling across the country. She will know that Chepstow was nominated for Access for All funding in 2022, but was not selected for funding by the previous Government. Future funding, beyond what I spoke about in my first answer, will be considered at the next spending review, and I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend to understand how the case of Chepstow station can be raised at that time.
I am very sorry to hear about the problems that my hon. Friend’s constituents are experiencing at Bishop’s Stortford station. I am aware of those problems and know that they were further impacted by the extreme temperatures this summer. A full lift replacement is planned for 2028, but I realise that that will sound like a long way off to his constituents. In the short term, I will ask my officials to meet Greater Anglia to explore how we can alleviate disruption for residents, and I would be happy to keep him updated on that.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, matters relating to the railways are devolved, but I will look into the accessibility issues at the station he refers to and progress any necessary conversations with colleagues in the Scottish Government.
As I said in my earlier answer, we do have a programme of work happening across the country at the moment, whether that is further design work on stations or construction works that are under way. In reference to the two stations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—Woking and West Byfleet—I would be happy to look at the details and discuss with him whether future improvements could come forward as part of the next spending review.
My Department regularly discusses roadworks and other highways matters with the Northern Ireland Executive through the UK Roads Leadership Group.
I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman raises these matters. Whether it is people travelling on the roads or businesses that are impacted by roadworks, the impacts are felt across the entirety of the UK. We have discussed these matters through the UK Roads Leadership Group, and I can tell him that a code of practice was recently published. It provides guidance for authorities on how to better co-ordinate roadworks with neighbouring authorities and utilities—by considering overnight works, for example—to minimise disruption.
I will do my best to address both elements of my hon. Friend’s question. From my experience as the Deputy Mayor of London, I know the difference that lane rental schemes can make to manage the most disruptive impacts. I will certainly pursue discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive about lane rental, because I know it could make a real difference in that part of the UK as well.
For too long, our railways have not been run in the service of passengers. We are turning this around, with six operators already brought into public ownership under this Government and the renationalisation of Great Western Railway on 13 December. Next year, the creation of Great British Railways will bring the management of track and train together, ending decades of fragmentation, and delivering better and more reliable services for passengers.
I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on rail issues, and I know these services would make a real difference for his constituents over the Christmas period. I welcome the work done by West Midlands Trains and the local community on developing proposals for this trial. I think our publicly owned railways should work in the service of passengers, and these extra trains would be a great example of that. I very much back his call for this trial to take place.
It is for the new Welsh Government to confirm their own contribution to this project, so that we can get on and deliver it as quickly as possible. To my knowledge, no such confirmation has been provided to date. I am really pleased that we confirmed our contribution in the Budget yesterday, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her campaigning on this issue for her constituents. She was an excellent Welsh Secretary, and it was an absolute delight to work alongside her and start to put right the historical wrongs of under-investment in the Welsh railways.
This Government are investing considerably in improving rail services and public transport connections in Cambridgeshire. I would be happy to follow up on the detail of the right hon. Member’s proposal. I would just say that, with the East West Rail proposals linking Oxford to Cambridgeshire and the opening of the new station at Cambridge South, significant investment is going into this part of the country, but I will come back to him with the detail on his point.
As part of Northern Powerhouse Rail, we are prioritising improvements in the Yorkshire region, such as services from York to Leeds, and between Sheffield, Bradford and Leeds. Indeed, I was in Bradford just last week to make the announcement about a brand-new station at Bradford, which is much needed. I know the hon. Member continues to champion the case for the York area capacity study. We will continue to keep all of this under review, because we must provide the right number of trains, where people need them and when they need them.
My hon. Friend and I have met on this issue, and she is right to say that the Government are making that investment in phase 1. I remember discussing it with her when I was at Sheffield station for the Northern Powerhouse Rail announcement earlier this year. I would be happy to continue those conversations about phase 2 as we head into the next spending review.
The hon. Lady is right to mention the timetable review that is under way. I would be happy to discuss with South Western the options with regard to Hampton and Whitton. I would just note that one of the benefits of renationalising South Western Railways has been the roll-out of the new Arterio fleet of air-conditioned trains that are providing more capacity. I also recognise the important work that South Western has done to reduce the number of cancellations that come about as a consequence of the unavailability of staff. We need to get the basics right on South Western to provide the service that she and her constituents deserve.
May I start by congratulating the hon. Lady on her appointment to the Opposition Front Bench? I think this is the first opportunity that I have had a chance to do so from the Dispatch Box. She is right in some respects. We do need to make more progress on improving punctuality and reliability, and I cannot pretend that I am happy with performance across the entirety of the rail network at the moment. However, I would gently point out to her that at the last reporting period, cancellations across publicly-owned operators were 3.9% compared to 4.9% for operators yet to transfer and still in private ownership. On punctuality, 82.6% of stops by publicly-owned operators were within three minutes of their scheduled arrival time, compared with just 73.8% for operators yet to transfer.
I was delighted to be in Derby a few weeks ago to announce the new fleet of battery-electric trains for TransPennine Express. It is a £1.2 billion investment. Included in that are hundreds of millions of pounds of maintenance costs for the duration of that contract. We are working on procurements for both Southeastern trains and Northern trains at the moment. Value for money and affordability will be central to the decisions we make on those procurements.
We are investing in the rail network in the Greater Manchester area, including the Bolton-Manchester line and services to Blackburn. These investments will improve reliability, which, combined with our funding for longer trains with more seats, will substantially boost capacity. We are also investing in key stations, including crucial upgrades at Salford and Manchester Victoria.