partytracker.uk

6,905 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tom Gordon
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
I thank the Minister for providing some more clarity. Again we look forward, with bated breath, to further announcements as and when they come, and again I press her to expedite that as much as she can. I will push back a little. One thing that I have been really proud to see, when there are humanitarian disasters such as war and famine, is that the UK is open and tolerant and wants to have a fair and safe system. Under the last Government, we saw some of the safe and legal routes in third party countries closed down, which has facilitated the need for people to come by small boat or enabled people to be exploited by such routes. I again press the Minister to convey to her colleagues in the other place the need to look at what more we can do for the legitimate people who are fleeing war, famine and other horrendous situations, such as crimes of genocide or war crimes. We need to look at how we ensure that we do not, because of an arbitrary cap, stop those people who might not have any other connections, countries or routes available to them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 20 Resourcing for law enforcement agencies “(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure that law enforcement agencies have sufficient resources to undertake their duties in relation to the prevention of modern slavery and human trafficking. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the duties of law enforcement agencies include— (a) any duties under this Act or the Modern Slavery Act 2015; (b) the conducting of surveillance on and detection of networks involved in modern slavery and human trafficking; (c) participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘law enforcement agencies’ include— (a) the National Crime Agency, (b) police forces in England and Wales, and (c) the British Transport Police.”—(Tom Gordon.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that law enforcement agencies have sufficient resources to undertake their duties in relation to the prevention of modern slavery and human trafficking, including by participating in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations. Brought up, and read the First time.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tom Gordon
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 20 would ensure that the NCA, police forces and the British Transport police had resources for modern slavery duties, including Europol anti-trafficking operations. It would ensure that there was funding for the existing enforcement architecture to work. The Bill gives police new orders in clauses 25 to 34, but the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner told the Committee that there is no “dedicated funding” for police modern slavery teams and that the current strategy “is over 10 years out of date.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 7, Q6.] I invite the Minister to reflect on that and talk about how to ensure, with the obligations in the Bill, that we can better tackle the gangs that have facilitated some of these horrendous crimes and make sure that people who have been brought here have the resources from the Government to help them in those instances.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tom Gordon
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
We had the Budget yesterday. Having quickly skimmed through those documents, there was little in the way of additional resources for the agencies listed. One of my concerns is that, while the Chancellor announced the devolution of further funding to mayoral areas, obviously not every area of the country will be impacted equally by gangs coming here in small boats. If that funding and those powers are passed locally, what further support will the Minister give from central Government to make sure that we do not end up with a patchwork across the south coast?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tom Gordon
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 21 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings “The Secretary of State must— (a) within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce legislation to ensure the United Kingdom’s full compliance with the 2009 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings; and (b) within eighteen months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on how the Government is ensuring full compliance with the Convention under this section.”—(Tom Gordon.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation which ensure that the UK is compliant with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, and subsequently report on the UK’s compliance with the Convention. Brought up, and read the First time.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tom Gordon
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that would ensure that the UK is compliant with the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and subsequently report on the UK’s compliance with the convention. I hope that is not overly contentious, given that we should seek to maintain our compliance with organisations such as the Council of Europe. The UK ratified ECAT in December 2008 and it came into force in 2009. It was the first treaty to put survivor protection at its centre, with binding standards on identification, support, recovery and prosecution. It has never been fully incorporated into primary legislation, so protections can be narrowed administratively without proper scrutiny, which concerns us. Compliance is monitored by the group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings, whose fourth report to the UK found that referrals under the national referral mechanism rose from 12,687 in 2021 to 17,000 in the first nine months of 2025. The group commended faster identification and stronger enforcement, but found ongoing gaps in victim protection and legal support. This is about not just foreign nationals but British people, the most common nationality referred. Labour exploitation was found to be the main reason for referral, while for children it was criminal exploitation, notably county lines, so the new clause would have a wider purpose. I have previously made the point to the Minister that if we are not compliant with the convention, it will open us up to legal challenges down the line, which we would not want the Bill to do, for the sake of the country. I invite the Minister to comment on that and look forward to hearing what she has to say.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tom Gordon
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
I thank the Minister for her comments. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said that far too often people come here when they do not have a claim, but he did not back that up with statistics. I attempted to intervene on him to ask whether he had the statistics to hand to provide evidence for that claim, which would have been helpful. However, I am satisfied with the Minister’s response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 23 Safe reporting for victims of and witnesses to crime and exploitation “(1) Where an offence, or a suspected offence, is reported, no personal data relating to any victims of the offence, any witnesses of the offence, or any parties who reported the offence may be— (a) provided to or shared with any party, or (b) used by any party, for immigration purposes. (2) In section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, after subsection (1B) insert— ‘(1C) This section does not apply to any information, documents or articles relating to a person which are held or have been obtained as a result of that person— (a) being the victim of, (b) being a witness to, or (c) reporting, any conduct which would constitute an offence.’ (3) For the purposes of this section— ‘immigration purposes’ means the investigation, detection or enforcement of an immigration offence, or the determination of whether a person has the right to enter, remain in or work in the United Kingdom; the reporting of an offence, or suspected offence, includes, but is not limited to— (a) the provision of information in support of the investigation or prosecution of an offence; and (b) the disclosure of information to a person providing health care or social care.”—(Siân Berry.) This new clause would prevent the personal data of victims of, witnesses to, or reporters of offences being shared or used for immigration investigation, detection or enforcement purposes. Brought up, and read the First time.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tom Gordon
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Does my hon. Friend not find it a bit rich that Members of the governing party are talking about the cost of a cost-benefit analysis, when earlier clauses and amendments—such as on the implementation of a new training scheme and getting people up to speed—have already been included in the Bill, with no assurances from the Minister about exactly how much they will cost?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tom Gordon
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the immigration rules to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection. The family reunion route was paused on 4 September 2025, with a stricter system promised from spring 2026 still not in place, as we discussed earlier in Committee. So I ask the Minister: if the Government announce a new settlement route, will there be a new family reunion route, too? We want to see the details of the resettlement scheme announced with this legislation. Obviously, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure we end up with the tens of thousands of people, predominantly women and children who used to use the family reunion visas, able to access it. I meet many people in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, from victims of genocide such as the Yazidi people to people who came through the Afghan route. Quite often the distress and additional trauma that is caused by having been separated from their families compounds the issues that they are already trying to grapple with. With the new rules set to come in under this Bill, there will be issues around refugees being able to hit the income thresholds so that their family members can come with them. That is the purpose of this new clause and I would welcome any news or updates from the Minister further to the questions already put during the course of this Bill Committee.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tom Gordon
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
I welcome the Minister’s words about us hopefully seeing something coming forward soon. I gently suggest that if we had something a little more concrete, we might not have needed to table new clauses such as this. Nevertheless, I welcome what the Minister has said. As I said before, I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we will hopefully invite someone from the Minister’s Department to speak to us. I am sure I can press the point further there, so with that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Jade Botterill.)
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tom Gordon
Passenger Rail Services
In yesterday’s Budget, there was one mention of Northern Powerhouse Rail. One of the easiest ways to deliver benefit for passengers would be to unlock the indefinitely paused York area capacity scheme. Will the Secretary of State commit to continuing to look at this, and make sure that passengers in Harrogate and Knaresborough, and along that line, get trains when they need them with the service they would expect?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tessa Munt
Major Trauma Centres: Helipads
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Alec. I benefit from Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance and the Great Western Air Ambulance. They are both fantastic, but they have raised concerns with me about existing helipads that they may not be able to use in future. Will the Minister—I ask him through the hon. Member for Strangford— consider whether there needs to be some protection and development of the town and country planning direction 2002 so that flight paths are protected from development and infrastructure? It is not just the new hospitals that we need to be concerned about; we need to make absolutely certain that existing helipads can be accessed by the air ambulances.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tessa Munt
Major Trauma Centres: Helipads
I went out with the South Western ambulance service to a cycle accident in my constituency, where a young man had fallen off on a road and was unconscious. When the air ambulance came, the doctors on board were able to stabilise him. I then went with him in the ambulance to the hospital in Bath. Air ambulances can sometimes stop the progression of injuries as well as take people to hospital. They are brilliant.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tessa Munt
Topical Questions
Community transport minibuses, such as Mendip Community Transport, are a lifeline for rural communities, but the minibus driving test is costly—it costs up to £2,000 per volunteer—hard to access and pretty unrealistic for volunteers, and drivers who qualified before 1997, and therefore have the D1 classification on their driving licence, are retiring. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the industry, and recognise officially the sector’s own minibus driver awareness scheme as a route for car drivers to gain a minibus licence?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Tessa Munt
Business of the House
My constituent who is approaching retirement has been quoted £2,710 for root canal treatment. With just 23% of adults in Somerset having seen an NHS dentist in the last two years, will the Leader of the House highlight the problems with access to NHS dentists, and ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to reform dental services and end the south-west’s status as a dental desert?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Susan Murray
Business of the House
My constituent has spent eight years trying to recover child maintenance owed by their former partner. An investigation identified undeclared income and a failure to pay, yet there has been no enforcement action. The case was also recently found to have been left unassigned for seven months after being returned to the Child Maintenance Service by the Financial Investigation Unit. Will the Leader of the House help to arrange a meeting with a Minister to address this case and the wider failures in CMS case handling?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Susan Murray
Budget Resolutions
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). The Chancellor has said that his Budget carries through the Prime Minister’s vision, but that there is still much to come, in his 10-year plan and in next year’s spending review, so there is still an opportunity to change fiscal policy in a way that could help the Government to achieve their housing targets, and help councils, developers and communities to revive town centres and bring derelict and long-term empty buildings back into use. I start by congratulating the Friends of Campsie High Kirk, the first group in Britain to take ownership of an A-listed heritage building through the ownerless property transfer scheme run by the King’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer. The work of that group has led me to raise this issue today, and I am incredibly proud to have it in Mid Dunbartonshire. It has taken ownership of a derelict A-listed church, with plans to renovate it for community use, but nearly every piece of work that it carries out on the site will be subject to VAT at 20%. Until recently, Scotland’s historical churches could claim back VAT on repairs through the listed places of worship grant scheme, but that scheme has closed, and the fund that has replaced it covers England only. The UK Government say that Scotland’s share of the money has gone to the Scottish Government, yet no fund has been set up to spend it, so even the buildings that could once claim that 20% back are now caught. Will the Minister take this issue up with the Scottish Government, and press for a fund to be created? It is not just community groups that face this hurdle to restoring our historical sites. Should a developer wish to restore a similar historical building and make it into housing, they would pay VAT at 5% if the conversion qualified, or at the full 20% if it did not. Meanwhile, if it were to demolish the building and start anew, it would pay no VAT on the new homes. The Government’s explanation is that the zero rate on new homes is there to “stimulate the construction of new homes”, but it should not matter whether or not a home is new; if any building is lying long-term vacant or derelict, bringing it back into a habitable, eco-friendly condition gives us the same benefit as building a new house. On top of that, restoring a building preserves the character and heritage of an area, saves carbon by reusing existing materials rather than making and transporting new ones, and often meets less local opposition. We all know how difficult it can be to get permission to build a new home, and we all know the impact a derelict property can have on a street. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has told my office that it does not hold figures on how much VAT it raises from building repair and restoration. Before ruling anything out, the Treasury should be able to tell this House how much that tax brings in. With that in mind, I have three asks of the Treasury. First, I urge the Minister to investigate and publish how much VAT is raised each year from the renovation and repair of historical buildings. Secondly, will the Treasury assess the case for treating renovation, repair and conversion in the same way as new build? Thirdly, will it confirm that Scotland will benefit from its fair share of the derelict buildings fund? Our historical buildings help us make our communities what they are. The tax system should help people to save those buildings and bring them back into use, not charge people more to repair than to build new.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Steve Darling
Regional Airports: Short-haul Destinations
<Question HRSContentId="{90D44094-D87F-4B3A-94BB-3E09654AF888}">11. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{D4668FCF-3E0B-4BDE-BD9E-770B3029DA29}">What plans she has to work with regional airports to increase the number of short-haul destinations available. </QuestionText></Question>
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Steve Darling
Regional Airports: Short-haul Destinations
Regional airports, such as Exeter airport, should be engines of economic growth. However, one often sees that airport services gravitate towards larger regional airports. Will the Minister give further information on how he is seeking to ensure that more peripheral airports, such as Exeter, are strongly supported to be the engines for economic change that they could be?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Steve Darling
Local Government Reorganisation
On 7 September, the Secretary of State made a commitment that Devon MPs would be able to hold a meeting with the appropriate Minister to discuss local government reorganisation in Devon. Sadly, that meeting has not occurred to date. What timescale can the Minister give for such a meeting occurring?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Steve Darling
Budget Resolutions
Torbay has one very sad accolade: it is the most deprived constituency with a Liberal Democrat MP. The cost of living crisis is therefore close to my heart. The fact that the Government have reduced fuel bills for some people is welcome, but it is a small step. As the Liberal Democrats highlighted, there were other opportunities on the table that could have helped people with the fuel crisis, which is set to bite really deep come the new year, when those bills go up. I am only too aware of the challenges that people have getting out and about in a rural county such as Devon. Further support measures that the Liberal Democrats identified were, sadly, left on the table. As our spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), said earlier, it is about growing the economy and unshackling ourselves by using what opportunities there are for us; not choosing to keep to those red lines is extremely important. On the upside, I want to use this opportunity to celebrate the fact that the oldest pub in Torquay, the Hole in the Wall, is set to reopen tonight. I am delighted that my uncle Drew Millin will be performing there on a Thursday and Sunday night—I wish I was going to be home in time to join them. On a more negative note, like many others in this Chamber, I am disappointed that the temporary cut to VAT that we campaigned for to help our hospitality and tourism industry was sadly not included in the Budget. That opportunity still sits there, and it would give us a boost in a number of different ways. As colleagues have already highlighted, the national insurance hike has also hit that industry. Even raising the level at which it kicks in would be helpful, particularly for those not in education, employment or training and young people by providing those opportunities for their first job in the hospitality industry. Hospitality is also in fear of the overnight levy. There is an irony in that the VAT rate in Italy, Spain and France is 10%, whereas here it is 20%. Applying an overnight levy is quite perverse unless there is a cut to VAT to put us on more of a level playing field. I have even had Scouts associations that run a campsite in Torbay concerned that Scouts groups and similar youth facilities could be hit by such a levy. My No. 1 priority as the MP for Torbay is the rebuild of Torbay hospital. It is somewhat disturbing that there is only £190 million in the Budget to support our NHS. That would not even cover the rebuild of Torbay hospital, which is desperately needed. I hope that the Chancellor will continue to push hard on supporting our NHS. In conclusion, I welcome the changes that have been made, including the taper that is set to be applied to carer’s allowance. That is a significant step in the right direction. However, it is a bit of an indictment on the DWP that there is to be a four-year delay in its implementation. I welcome the approach where the allowance will taper away for every £1 earned over the amount, but surely there is an opportunity to be more generous in the long term as the change comes forward.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Sarah Olney
Budget Resolutions
I welcome many elements of the Chancellor’s Budget, including his commitment to fiscal devolution, his promise to end rough sleeping and the additional assistance for people to pay their energy bills, but there were many significant omissions and missed opportunities. Instead of freezing fuel duty, he should have listened to Liberal Democrat calls to cut it. Instead of promising reform to carer’s allowance in four years’ time, he should have delivered it now. Instead of flirting with the EU, he should have committed to beginning negotiations to rejoin the single market and a new UK-EU customs union. For our young people, the Chancellor has moved away from Labour’s manifesto commitment to equalise the minimum wage and living wage while failing to address the student loan bubble, which is at bursting point, or to scrap his predecessor’s damaging national insurance contributions rise that is keeping young people out of work. For working people, he failed to address wage compression by following Liberal Democrat calls to increase the personal allowance and to raise the higher rate income tax threshold. That reform is vital for the 110,000 Londoners being dragged into the higher tax bracket. While there are measures in the Budget that can be welcomed, there are many missed opportunities. The Liberal Democrats will push the Government to be more ambitious and to deliver on their promise of providing people with the help they need during the cost of living crisis and with the unaffordably high cost of doing business. Not enough is being done to support small businesses that are struggling, particularly with the cost of employment. In retail alone, employment costs have jumped by £6.5 billion since the 2024 Budget. Unemployment levels are alarmingly high, with 25% of young Londoners not in employment, education or training. The Government must start making it easier for businesses to provide opportunities, particularly to young people as they begin their working life. The move to decouple gas and electricity prices is a welcome step, and we welcome the short-term relief that many households will receive to ease energy costs this winter, but the Government have failed to address the issue facing many businesses: the cost of energy for our industrial sector. Our dependence on other countries for fuel makes us all vulnerable to international turmoil. Household energy bills remain a third higher than before the war in Ukraine and the average UK resident and small business is being hit by those rises. The ongoing war in Iran reminds us yet again of the importance of secure and reliable energy sources. The best way to cut energy bills is to invest in home-grown renewable power. Make UK sets out the “ruinous effect” that industrial electricity costs have on investment. It has highlighted the continuing lack of action to address those costs and the risks now associated with taking on workers. The manufacturing sector accounts for 2.6 million jobs and 42% of UK exports; the Government must listen to its calls to reduce energy bills much more urgently than the 10-year schedule set out in the Chancellor’s speech. The British Chambers of Commerce and the chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation have echoed those calls, highlighting that the energy support available to certain manufacturing sectors does not apply to food and drink businesses. It is time for the UK to lead within Europe again on security, working closely with our democratic European allies so that we can support Ukraine and our European partners during peace and war. Our trade relations must also be adjusted to reflect the geopolitical realities we face. The Government must remove their self-defeating red lines and be bolder by introducing a new EU-UK customs union. Ministers must take advantage of the upcoming UK-EU summit to maximise opportunities for closer trading with the European Union and mitigate the risks and damage caused by schemes such as “Made in Europe”. The Liberal Democrats have always championed fiscal devolution, so I welcome that the Budget will legislate for the Mayor of London to set up a successor to the Elizabeth line business rates supplement. Anyone who has used London’s train network recently will acknowledge that it is in need of upgrades. Whether it be persistent cancellations on the District line or the discomfort of using the Central line, commuters in London deserve better. That said, the business rates supplement remains quite a limited way of raising funds and the Government have seemingly constrained it to apply only to the west London orbital and the Bakerloo line extension. So while I welcome the business rates supplement as a step in the right direction, I will continue to champion further fiscal devolution for the capital. I am concerned that the Home Office and the Department for Transport are set to face funding cuts. While taking into account the caveat that figures are adjusted due to lower employer pension contributions, the Home Office faces £1.2 billion in cuts next year and another £1.2 billion cut the following year while the DFT will lose out on £100 million over two years. Two of the most common issues I see in my inbox are concerns about policing and transport, so that is of huge concern to my constituents. Lastly, on an issue that the Prime Minister has declared is “a matter for London and Londoners”, I come to the question of Heathrow expansion, which is still yet to be answered. The Budget Red Book states that, on Heathrow, “The Transport Secretary will provide an update as soon as possible”. If the Prime Minister is true to his word, why does the decision on a third runway still seem to lie in the hands of the Government? It is a white elephant project that does not have the support of the majority of Londoners and must be scrapped.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Pippa Heylings
Business of the House
Families across Cambridgeshire have been waiting years for the two new special schools in Gamlingay and March. Following meetings with two Ministers, we finally had confirmation from the Government that they will be built, and we were thankful for that. However, there has been radio silence since, which means that 270 special school places are in limbo. In July, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education to ask for an update on the timeline for construction, and I have heard nothing. Will the Leader of the House please help me secure a further meeting and swift confirmation of the timeline for opening both schools so that our children, schools and local authorities are no longer left in the dark?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Pippa Heylings
Local Government Reorganisation
Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution and shifting power out of Westminster, but we have been shocked by the Government’s botched handling of this process. Ministers promised that MPs and local leaders would be properly involved in decisions affecting their areas, yet many have been left in the dark until announcements were effectively made for them. Will the Minister explain why MPs representing affected areas were not briefed before today’s announcement? Even now, after months of confusion over local government reorganisation, delayed elections and significant abortive costs, councils and communities are still waiting for certainty. Local authorities, many in dire financial positions following years of under-investment, have spent time and money in good faith preparing these proposals according to the Government’s criteria and timetable, only for that timetable to shift repeatedly. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, one of the fastest growing areas in the country, businesses need certainty to invest and plan. Councils need certainty to set budgets and deliver services, and council staff deserve clarity about their future. Yet today’s statement leaves Cambridgeshire and Peterborough yet again awaiting a decision, while other areas move ahead. When will the Minister finally provide a clear and stable timetable for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and for other areas that are still awaiting decisions? Finally, following the chaos of decisions being withdrawn, reorganisation being paused and the programme being reviewed following updated legal advice, can the Secretary of State even guarantee that what is being announced today is legally sound? Will she now publish the legal advice to demonstrate that?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{49E50FF0-B1A3-4404-ADA7-9B00E8E2D1D8}"> </QNum> It is a pleasure to serve on another Bill Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. One of my key concerns about the Bill is that a lot of it is about stuff being decided by regulations and secondary procedures, and by the ORR. There is a real concern about making sure that rights of consumers—the people who are going to be charged to use these roads—are protected. Do you have any suggestions, in addition to what you have already said, about better safeguards that the Bill could have to make sure that tolls are set and continue to be maintained at an affordable level for the people who will use these roads? Steve Gooding: Our starting point would be that the right sort of duties are applied to the ORR in the Bill, in terms of having regard to the interests of road users and customers of this service. Of course, there are certain things that the Bill provides for that we have not seen yet: we do not know what the terms of the licence will be, we do not know what the terms of the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR will be, and we do not know exactly the ORR’s template will be. I am well aware that there is always a balance to be struck between what goes into those documents and what could actually be in the Bill. In principle, I think that the protection is there, but in practice, it might be sensible to have a bit more in the Bill and a bit less reliance on the other documents—but until you see the drafts of the other documents, it is quite hard to tell. Edmund King: Clause 26 talks about tolls being “fair and transparent”. I think that we would like to have seen something built in there about affordability, because they can be fair and transparent, but can people afford them? In effect, the lower Thames crossing and Dartford will have a monopoly position. If you want to cross the Thames to the east of London, they are your choices. When the M6 toll first opened, it was rumoured that the tolls for HGVs were initially artificially high and that the operators did not particularly want HGVs to cause wear and tear on the toll. I think that question of affordability is important, and it goes beyond cost: if people cannot afford the toll, they will use other, inadequate roads or go the long way around the M25, which is already vastly congested near Heathrow. I think something about affordability should be built in—perhaps linked to inflation; something more—so that the monopoly position cannot be exploited.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)
Let me make a brief comment. On your point about some of the things that are dependent on the Bill, such as the licence, not yet being specified, we had a similar debate during the passage of the Railways Bill through the Commons. I think the Government ultimately decided to at least start publishing some of those things alongside it, so I hope the Minister might give some thought to that.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{02333174-10F5-4246-B14A-2806E86123D8}"> </QNum> Could you say a little more about what you think can be learned from the M6 toll in terms of how we might look to improve or amend the Bill? That is perhaps the largest geographical manifestation of tolling at the moment, and the most similar to the presumed application of this Bill to the lower Thames crossing. Ben Garratt: There are features of the Bill about which we are not seeking amendment but seeking reassurances. For example, it must be ensured that there is a strong regulator for establishing the scheme and monitoring it going forward. That relates to the licensing conditions too. Therefore, we see value in there being a Bill setting a broad framework and including the regulator in that, rather than potentially doing things how they have been done in the past in the sense of having individual schemes. We would seek reassurances about the strength of the regulator in that space, and that it will think about freight and logistics when it thinks about economy. We have heard from Michael about how the sector is voting with its feet—
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{DEA7675F-0C12-457E-8859-99720A87D410}"> </QNum> On that theme, do you have any concerns that the financing arrangements proposed in the Bill and its general intentions could affect the balance of investment between strategic roads and local transport networks? Ralph Smyth: Very much so. There is the issue of crowding out. If there is certainty that there is going to be a road scheme, that makes it harder for a mayor or someone else to promote an alternative, such as a tram or a rail or bus upgrade. After this meeting, I am taking part in the mass transit taskforce, where perhaps those issues will come up.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{55F3DC14-C87D-43C3-B1AE-19EED2AAE9BF}"> </QNum> Both of your organisations and many others have highlighted how the UK is not great at delivering infrastructure quickly and efficiently. Do you believe that the Bill in its current form has the potential to accelerate the delivery of major road projects? Ben Hopkinson: I completely agree that the UK has a long historical challenge with delivering infrastructure cheaply and quickly. HS2 is the most expensive railway ever built, and the Bakerloo line extension will be one of the most expensive underground lines ever built. Tramlines are double the cost here compared to other European countries. We have the most expensive nuclear power plant ever built. There is a real long-term failure to build infrastructure quickly and cheaply. On the Bill, it is good that we are getting private financing in, and that will help ease some of the burden on the state, when we are already pushed up against our fiscal limits. As I have mentioned, I have a little concern about the incentive structure, especially insofar as the private constructor has incentives to escalate costs as much as they can get away with under the ORR. A concession model might work a little better. Sam Dumitriu: One of the important things when it comes to infrastructure delivery is ensuring you have a pipeline of projects, you know what you will build next and you can plan appropriately. We have many reasons why, in the UK, those pipelines get knocked about. Sometimes you have a road that you want to build, and everyone wants it built, but someone has brought a lawsuit against the road and it is delayed by a year. That makes planning for that really challenging. One of the other problems is that sometimes those delays mean that you get pushed into different funding windows—the Treasury can reopen conversations about value for money, especially when in every Budget someone is trying to squeeze things into the fiscal rules and moving things from one period into another period, and cost-saving measures that are really delays. Those things tend to happen, and have happened for ever. One thing that was really impressive under the last Government was the road investment strategy approach, which essentially said “We will set out a strategic case for all the big roads we want to build, we will give a pot of money and then we will give a delivery body the freedom to execute that.” The freedom to execute was slightly constrained by the planning system and all those delays, but fundamentally that is a very good approach. The challenge comes when the money is not quite there from the public purse, in part because the fiscal situation is tighter, but also because different choices are being made. In that case, private finance can fill the gap and ensure that you have a much more stable pipeline. I am in favour of that aspect and I think that will speed up delivery.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{2007F503-9884-4C64-8FDE-03BB3C46DE1F}"> </QNum> Over the decades, we have often heard the wisdom that private finance is better than the Treasury, because it helps to keep things off the Treasury books and avoids constraints from public sector financing. But with some of those private finance initiatives, the whole-life costs can end up being quite a lot higher and being a burden on the taxpayer in a different way. What metrics do you feel that the Government should use to determine whether alternative finance arrangements, rather than direct Treasury funding, deliver better value for money for individual road schemes? What criteria should there be for deciding that? Will Godfrey: I think the ORR’s role, as envisaged in the Bill, would not be to advise on those questions. That would be more of a question to address to Government. It is perhaps relevant here that it is important to take account of the risk-adjusted cost of financing. You have already made the point about whether things are on the balance sheet or not. Another point to bring in is the certainty around the funding and delivery arrangements. RAB-based price controls are a commitment to a certain cycle of, typically, five-year reviews in which you set the funding requirements, the price control limits and what is delivered in that period. You reset each time but the point is that it is not potentially subject to Government reopening the arrangements for the funding, which is sometimes encountered in other publicly funded arrangements. I think that is as much as I am able to say. That is more of a question for Government.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{5CD25449-952D-4CDE-B3B5-93F291C231EA}"> </QNum> Any thoughts from you, Mr Palmer, using your rich and wide-ranging career experience? Matt Palmer: If you talk specifically about the lower Thames crossing, its strategic case is incredibly strong and it was introduced by Government to be built because of the broader economic benefit for the country. There is a mixture of models that the Government could choose to fund it. There was a discussion about concessions and RAB-based models earlier. They will all carry the same carrot and stick for driving cost performance. In the end, it is the Government’s decision to bring a project forward. If it is of a strategic nature then this Bill will allow you to fund it.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{491A9640-E578-4CA7-93D1-58722975DE05}"> </QNum> I have a quick follow-up on something you said earlier, Mr Godfrey, about the importance of getting the licence right. You perhaps cannot answer, but let me ask the question in a slightly mischievous way. There was a debate about the Railways Bill and how it was important to see ancillary documents that it referred to while considering it, because those documents had a lot of implications for how the Bill would operate in practice. Would you view the licence and the code, which this Bill stipulates that the ORR must create, as operationally critical to how the Bill would be implemented in practice? Will Godfrey: One distinction I would draw with the Railways Bill is that that Bill was so significantly concerned with the creation of Great British Railways, which will be responsible for something like 75% of all traffic on the network—not quite the whole market but a very significant proportion of the market. People are therefore understandably keen to see what arrangements are in the licence for that entity. This Bill is enabling and economy-wide. Clearly, the main project that we are talking about currently is the lower Thames crossing, but in principle several other licensed entities could be out there. That is one distinction that I would draw. As to whether a particular licence is essential to inform the scrutiny of a Bill, my feeling is that the Bill gives you, as a regulator, the kind of duties, functions and powers that you would expect. On the licence, clearly there is work to be done there, but one advantage is that the licences will be put out to competitive tender. That provides a different level of scrutiny from the arrangements under the Railways Bill, in which the licence is awarded to GBR as the given entity that will receive it.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{FDF32602-3DEC-4D5E-82D1-E1E0454A2685}"> </QNum> This Bill proposes use of alternative financing models. Do you have any thoughts on the principles that should be used to make sure that risk is appropriately allocated among Government, investors, contractors and the eventual road users, to keep the project deliverable and affordable for all those parties? Andrew Truscott: My biggest concern about this project is the ultimate cost to the end user. That is a piece of maths that we all, collectively, need to get right, because we cannot end up with a wonderful project that unfortunately saddles the user with an uneconomic toll for the next 50 or 60 years. How can we manage that? We can manage it by, obviously, trying to keep the cost of construction as low as we possibly can. Other things in our toll roads and our businesses globally include dynamic tolling, where we encourage road use by differentiated pricing depending on the time of day—I would love to explore that with the Government at the right time—and differentiation for different types of vehicles. I think there is a way of getting the end users’ experience to be a little fairer than if there was just a flat toll. In terms of the overall costs and delivery, obviously, the cost of financing at the moment is as high as it has been in my career. That is a factor that we all have to be aware of. I am sure you guys all know this, but infrastructure is a diversifier in pension fund portfolios. We are a spread to the risk-free investor. That is how we calculate our returns, so unfortunately, as risk-free rates go up, the expectation of the returns on our capital also goes up. Innovation around how we can collectively deliver a financing package against that backdrop that is as cheap and deliverable as possible is also quite important. How do we do that? Certainty of outcome, high-quality regulation and ensuring that everybody who commits capital understands the limits of their capital and is therefore able to calculate their returns accordingly.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Any thoughts from you, Mr Forsdyke? Roger Forsdyke: Not on the subject of financing; it is outside my experience.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{B6822A92-9984-43D2-A58A-27DF08EDB27E}"> </QNum> A witness said that one of my questions was best aimed at Government, so it would be churlish of me not to avail myself of the opportunity to ask it to you, Minister. What metrics should the Government use to determine whether alternative financing arrangements deliver better value for money for road infrastructure projects than direct Treasury funding? How are the Government thinking about that question? Justin Madders: First, as it made clear, the Treasury will not fund the totality of the project, so we have to look at other models. There are different views about how that would work. If we want to compare it to the private finance initiative, which has been the major funding source for a number of crossings in recent years, costs under the RAB model tend to be lower. Clearly, we have an independent regulator that will, as I have explained and you have heard in evidence, be able to limit cost recovery, to make sure it is economic and efficient. There will be regular requirements set out to review that under the licence. Ultimately, the Government will not be left, as they would be under PFI, with repaying a debt over many years. That might be off the balance sheet, but it still ends up coming to the taxpayer.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{42293A32-1F27-4967-AC81-10E6FB615CFE}"> </QNum> We hope that will end up being the case, because they have not all ended up marvellously—although you are right to say that some have gone well. You mentioned the Office of Rail and Road as the regulator. Why has it been selected as a regulator, given that the Railways Bill was rather shunted into the siding, some could say? Why the ORR rather than a different kind of regulatory arrangement? Justin Madders: As this is a road, the Office of Rail and Road seems to be the appropriate regulator.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Q<QNum HRSContentId="{49107830-7A1E-49B9-91B7-6AFEF0C3C02D}"> </QNum> Yes, but it is for rail, which is also in its title. I alluded to the Railways Bill, and I am just interested in the different approach. Justin Madders: There is a different approach because this is a different situation. This is the regulated asset base model, which is about a long-term investment, balancing the interests of users and investors and having a strong regulator that understands the sector. As we have heard, the ORR is already working on it. That is absolutely the right balance to make sure this delivers for everyone.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
That is an interesting answer, because railways also have both users and investors, but perhaps that is a debate for another day. I will happily let other people come in now.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Active Travel
I join you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to both Sue Holt and Mr Goldsmith. There is growing interest in the issue of illegally modified e-bikes and their use, as is shown by comments in this House and in a Westminster Hall debate last week and by our new policy passed at last month’s Liberal Democrat conference. We need to ensure that e-bikes support, rather than hinder, the growth of active travel. The Minister has talked about the cross-Government working group, but will he commit to creating an action plan based on that work to tackle the issue, with clear timescales and owners? If he did, he would have our support.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Olly Glover
Passenger Rail Services
A £1 billion order for 29 new five-car, battery-electric trains for TransPennine Express was recently announced. While welcome, it has raised some eyebrows, with Modern Railways magazine estimating that the cost is nearly double that of conventional electric-only trains. It would cost a staggering £25.2 billion for similar deals to replace England’s passenger trains that have diesel engines. Are we on the right value-for-money track with this approach to rolling stock specification and procurement?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentLib Dem Munira Wilson
Ofcom
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing this important debate. We have heard some very good speeches that demonstrate the sprawling remit of Ofcom. As has been eloquently demonstrated by everyone who has spoken in the debate, the size of that remit is, to a large extent, the reason Ofcom is not proving very effective as a regulator. Whether we are talking about Royal Mail, broadband access, the landline switchover, online safety or broadcasting standards, too many people feel that they are being let down. Too often Ofcom appears slow to act, reluctant to use the powers available to it, and unable to provide the robust enforcement that the public expect. I want to focus most of my comments on one of Ofcom’s largest failings: its failure to protect children from online harms. By Ofcom’s own admission last week, there has been no significant change in the severity or frequency of instances in which children encounter harmful content since the children’s safety duties came into force in July 2025. Each hon. Member in this debate has heard deeply distressing accounts from constituents, including parents, carers and young people, about the damage caused by content that young people should not have seen online. It is striking that young people themselves often understand the problem better than those who regulate it. In evidence given to Ofcom for its report on the Online Safety Act, one 16-year-old said: “we need the algorithms to recognise how dangerous these things are, because it only pushes things for them to go viral, it doesn’t consider the safety.” That young person has identified the heart of the problem: left unregulated, social media companies will continue to prioritise engagement and profit through addictive algorithms. That is why we Liberal Democrats called for a parliamentary review within the first six months of the Act, and why the Government must urgently implement film-style age ratings for harmful social media platforms, which should consider not only the content but the risks posed by addictive algorithms, in order to better protect children online. I am conscious that Ofcom today announced its recommendations for age verification ahead of the under-16s social media ban, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Although Ofcom has set out options including banking-based checks, photo ID or digital ID, it has made it clear that the onus is on social network providers to come up with their own solutions and comply. Keeping young people safe online is essential and we cannot do that if we expose their personal information to big US tech platforms. Leaving social media companies free to choose their own methods incentivises the most intrusive checks, undermining trust in much-needed online safety regulations. As I will set out, the problem with Ofcom allowing social media companies to choose how they comply is that Ofcom does not appear to have the resource to audit companies where risk is identified and then actively enforce high standards. We cannot squander the opportunity to make the internet safer through poor implementation. Ofcom must go back to the drawing board and ensure that age verification is effective, proportionate and privacy preserving, because the reality is simple: social media tech giants do not care about our children’s safety; they only care about how they can profit from them. If we do not act, they certainly will not. The response to the Grok scandal last year illustrates that perfectly. When Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok, was used to generate sexualised images of children and women, we Liberal Democrats called for an immediate temporary business disruption order to shut down the site and protect victims. Instead, Ofcom’s investigation dragged on—amazingly, it remains ongoing to this day—while the material continued to circulate. Action was taken only when public outrage forced the platform itself to act. That raises an important question: if Ofcom was unwilling to use its strongest powers in that case, when will it use them? I am not confident that Ofcom has learnt from the incident or that it would use a business disruption order if a similar incident occurred again. Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom has the power to impose financial penalties of up to £18 million, or 10% of global turnover. Ofcom publishes press releases announcing headline fines against non-compliant platforms, but it does not publish data showing how much of those fines is actually collected. It was only during a recent Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee session that Dame Melanie Dawes, chief executive of Ofcom, revealed that of the 11 fines issued since March last year for breaching the Act, only two have been paid. If nine out of 11 fines remain unpaid, that raises serious questions about Ofcom’s effectiveness and suggests that fines are not acting as a meaningful deterrent. That is why we Liberal Democrats believe that Ofcom should publish clear data not just on how many fines are issued, but on how many have actually been collected and how long enforcement really takes. Parliament and the public deserve to know whether these powers are working in practice. When platforms facilitate the creation or circulation of illegal material, including child sexual abuse material, Ofcom must use all its powers to stop that material from spreading and immediately issue a business disruption order to shut down the platform. Those concerns about enforcement extend to broadcasting regulation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) laid out. When MPs and members of the public write to Ofcom flagging systemic breaches of the broadcasting code, including racist language, disinformation and partial coverage, they are routinely met with a refusal to open a formal investigation. That was also the case when my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) —the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—asked for an investigation into coverage by GB News, a broadcaster that is repeatedly let off the hook despite clear breaches of the broadcasting code. As the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton said, the chair of Ofcom, while giving evidence to the DCMS Committee last week, suggested that a left-leaning alternative could combat GB News—you couldn’t make it up. That is such a problematic statement, which not only acknowledges that GB News is not politically impartial, but reveals that Ofcom does not believe that the solution is to regulate properly. If a broadcaster is failing to meet standards of due impartiality, the regulator’s job is not to hope that another broadcaster can balance them out; the regulator’s job is actually to regulate. We cannot let GB News propaganda turn our Britain into a version of Trump’s America, but I fear that is the way we seem to be going. Misinformation and partial news must be tackled, so either the Government rules are not fit for purpose or Ofcom is not properly enforcing them. At a time when misinformation spreads rapidly with alarming consequences, and trust in our political system is increasingly fragile, effective and impartial regulation has never been more important. In conclusion, we Liberal Democrats have serious concerns about Ofcom’s ability to enforce its regimes overseeing the Online Safety Act and the broadcasting code, as well as a number of other examples that been referenced, such as Royal Mail, broadband and the landline switchover. We believe that the Government must take those concerns seriously and assess options to increase Ofcom’s effectiveness. I am very happy to echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for a review. We think that options could include splitting Ofcom into two regulators: one to regulate online and broadcasting content, and the other to regulate communications infrastructure. They could also include the creation of a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online, which we have been calling for. The public deserve a regulator that acts swiftly, enforces consistently, puts safety first and instils trust in the public.
Hansard source

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

All parties, latest first

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Passenger Rail Services

Major Trauma Centres: Helipads

Major Trauma Centres: Helipads

Topical Questions

Business of the House

Business of the House

Budget Resolutions

Regional Airports: Short-haul Destinations

Regional Airports: Short-haul Destinations

Local Government Reorganisation

Budget Resolutions

Budget Resolutions

Business of the House

Local Government Reorganisation

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Active Travel

Passenger Rail Services

Ofcom