Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
As the Minister knows, in areas like mine, the hospitality sector provides the bulk of employment for young people. Can I urge her to look at the Opposition <span id="523" class="column-number" data-column-number="523"></span>Front Benchers’ proposals, and proposals from UKHospitality, for a lower NICs rate to be provided at the upcoming Budget, to allow those businesses to employ more young people?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I invite the Leader of the House and other colleagues to do their best to watch the 15-minute video on the Maze YouTube channel entitled “The Medical Mesh Scandal Ruining Women’s Lives”, which was screened last night at a meeting chaired excellently by the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)? That video deals, of course, with the scandal of pelvic mesh. It is rather disconcerting that two and a half years after the publication of the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner, Professor Henrietta Hughes, the Government have not yet responded to her proposals, even on interim redress. Will the Leader of the House take up this cause, which is supported by people across all parts of the House?
On the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill, I am not sure that many of us Jews and Catholics have really felt discriminated against since 1829 by the provisions that are being repealed, and we think that there may be more important things for the Government to do. I am not sure that many of us actually want to be involved in appointing Anglican bishops, although we might improve the number of bishops who talk about God, rather than social issues. Turning to the much more immediate and important issue of the restoration and renewal of Parliament, the Leader of the House knows that I have been involved in this subject for many years, and am constantly urging action. We really need to get on with it. We need to repeal the legislation that stops work carrying on around us. There is a horrible rumour that we are going back to delaying the whole thing until 2032, and there is talk about a full decant. Will he give us a report on how we will get on with repairing this building?
The average cost of a home in the Gainsborough constituency is just £204,000. Typically, someone spends three years in a care home in their lifetime, which will cost them £150,000. Everything over £23,000—the upper capital limit—is taken. All over the country that really upsets people who have contributed for a lifetime, and it is a real issue outside London and the south-east, which have much higher house prices. If the Minister is to abolish the triple lock and change it to a double lock, which most commentators think is now inevitable, will she look at this issue and either raise the upper capital limit so people keep more of their money or have a cap on lifetime contributions, which was the policy of the last Government?
Rogue traders operate with impunity in the park homes sector, yet the Government have refused to supply sufficient money to National Trading Standards to enable it to carry out a national investigation and bring those rogues to book. What is the Minister going to do about it?
On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible for the three London bridges that are in disrepair to be designated as trunk roads, so that they could be repaired under the provisions of this legislation?
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). The different varieties of charges and how they are enforced is a problem not just for people with disabilities, but for general motorists. <span id="607" class="column-number" data-column-number="607"></span>As I understand it, almost half of the income from the current Dart charge is from penalties. That income is almost as great as the income from the charge itself. It shows the level of confusion that is caused to those who use that crossing. I had the privilege of being the duty Minister in October 1991, when the Queen Elizabeth II bridge was opened by Her late Majesty. That was an occasion that I will never forget, with fly-pasts and the QE2 underneath the bridge. It was a great celebration of private enterprise at its best, because Members may recall that that bridge was built in only three years and two months. It cost £120 million and was delivered on time and to budget. The way it was financed was set out in the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988. In responding to this debate, I hope that the Minister will explain why a similar proposal is not being applied to the lower Thames crossing. I checked out the remarks that I made as the Minister when the bridge opened in 1991, 35 years ago this month. In those remarks, I made reference to the fact that we were working on the lower Thames crossing. We recognised 35 years ago that there would be a need for an additional lower Thames crossing. The idea then was that the income from the tolls on the Dartford crossing would eventually be used to help fund the lower Thames crossing. I am supportive of my party’s reasoned amendment, because it shows a certain scepticism about all these promises that are made. We should recall that, at the time of the opening of the QEII bridge, I promised—it was a repeat of a promise that had been given by a previous Conservative Minister—that the tolls would cease to be payable once the costs of the bridge had been paid for. The legislation provided that there was a maximum period of 20 years through which the tolls could be paid in order to fund the bridge. In the end, I think the period of the tolls should have been about 12 years, because the bridge should have been paid for by then. There was then an extension of one year for tolls in order to ensure that we had sufficient income to pay for the ongoing repairs and maintenance costs. That should have been the end of the financial burden on motorists using that crossing. Of course it was not, because then the Treasury got involved and said, “No, we need to keep the income coming in from the crossing. How do we justify that?” Well, the justification was that by continuing to have tolls on the crossing, we would be able to fund the lower Thames crossing. That continued for a bit of time, and then the Labour Government decided that they did not want to have the income from the tolls dedicated to a future road project across the Thames, and that the money would go into general taxation; we lost the allocated resources that should have been there to fund the lower Thames crossing, and the money that continues to be paid by those who use the Dartford crossing just goes into general taxation. Is it any surprise that people are sceptical about promises that are made when legislation like this Bill is being debated? The Minister says that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle for toll roads across the country. Frankly, from my own perspective, I once argued that the best way for us to promote important highway infrastructure in this country is by building roads for prosperity. “Roads for Prosperity” was the title of a 1990 roads White Paper <span id="608" class="column-number" data-column-number="608"></span>that led to an enormous expansion of our road network, which I was lucky enough to be involved in during my time as the Roads Minister.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that observation. That is why we need to be very sceptical about what the Government are proposing. Let us look at the issue of the lower Thames crossing. I read that it is going to cost £10 billion, and people will ask how we are going to raise that money. It seems to me that it will not be difficult to get the capital from the private sector, if a return can be obtained on that capital. Indeed, when Sir Nigel Broackes, who was the boss of Trafalgar House, was bidding for the Dartford crossing, he obtained the capital from the Bank of America. I do not think there is any doubt that the money will be forthcoming, but what will be the cost of the whole project? Will it have a finite cost of, say, £10 billion? If so, over how long a period will the Government allow the operator and the construction vehicle to have that paid back? Will the tolls be designed to pay back the cost of the tunnel within 20 years, 30 years or 50 years? The answer to that question will determine the level of the tolls. Are they going to be affordable? My view is that it is reasonable that this infrastructure be paid for by the people who will use it. I do not have a quarrel with that.
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but the question I am asking is: why can we not have dedicated legislation for the lower Thames crossing, as we did for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing? In the primary legislation that went through this House, it was specified that there should be tolls only for the length of time it took to repay the costs of construction. Subsequent Governments changed that in the way that I have described, because any legislation can obviously be changed by a subsequent Parliament.
I understand that, and one of my concerns is that we may find that the tolls continue far into the distant future, when there will no longer be a need for tolls to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure. In a sense, the model espoused for the lower Thames crossing project could have exactly the same consequence for motorists, which is that they will end up paying a lot more than the cost of the tunnel. I hope that the Minister can explain why we could not have had specific, ringfenced legislation on this, instead of a general Bill. If we could have had that, we could have made a lot more progress. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is saying that we Conservatives would like to leave the Aarhus convention, because it inhibits progress on such projects. I remember all the difficulties we had with the European Union when I was the roads Minister; EU legislation was preventing the completion of the M3 through Twyford down. That environmental interference ultimately cost our economy a significant amount of money, but when anybody uses the M3, they see that it just blends into the landscape and is a really well designed project. The question I put to my right hon. Friend, rhetorically, was: why did we not do something about the Aarhus convention when we were in government? On this, as on a lot of things, I am delighted that the leader of the Conservative party is showing herself to be a real Conservative. I fear that that we are still suffering from the hangover of a so-called Conservative Government who did not get to grips with issues such as the Aarhus convention, so I am very much with my right hon. Friend on that. I intervened about the scope for extending the Bill to projects not currently a part of the main highway network or trunk road network. If we want to deal with the problems to do with London bridges, we will have to find some way to fund bridge repairs. I have an interest: my home in London for many years was just south of Waterloo Bridge. Recently, we heard rumours that the bridge may have to close because of cracks in it. If it is closed, that will be the third unusable central London Thames crossing. That is intolerable. Surely, we must find a way of funding the repairs and the reconstruction necessary to keep those London bridges open. My grandchildren talk about London Bridge falling down and all the rest of it, but we are not talking about London Bridge. Three other key bridges in London are either already closed or about to be closed. What are we going to do about that? I would be interested if the Minister is prepared to say, “Yes, I agree that the model set out in the Bill could be applied to the bridges in London that are in desperate need of repair.”
I cannot, obviously, make an assurance like that; it was a rhetorical question. All I can say is that I think people should take responsibility for their decisions, and we should face up to the fact that if there are costs associated with bits of infrastructure that cannot be funded out of general taxes, we should be prepared to ensure that they are funded by the users. To close down a thoroughfare across the Thames, with no solution or plan for what will happen, is totally unsatisfactory. I would like the Mayor of London to take action, because this comes within his responsibilities. He could easily use some of the income from the congestion charge or the ultra low emission zone charge to fund that. It does not seem as though that is happening, which is why I suggested that the Bill be used for this purpose.
I am not going to try to clarify that. It sounds as though what I have said is only partially accurate, but in a sense, that reinforces my point, which is that, whoever owns the bridges or has financial responsibility for them, the financial vehicle identified in the Bill could be used to pay for their repairs and maintenance, to ensure they are brought back into use. I do not purport to be an expert on who owns which bridges. I did not know that any of them were owned by charities. The hon. Gentleman seems to say that they are; I am not going to dispute that, but I do not think that alters the principal point I was making. I am concerned about other provisions in the Bill, and some of those concerns are identified in the reasoned amendment. It brings in massive new powers for the Office of Road and Rail, at a time when I thought the Government were rowing back on arms-length bodies being given such powers; and there are great powers under clause 99 to basically repeal any legislation retrospectively, as a consequence of the measures in the Bill. I could not understand the references to the insolvency legislation in the Bill. How would that fit into what happened with the building of the channel tunnel, for example? That was a private-investor exercise, and ultimately, the initial investors lost most of their money—but that was a result of them taking the risk. Are the Government suggesting, by taking those powers in relation to insolvency legislation, that different arrangements should operate in the future? I am sceptical about the Bill, but frankly, when I was a Government Back-Bench MP, I proposed that we should privatise the whole of our motorway network, because that would bring good benefits to the taxpayer and ensure that the network was paid for by the people who use it. Earlier this month, I drove back with my wife from Strasbourg—Strasbourg to Christchurch is about 550 miles, and the tolls amounted to over €100. That was a contribution that I made toward the cost of the French motorway system.<span id="611" class="column-number" data-column-number="611"></span> If we are true radicals—this may be too radical for my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench—why can we not privatise our motorways? We cannot privatise the whole of the trunk road network because it that would mean dealing with all sorts of rights of way, bridleways and other complications, but the motorway network is set up in such a way that it could be the subject of one of the largest ever privatisations. I go back to my point about the success in the 1980s of involving private capital and entrepreneurial activity in the development of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. Why do we not extend that more widely across our road network?
Farmers across Somerset have been left without certainty and support by this latest DEFRA snafu, and they will not be consoled by the thought of a workshop. How does the Minister envisage farmers being able to plan financially for the year ahead if they do not know when the next round is or how the funds will be allocated?
The quality of life of many local people in Bridgwater is being undermined by a small minority who show little regard for others with street drinking, drug misuse, shoplifting and other forms of intimidating and antisocial behaviour. There is a widespread perception locally that Somerset council and the police are not responding with the urgency that <span id="560" class="column-number" data-column-number="560"></span>the situation demands. Can I therefore ask for a debate in Government time on what more can be done to support towns such as Bridgwater, so that the interests of decent, law-abiding residents and businesses come first and we can restore pride and confidence in our town centre?
<em>(</em><em>Urgent Question):</em> To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the sustainable farming incentive.
I cannot stress enough just how badly mishandled the sustainable farming incentive has been under this Labour Government. It has been a complete and utter mess, and our hard-working farmers and nature have once again lost out under this Labour Government. However, it was not without this Government having lots of warning well in advance. After 18 months of inaction following the Government’s choice to close the scheme in March 2025, for the first time ever the scheme was changed to operate on a first come, first served basis, making it competitive with no quality control. It was simply based on who could press “Send” first. The consequence was a build-up of nearly 40,000 farmers trying to get into the scheme when it finally opened, and only 12,200 were successful. The application window closed five and a half hours after it opened, after all the money had gone. Farmers had been designing their applications for months, and many are now under more financial and emotional strain. Given that the value of the expiring agreements was more than £520 million and the budget for SFI26 was significantly reduced to £310 million, can the Minister explain where the £210 million has gone? With so many farmers being locked out of the scheme, clarity and certainty for next steps is needed now. Will he confirm when applications for SFI27 will open? Will he publish a forward plan now so that farmers can start preparing? What support will he give to those with expiring agreements to minimise gaps in cash flow? What budget has he allocated for SFI27 so that he can be certain that we will not see this same debacle all over again? The farming Minister has now had a month to reflect on these issues. Our farmers want answers now—not more warm words or him giving out surveys, saying that he is in listening mode. Answers are needed right now to the questions that have been raised.
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a matter of fact, when the SFI window was closed under this Labour Government in March 2025, that process in itself led to the huge demand that came up in September this time, therefore making it competitive and first come, first served. That is exactly the scenario that happened. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em>
On 21 September, my constituent spent the day with the Minister. It was unsurprising then that on 22 September he went to market. However, he got home at 3.50 pm to complete his agreement, which had already been worked on, to find that he was two minutes too late and £50,000 down as a result. He said: “I am jumping mad! This is a”— insert expletive here— “show! How can anyone be expected to manage a small business and compete in a fastest-to-the-button lottery like this?” How would the Minister have felt if he had had to apply for his parliamentary seat in that way?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the renationalisation of the railways is not working. <em>[</em><em>Laughter.</em><em>]</em> The Drayson partitions exist to ensure that costs which the UK must meet and cannot change, such as international subscriptions that give us access to scientific facilities, are treated separately to costs that we have control over, such as grants funding. With the Science and Technology Facilities Council given a flat cash settlement, but with international subscriptions rising with inflation, the STFC now has less money to spend on actual research, leading to world-leading scientific research being dropped and to the closure of facilities such as Jodrell Bank. Can I ask the Secretary of State who made the decision to disregard the Drayson partitions?
I call the acting shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. Back-Bench MPs can only come in if the question is about Jodrell Bank observatory. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
I call the shadow Minister.
Order. We need to move a bit faster, so questions and answers must be shorter.
I call the shadow Minister.
Questions should be really on point.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Order. Marvellous, fantastic question. I call the Minister.
With the final question, I call Jim Shannon.
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Members themselves, not the Chair, are responsible for what they say in the Chamber. If the shadow Minister wishes to clarify his earlier remarks, that is for him, but he needs to keep it short, because I do not want to continue the debate.
Order. We are not going to continue the debate. The urgent question is over.
Order. We do not accuse each other of misleading the House. “Inadvertently” is the word.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
I call the Father of the House.