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·Conservative·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

   The market, Minister. <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> We had very clear evidence from National Highways that this is not having an overall impact on costs. I am happy to provide further information. I will ask it to put something in writing about the detail of that. You will be aware that this Bill is scheme agnostic, so it is not appropriate for such restrictions to be placed in the Bill, but I am happy to facilitate a further conversation, because I understand you are concerned about that.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

   I am grateful.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

   Active Travel

   I associate the official Opposition with your comments, Mr Speaker, regarding the sad loss of Sue Holt. We send our condolences to her family and friends. Likewise, as many of the “Carry On” films were made in Buckinghamshire, at Pinewood Studios, I wish the Clerk of the House a very happy retirement. The Government have been warned by more than 290 organisations that their guidance on dangerous floating bus stops puts visually impaired people, deaf people and people with mobility issues at risk. Will the Minister acknowledge that cycling and active travel infrastructure must not come at the expense of disabled people’s safety? Some proponents of active travel, including those in the Department for Transport, must stop compromising the safety of disabled people who simply want to use public transport.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Greg Smith

   Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

   I am not certain that the Minister is right when he says that the DVLA is getting better. Its operating surplus is forecast to collapse by 54%. The DVLA is spending £96 million a year on postage and printing, despite a plan to move 85% of transactions online. The DVLA has committed to delivering £5 million in efficiency savings, yet expenditure is forecast to increase by £59 million in the same year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, the position on medical licensing is out of control. The answer to a written parliamentary question from August revealed that the average time for a bus and lorry driver to get a decision is still an unacceptably high 64.8 days. Can the Minister come back with a detailed plan on how his Department is going to get a grip on what can only be described as a failing Government agency?

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

   Budget Resolutions

   Will the Secretary of State give way?

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Graham Stuart

   Budget Resolutions

   I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but he will be aware that there is no plan to ensure that that 2030 target is met. At a time when we have short-term cuts in operational spending, the Secretary of State must feel a certain amount of disappointment that we do not have a firm plan in place, because if the Treasury do not sign off the numbers, then nothing really happens. That is true, is it not?

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to my new clause 34. I regret that my pointing out that the Bill will not create a single new social home appeared to get under the Minister’s skin on Tuesday, but the fact is that the Bill does not create any extra housing. That is not a surprise, as it comes from a Government who have built just 26% of their target in nearly 50% of their time in office. None the less, it is simply not good enough. Moreover, in the places—few and far between—where the Government have tried to get Britain building, that has nearly always come at the cost of green belt protections, despite the fact that research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England shows that a large proportion of the Government’s lofty housing target could swiftly be met using brownfield land that already has planning permission. The CPRE estimates that up to 1.41 million homes could be built on existing brownfield land in England, based on data from local planning authorities’ brownfield land registers up to 2024.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

   The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, but we are looking forwards, not backwards.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

   Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

   The hon. Lady says that the Government are making brownfield land development more viable. Where are the signs of that? There is no development happening. Development in this country has ground to a standstill under this Government. That malaise did not start under this Government—I will accept that criticism—but it is most certainly being exacerbated by this Government. They are doing nothing to turn back the tide. In fact, they are pushing it further. Those 1.41 million starts would amount to 93% of the Government’s manifesto pledge. That is why I have tabled new clause 34, which seeks to require the Government to publish a strategy for prioritising brownfield land for social housing development.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    This is starting to become quite fun. I do not accept the Minister’s comments. We will seek to divide the Committee on new clause 34 at the appropriate moment.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Gareth Bacon

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    I rise to speak to my new clause 53. Many people in social housing have come into their new home after a past marred by hardship and a lack of safety. When tenants finally have a roof over their head and a place to call home, they must not be left to face unsanitary or unsafe living conditions because of their property owner or manager. That is why we tabled new clause 53, which the hon. Member for Ealing Southall was absolutely correct to describe as a probing amendment. It would add an extra layer of protection for tenants and a fresh route to direct accountability for registered providers. The new clause would enable tenants of a registered provider to request an inspection by the Regulator of Social Housing, giving tenants new powers to ensure that their home is not just four walls, but a sanctuary. It is vital that social housing tenants be able to make the most of the regulator’s functions and that the regulator be not just a bureaucratic machine, but a voice for the vulnerable.

    Hansard source
12. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    I rise to speak in support of new clause 34, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. I have listened very carefully to hon. Members’ exchanges, and I have to say that I do not see what is particularly contentious about my hon. Friend’s proposal. It is not unreasonable to focus on the development of brownfield land first, as the previous Government did. We should therefore have a strategy to draw the strands together as we look towards the future. However many more years of this Government we have, the power is in their hands to do this. I do not see what is contentious about doing what my hon. Friend’s new clause proposes. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Rugby, but I have a counterpoint to his point about development on brownfield sites. My constituency has a couple of towns in it and is right on the edge of Leicester, but it goes way up into rural north-east Leicestershire. The reality is that the developments on the edges of the towns or nearer the city often work most effectively, because there are bus routes and there is access to more schools, shops, businesses and employment opportunities. The challenge that we face locally is that in Leicester city, which has a Labour mayor and which I go through on my way from the station to my constituency, there are undeveloped, unmodernised and un-utilised brownfield sites or commercial sites that have fallen into disuse. Nevertheless, the mayor says that he cannot meet his housing targets and has therefore farmed them out to the rural areas in the county. That means a significant amount of development on the edges of villages—often with no bus route or only a sparse service, a full village primary school and a GP practice serving a whole range of rural communities—that are unable to meet the needs of the additional development. The pressure on local services is a real challenge. I have been pushing for a long time to see whether, when these applications are <span id="111" class="column-number" data-column-number="111"></span>brought forward, there is a way of having “i” before “e”—infrastructure before expansion—so that at least we know the services are there. There is one big challenge that previous Governments I served in did not solve, and which I suspect this Government will struggle to solve, because it comes down to the viability of development. We can, and local authorities do, ask developers for capital contributions for those services, but often the problem is the ongoing revenue cost of running them. That means that we can get an extra room in a surgery, but will the local NHS integrated care board be willing to fund the salary costs and commission extra GP practice services?

    Hansard source
13. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Edward Argar

    Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

    I hesitate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of time, but no, they are not doing that, certainly not in my constituency. There is a Mayor of Leicester, but there is no mayor of Leicestershire, so we do not get any of the benefits. The Minister’s colleague—the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon)—will make a statement in the Chamber in about 20 minutes, so he may be about to change the position, but currently we do not have those benefits. A lot of the challenges around service provision are not addressed by what the Chancellor set out yesterday. Take the NHS funding model, for example: in my area, the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland integrated care board is having to make in-year savings to live within its financial envelope. We have GP practices that are full—one practice in Melton Mowbray has 37,000 patients on its books—and yet the ICB says it sees no reason to expand to meet the need. The development has not happened yet in Melton, so it will not expand until the need is demonstrably there, by which time a whole range of people will have moved into the new development but will not be able to get on the list for the surgery, or will be waiting a very long time. I am not saying that this is a challenge that suddenly appeared in July 2024. Governments of all political complexions have grappled with it. I have a lot of time for the Minister; I hope this issue is on his radar.<span id="112" class="column-number" data-column-number="112"></span> On brownfield sites, the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington should not be contentious; it is a sensible approach to draw together all the different strands of work that the previous Government did to push the development of brownfield sites. Let me give a few examples. The national policy planning framework had a clear focus on the issue. We required local authorities to publish reports and registers of available brownfield sites for development. We reviewed permitted development rights and changes in use class rules to make it easier for commercial sites to be repurposed for development into housing. Alongside that, we put £4.3 billion into the housing infrastructure fund and £550 million into the brownfield housing fund. That is tangible investment to persuade and support local authorities to prioritise brownfield first. The problem in my patch is that the Labour Mayor of Leicester simply did not do it. We can see the brownfield sites everywhere, and we can see the development being pushed out into the county because the city has failed to do what it needs to do. My hon. Friend’s modest amendment would compel the Government to draw together all the strands of work that the previous Government did, and that this Government are also doing, into a clear and coherent strategy that would prioritise brownfield sites much, much more and would give local authorities and others the means, the support and the policy back-up to make this work a genuine reality on the ground. I will finish by simply emphasising my support for my hon. Friend.

    Hansard source
14. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Budget Resolutions

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), although I suspect that we will have slightly different assessments of this Budget. In my view, this is a thin gruel of a Budget, and with its 98 measures tinkering at tax and spending, it is not un-reminiscent of Emperor Nero in Rome, fiddling while it burned. This is ultimately a Budget of delay: it kicks the big decisions into the long grass; it is anaemic in terms of its assessment and forecast for growth; and it quite simply does not set out a compelling vision for our economic future. That inertia has a cost, which is obvious in two areas. The first area, of course, is defence. We are living in an increasingly unstable world. It is negligent—a failure of a duty of government—not to properly fund our armed forces. A consequence of having a plan for a road map to 3% of GDP is that there is no strategy whatsoever. I am afraid that the absence of that plan, from this particular Chancellor especially, does nothing to enhance his credibility in front of the British public and the markets. The second area, which I will touch on briefly, is welfare. I will touch on it briefly because there was barely any mention of it in yesterday’s Budget, and yet welfare spending is predicted to go up by £19 billion this year, and total welfare spending is anticipated to be £431 billion by 2031-32. That is utterly unsustainable. I want to concentrate on a particular hidden tax measure in the Budget. It is buried in section 6.147 of the Red Book, but it has enormous implications for those who are self-employed and pay their tax under self-assessment. I am one of those individuals, from my historical earnings at the Bar and my aged debt. <span id="535" class="column-number" data-column-number="535"></span>Under the new proposal, individuals will pay their taxes perhaps on a monthly or quarterly basis—it is unclear yet—and some 50% of tax returns will almost certainly be brought forward in terms of when they are paid. The obvious effect for the Treasury is that receipts in year 1 will increase by £1.3 billion and by year 3 that will be £1.8 billion. However, it will be ruinous for the individuals concerned because they will end up paying tax on issues that they have not yet received. It does not reflect the seasonality of payments and it is, quite frankly, a rather silly policy that has been cooked up by those who have no understanding of business at all.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    <Question HRSContentId="{56B77845-4BA4-41EE-993F-81694678B042}">9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{03BF5E8D-BF64-4751-8F74-030D9A2AF3AE}">What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the DVLA’s performance levels. </QuestionText></Question>

    Hansard source
16. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    An increasing number of constituents are coming to me with problems getting their licence. One example was a lady who had dementia; she passed all the tests but had months of delays trying to get her licence, eventually having to take her complaint to the chief executive to get an answer, only for the licence to be backdated, meaning she will have to go through the whole rigmarole again in a few months’ time. That is not an isolated case. I have constituents with diabetes and epilepsy, who are all suffering. What is the Minister doing to ensure we can speed the process up so that people can get back on the road as soon as they are medically fit?

    Hansard source
17. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Budget Resolutions

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
18. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Budget Resolutions

    We heard from the Conservative Front Bench that we do not meet the criteria to rejoin the EU. How do the Lib Dems suggest that we get around that problem?

    Hansard source
19. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Budget Resolutions

    £35 per person, if they are eligible.

    Hansard source
20. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Budget Resolutions

    The hon. Gentleman is talking about doing everything that we can. One way to bring in some funding is through gas and oil tax receipts. Page 94 of the Office for Budget Responsibility report explicitly says that Rosebank is baked in as being granted. Does he support Rosebank?

    Hansard source
21. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Budget Resolutions

    I had to check that the Chancellor had said what I thought he had, and it was referred to again today by the Defence Secretary. They said that this is the first 100 days of a Government, with a new 10-year plan. By my calculation, the Government have been in for 847 days, with their third Budget being delivered yesterday, and we are over a quarter of the way through the last 10-year plan. Rather than this being a baby Budget and a fledgling Government, they are more an adolescent Government, and this really is a bum-fluff Budget. It has got wispy bits and patchy bits, but no one really knows what they are, where they are going or even if they should be there. We can see that by the fact that we have 98 announcements within the Budget, which is a record, but the value per project is one of the lowest on record. When I saw the Budget, I was pleased that there were some bits that I have been working on that have finally come to fruition. First, pensioners are being taken out of paying tax on their state pension. There is also the freeze on fuel duty. Those are in response to things that were warned about, but put in by a Labour Government. The hole was dug by a Labour Government, and they have now had to half-fill it. That is exactly what we see with the NEETs situation. We have record unemployment of young people, certainly when compared with the EU average, with more than a million people not able to get through into jobs, so what do the Government do? They put on that <span id="530" class="column-number" data-column-number="530"></span>toxic concoction of tax increases and red tape, and now they turn around and say, “We will give you £3,000 to take someone on.” The Government should get out the way. It would be far simpler to let businesses take on people and grow as they need. The same applies to the hospitality industry and the leisure industry. It is welcome that the Government have made some changes to their rates, but we should remember that the Government took away the support in the first place, put up the rates and added the toxic concoction on top. It is a hole that has been half-filled, and we see that time and again. We often hear about the money that went into the NHS, but we should remember it was taken away with the jobs tax that hit hospices, care homes, GPs and pharmacies, which are all feeling it. With energy, £100 has been given, but we know that Ofgem says the cap will see a more than £400 increase. We should remember that Labour promised £300 lower bills when it came into office. I hope that we see this beard grow into a full bushy shape. Whether it is Keir Starmer’s continuation or Andy Burnham’s new direction—

    Hansard source
22. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Budget Resolutions

    Forgive me. I mean the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and his new direction, with a lovely new moustache.

    Hansard source
23. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Budget Resolutions

    Does my right hon. Friend believe that the reason they cannot be here is that their prayer cards were taken out?

    Hansard source
24. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Luke Evans

    Budget Resolutions

    Talking about structural problems and difficulties, a press release has just come out from the Labour party that says: “Exclusive. Chancellor tells Krishnan Guru-Murthy that Labour will not bring welfare bills down in this Parliament”. Does the Minister stand by that?

    Hansard source
25. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{BB43BE6E-C42C-449E-9D6B-CA258205E46B}"> </QNum></strong> Mr Whelan, we heard from the previous panel about the potential to offer discounts to local residents. Does M6 toll do that at present? How would that work?<span id="20" class="column-number" data-column-number="20"></span> <em><strong>Michael Whelan:</strong></em> We have done that. About two and a half years ago we put in place a new toll system—we spent £20 million on it—and that enabled us to introduce new toll pricing. We reduced prices for locals to £4, and we have held that there for the two and a half years. We have not increased it. That is something we are conscious of and have actively looked at, as well as having new products, some with discounts and some without. Interestingly, the account product that does not have a discount is our most popular one.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{03F7364F-793C-4838-A6AD-FC96AC8D2C70}"> </QNum></strong> Which one is that? <em><strong>Michael Whelan:</strong></em> The Lite account.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{315490A8-E145-4D01-A324-8F6421A5B142}"> </QNum></strong> What does that do? <em><strong>Michael Whelan:</strong></em> It provides an easier way to get a receipt. It also provides the ability to drive through what we call our breeze lanes, on which the gates will open automatically if your account is in good status.

    Hansard source
28. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{873A7891-A7BE-4671-A14C-CAAEFE1BB63A}"> </QNum></strong> Mr Garratt, you mentioned that you would like ministerial assurance that the Bill will not be used more widely across the rest of the country. Is ministerial assurance enough, or would you like to see something in the Bill to ensure that it is not a Trojan horse, as the Minister says it will not be? <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> Our sense is that the way in which the Bill is drafted is relatively strong. That is why we are seeking assurances on the record, rather than amendments. We do not want it to be used as a Trojan horse to spread this across the country, but there is a particular case for it on this particular route. Given the wording at the moment, to have assurances would be proportionate.

    Hansard source
29. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{869FFEE8-7AEF-4486-8A7B-4F455485C558}"> </QNum></strong> We have heard that moving to a smart motorway and using the hard shoulder could increase capacity, meaning that tolls could be charged. <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> Again, it would be good to get an assurance that that will not be the case, but that is not our reading of the Bill at the moment. That does not mean that others could not interpret it differently at some point, when looking at it in the future. That is why we are seeking a strong assurance that this is about adding actual new trunk road capacity and not doing things like what you just said.

    Hansard source
30. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{AB901A24-1CAA-47BA-9559-6EBCB660CC8D}"> </QNum></strong> Mr Pang, do you have any concerns? <em><strong>Declan Pang:</strong></em> We are concerned about how the Bill could be applied to introduce tolls. We want greater reassurances from the Department about that. Clause 81 in particular gives the Secretary of State the power to direct any road to be made a trunk road, so we are concerned about what could be brought into scope. We want greater reassurances.

    Hansard source
31. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{CE9D449B-78F3-4804-B120-A01AD813070F}"> </QNum></strong> We heard from an earlier panel that the operator has limited incentives for cost control and that there is a risk of taking “costs off the book without any level of scrutiny.” Do you understand what they are talking about in that? <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> I think “without any level of scrutiny” is something I would take issue with, certainly as I would see the arrangements working. We have had good discussions with old colleagues of mine at Ofwat about the arrangements they had, for example, for the Thames tideway tunnel. There, both the rhythm—by which I mean the frequency of reporting, monitoring and scrutiny of costs during construction—and the importance of having a dependable, expert, independent technical assurer on the costs are really important for making sure you have that right level of visibility and scrutiny. I would question the nature of unchecked costs. I am not denying that cost pressures would arise, but that is the whole point of having arrangements like an independent technical assessor.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{62BA81A3-8AC9-4226-AE43-F4EDB9157FAD}"> </QNum></strong> Is it true that there are limited incentives for cost control? What is the incentive for the operator to keep the costs down? <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> I will go to both costs and schedule. There are instruments that you can bring in through a licence—such as cost-sharing rates. The point I was trying to make earlier is that you do not necessarily design a price control—at the moment, if there is a cost shock, it just goes through to end-user prices, so cost-sharing arrangements are one example. You can also bring in thresholds to make sure that the company is incentivised to remain on schedule as well.

    Hansard source
33. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{78111477-0441-4D0A-AF19-B1697F1BDD48}"> </QNum></strong> If an operator in future was not making any money and was going under, who would step in? Would it be you? <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> Before we get to that point, it is worth bearing in mind whether there are other potential investors willing to buy out the company that is struggling. There may be particular reasons why—maybe it was not well managed or well financed. There is the potential in principle for someone to come in through normal mergers or acquisitions and take responsibility. In the event that the company is really struggling against a particular settlement, that is a challenge for a regulator to manage. There are certain provisions on the limit, where things ultimately are pushed to the point of non-recoverability, which are envisaged within the Bill. One of the jobs of the regulator is, first, getting that first price control settlement right. As I say, at the moment that is being set by the Department, but getting that projection on the allowed cost is key—get it right at the start. Then, that rhythm of regular monitoring is really important to make sure that you anticipate that point. What you do not want to be doing, particularly with a construction project like this, is to get to that point with some element of surprise. What you need to do is keep that regular rhythm of monitoring and scrutiny, so that you can act before you get to that point that the company has nowhere to go.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{04343CE7-7C19-497F-9ADB-DD359EAB0DC4}"> </QNum></strong> I guess you could step in and increase the costs and have them earning more to try to keep them on a sustainable footing.<span id="46" class="column-number" data-column-number="46"></span> <em><strong>Will Godfrey:</strong></em> At certain points it is possible that a regulator could introduce things like cost limits, beyond which there was then a redetermination of a price allowance, but not necessarily one that was a simple “costs have overrun by CX, therefore tolls increase by the same amount.” It would not be an automatic pass-through; it would be subject to that efficiency and economy test.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{5DF0C166-6A83-4CAD-8315-906076F6CA2C}"> </QNum></strong> Andrew, I think you said earlier that one of the issues was uncapped cost overruns for the contractor. What is the consequence of that? Does it scare some contractors away? <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> Not for the contractor; for the investor. Sorry—if I said “contractor”, I meant “investor”. Apologies. I do not care about the contractors. <em>[</em><em>Laughter.</em><em>]</em><span id="54" class="column-number" data-column-number="54"></span> It is not because we do not understand and price risk; that is what we do for a living. It is just that I cannot go to my investment committee and, when asked, “Okay, Andrew, what is the maximum amount of equity you are going to put into this project and therefore what is the return you are expecting to get on it?”, give the answer, “I don’t know.” That is not a conversation—well, it could be a conversation, but it would be the last conversation I have with my investment committee.

    Hansard source
36. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{1835AE8C-A454-4BEE-A206-DDC50F4812EA}"> </QNum></strong> What do we need to do to change that? <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> Again, I am getting well over my skis, so apologies, but it is about being smart. I am not just suggesting that this all lands on the country balance sheet, whether it is the National Wealth Fund taking excess risk above a certain threshold and therefore becoming an equity investor as a consequence, but it would be sensible to be smart and think innovatively about how to cap the number, so that I can then go to my investment committee and say, “This is the amount of capital we’ll commit, with any excess being provided by somebody else in exchange for an economic interest.” Rather than trying to give answers, I would say that being thoughtful and innovative about how that cap can be constructed is definitely worth putting on the agenda.

    Hansard source
37. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{F1B0C1ED-A38F-4387-BBFC-0EBB57317AC4}"> </QNum></strong> But it does not drive away investors as it is just now, does it? <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> I think it will.

    Hansard source
38. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{FA40C80E-D69A-4996-A716-930B6D4E1A6C}"> </QNum></strong> Okay—so it is something we need to look at urgently. <em><strong>Andrew Truscott:</strong></em> I cannot speak for the entire investment community, but I can repeat what I said earlier. I think we are fairly typical—I mean, we are brilliant, but we are fairly typical—and an uncapped equity commitment is almost impossible for us to write.

    Hansard source
39. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{4B11EA99-5B5F-47AE-8F11-037A1229C73E}"> </QNum></strong> Minister, we heard from the last person who gave evidence, the investor, that he would not be able to invest because of the uncapped cost overrun risks. You heard that as well. Would you look at it again to make changes to ensure investors are not so scared away by that risk? <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> I am not too familiar with the factors he takes into account when investing, but my advice from officials is that the soft market testing that has been taking place has shown a lot of interest in this. He also said in his response that there would be quite a lot of people who would be looking to invest in this. That conversation is ongoing. Having the legislation on the statute book will actually help give more certainty to investors. Clearly one of the reasons why the project has already started is to de-risk it to some extent. All the indicators I am getting are that we are putting this in a strong position to attract investment.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Douglas Lumsden

    Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{436DAE4C-370F-41E1-9BFD-BB093B211BA0}"> </QNum></strong> Will you not make any changes after hearing the comments today? <em><strong>Justin Madders:</strong></em> I do not think that this is covered by the Bill anyway, but I will certainly take it away to see if there is anything to reflect on. I assure you that this would not be proceeding if there were no interest in investment.

    Hansard source