Justin Madders MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Bus Stops · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing her first Westminster Hall debate and for her sustained interest in the quality of bus stops and local transport provision. Hon. Members will notice that I am, in fact, the roads Minister, not the local transport and Equalities Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). Not only does he have a very long job title, but he is required in the main Chamber for Women and Equalities questions—which is why I am substituting. I assure hon. Members that I will report back to him the excellent quality of the debate and the issues raised. As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone. Improving bus journeys is a key part of the Government’s growth mission, and we have made some important announcements on bus travel already. We are determined to deliver better services, grow passenger numbers and connect people with jobs, education, healthcare and opportunity. The experience of using a bus does not begin when a passenger gets on board. It begins when they plan their journey, reach a stop and decide whether the service feels convenient, reliable and welcoming, as my hon. Friend graphically described in her opening comments. She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have discussed, whether there is information about services that is clear and current. Those features help to determine not only whether someone can use the bus, but whether they would make an active choice to do so. I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the Bus Services Act 2025. The Act places passenger needs and local accountability at the heart of bus services, giving local leaders greater freedom and the tools to shape networks around the communities they serve. That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery. We have allocated almost £700 million a year through the local authority bus grant for the three years from 2026-27 to 2028-29. In return for Department for Transport bus funding, authorities are expected to work closely with operators and local communities and to maintain an up-to-date bus service improvement plan. A bus service improvement plan is a public document that should set out an authority’s vision and practical plan for improving services and growing patronage. Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance. Bus funding can support capital improvements to stops, stations and real-time information, as well as services and fares. My hon. Friend argued that local transport authorities should have clear responsibility for bus stops, rather than responsibility being fragmented across different tiers of local government. I understand the force of that point. The Government’s approach already places the local transport authority in the lead for planning and improving the bus network through its bus services improvement plan and, where relevant, the enhanced partnership. Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who explained his frustrations about Cambridge station and bus interchange. I am not sure whether he was complaining that he had to walk 200 metres, or whether that was what caused the disconnect between the bus and rail services, but I hope to see improvement on that. It is a common complaint from many members of the public. Enhanced partnerships are an important part of that framework for authorities that are not pursuing franchising. Most are performing well, but of course performance is not consistent everywhere. Following the Department’s review, we have published updated guidance and a practical manual, including minimum standards for enhanced partnerships to adopt by March of next year. We will continue to share good practice, and the Bus Centre of Excellence will provide targeted support where it is most needed. I recognise the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard for a national bus stop standard, which echoes that of the Campaign for Better Transport. Greater consistency can give passengers confidence about what they can expect, but we have to acknowledge that there are about 330,000 bus stops in England, ranging from simple bus stop flags attached to a post to stops with shelters, seating, real-time information and other enhanced facilities. It is clear that the needs of a busy urban interchange will differ significantly from those of a lightly used rural stop. Careful consider would therefore need to be given before taking action to prescribe a uniform national standard—not least, to the potential burden on local authorities of the cost and practicality of doing so. It is worth noting that the Local Government Association’s general approach is to avoid national standards that reduce the discretion of local authorities to take decisions about their own networks, although it supports the Government’s role in promoting and sharing best practice. The Government’s present approach is therefore to set a clear national framework and provide guidance while asking local transport authorities to establish and deliver standards suited to local circumstances through their bus service improvement plans. I think that strikes the correct balance, but we will continue to share good practice through our guidance. The Bus Centre of Excellence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance. As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards. Real-time information is improving and digital information has transformed many journeys, but passengers must also be able to rely on accurate, understandable information at the stop. Our bus service improvement plan is clear that stops should display up-to-date information about the services calling there, and that authorities should set out what they will do to provide that good-quality information. Of course, accessibility remains fundamental to the wider picture. A stop cannot be considered good-quality if disabled people cannot reach it, wait safely or board independently. The Bus Services Act 2025 introduced measures including bus network accessibility plans and powers for statutory guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. The Department is developing that further guidance with disabled people, local authorities and the wider sector. On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) raised what is undoubtedly one of the hot topics of the bus stop world: floating bus stops. There is a great deal of concern and discussion nationally about their use. We have issued statutory guidance and asked authorities to pause new installations of the design, which requires passengers to alight directly on to a cycle track, while further research is undertaken. I hope that the local authority in my hon. Friend’s jurisdiction reports back on its experiences, because the more information we get from local authorities on this, the better. It is important that we look very closely at the everyday quality, information, maintenance and governance of all bus stops, and clearly, getting the balance right on floating bus stops is an important part of that work. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard for bringing this issue to the Chamber. We agree on the central point that bus stops are not a peripheral piece of street furniture; they are an essential part of the bus network and the passenger experience. Through the Bus Services Act, sustained funding, bus service improvement plans, stronger enhanced partnerships and clearer guidance, we are giving local leaders the tools and responsibility to make bus travel a more attractive choice, and I have no doubt that we will continue to discuss how we improve on that as the years move by. Question put and agreed to .

• 2 Sept 2026 · National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the intervention, and I absolutely will take that point. All stakeholders ought to be informed at the appropriate point, particularly when there are, as I say, connected works to do with that particular junction. The hon. Member asked how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures. I have been assured that National Highways is undertaking a significant quality incident investigation process to look at lessons learnt, and, once it has concluded, will embed those lessons to ensure that the same thing does not happen on other structures. I should emphasise that such occurrences are not frequent, and I believe that this is not a systemic issue, but of course we need to look into it to be assured of that, so I have asked National Highways to update the hon. Member and other key stakeholders on the outcomes of the lessons-learnt process as part of their regular ongoing engagement. The hon. Member’s fifth question was: who is responsible? Will the Government do what is right, and launch an investigation so that the public can scrutinise those responsible? Questions have understandably been raised about responsibility, liability and the funding of remedial works, and National Highways is continuing confidential commercial discussions with its principal contractor. As I have said, I will not prejudge the outcome of these discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I want to reassure the hon. Member that National Highways is pursuing the matter with the seriousness it requires. I know that as soon as these processes conclude, National Highways will provide a clear remediation plan setting out the technical solution, delivery route and programme, as well as, I hope, a clear answer on where responsibility lies. As I have said, National Highways is conducting a significant quality incident investigation to establish what went wrong, to identify lessons and to prevent recurrence, and I have asked it to share the lessons learnt following the conclusion of the investigation. Finally, there was the question of funding. As I have explained, the Government have already provided about £10 million to support the development of the link road, recognising its importance. I am sure the hon. Member will understand that there are limits to the funding we can provide, but we will commit ourselves to prioritising the technical issues that have been discussed this evening. The Government’s approach is clear. National Highways must identify the right engineering solution, agree an appropriate delivery route, protect taxpayers’ interests, and provide stakeholders with realistic, deliverable timescales. The public deserve certainty, but that certainty must be grounded in technical evidence, not speculation. Stakeholder engagement, which we have touched on this evening, is also important. Local communities and businesses need to understand why the junction has not opened, what is being done to resolve the issue, and how progress will be communicated. As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, there will of course be limits to what I can say publicly while commercial discussions are ongoing, but commercial sensitivity must not become a reason for avoidable silence. I have asked National Highways to keep the hon. Member and key local representatives informed monthly, and updates should be provided when there is reliable information to share. If the hon. Member does not feel that she is being kept up to date, I ask her to let me know. There are also wider lessons to learn. The public do not distinguish between a motorway junction, a local link road, a developer obligation, a council-led connection, and a National Highways asset; they see one road, one promise, and one delayed outcome. We as a Government, and delivery bodies, must be clear about the need to manage infrastructure coherently, with clear accountabilities, dependencies and communications. The Department will therefore continue to work with National Highways and South Gloucestershire Council as a delivery partnership. South Gloucestershire Council is progressing the local link road, National Highways is responsible for the strategic road asset, and the Department’s role is to support the overall objective of bringing the infrastructure into beneficial use, while of course ensuring safety, value for money and effective governance. Let me return to the central point. Everyone involved in this matter wants the same outcome. Local communities want the junction open, businesses want better access to the strategic road network, local authorities want the economic and transport benefits to be realised, and, of course, the Government want all those things to happen. We remain committed to seeing the junction brought into operation and to ensuring that its benefits are realised for local communities, businesses and the wider regional economy, but we will do so in a way that protects road users, maintains public confidence, and reflects proper stewardship of public investment. Let me again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate, for the important points that she has raised, and for her continued campaign on behalf of her constituents. I assure her that I will continue to engage with her as we work to ensure that the junction is opened safely, and that the intended benefits are delivered for the communities and businesses that it was designed to serve. Question put and agreed to .

• 2 Sept 2026 · National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction · Hansard source

  More

  May I echo the many happy returns to you for yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker? I recall that in a previous life you gave many happy returns to me across the Dispatch Box on a very special birthday, of which we do not need to remind ourselves. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this debate and on highlighting an issue of real importance to her constituents and the wider Avonmouth and Severnside area. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on junction 1 of the M49. I apologise for the Department wrongly describing the junction in previous correspondence. It is correct to say that we are talking about junction 1 of the M49. I recognise the strength of local feeling articulated by the hon. Member. Residents, businesses, local representatives and road users understandably want the junction brought into use as soon as possible. The Government share that ambition. The purpose of the junction has always been clear: to improve access between the Avonmouth and Severnside enterprise area and the motorway network to support economic growth and reduce pressure on local roads. The Government want local communities, businesses and road users to realise the full benefits of this infrastructure. The Severnside enterprise area is one of the most significant employment and logistics locations in the south-west region. It is home to major industrial, warehousing, distribution, energy and port-related activity. Better access to the strategic road network has long been recognised as important for the area’s continued growth and for reducing the impact of traffic on surrounding local communities, as the hon. Member has mentioned. While I understand the frustration that the junction is not yet operational, the House should be clear about the complexity of the position. It reflects complex issues involving strategic road infrastructure, a local road connection needed to make the junction operational, developer arrangements and technical matters requiring further investigation and remediation before the junction can safely open to traffic. It is worth recalling that this scheme was delivered as part of a wider programme intended to unlock economic development in the Severnside area through direct connection with the junction at the Western Approach distribution park. That is essential if the benefits of the junction are to be realised. The strategic road junction and local link road to connect to the existing network were being progressed through different delivery arrangements. The link road connecting the junction to the existing road network was originally the responsibility of a private developer, but with planning permission sought by South Gloucestershire council. National Highways was consulted as a statutory consultee, but had no legal power to compel the developer to deliver the link road. Despite continued engagement, the developer was not willing to meet its commitment. When it became clear that the original developer arrangements for the link road would not deliver the necessary local connection, the Department, National Highways and South Gloucestershire council worked together to identify an alternative way forward. That work led to the current link road scheme being progressed by South Gloucestershire council. Rather than allowing the project to stall indefinitely, the Government have therefore engaged with our partners to enable the local link road to be constructed and to establish a practical, long-term solution that will bring the junction into use. That has included £10 million of Government funding. Of course, as we heard and the House will appreciate, completing the local road link road is not the only issue that must now be resolved. As part of monitoring and, more recently, detailed engineering investigations, National Highways has identified technical issues at the junction that require further assessment and remedial work before the junction can be safely opened to traffic. I recognise that that is disappointing for local communities and businesses. A junction visible from the motorway but not yet available for use is, of course, understandably frustrating. Local representatives, as the hon. Member has done, are right to seek clear answers about what has happened, what is being done and when the junction will open. Some may argue that the junction should simply be opened and any problems dealt with later, but that is not an approach the Government are prepared to take. Where technical concerns have been identified, they must be understood, addressed and assured, and the public would rightly expect Ministers and National Highways to act prudently and responsibly where engineering concerns have been raised. The House would expect no less in any constituency in the country. However, the hon. Member raises important questions, and I would like to take each in turn. First, she asks whether National Highways will publish a clear timetable for the repairs. I will continue to press National Highways for a clear remediation plan, including the technical solution, delivery route and a clear timetable. However, the technical matters do require careful assessment. Engagement is taking place with the contractor, and an appropriate solution is dependent on the shared understanding of the engineering evidence, and clarity on where responsibility and liability lie. Therefore, we can only confirm timescales once the ongoing technical and commercial discussions have concluded. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge those discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I have asked National Highways to update key stakeholders monthly and to publish the plans as soon as possible. Secondly, the hon. Member asks what the defects are and when they were first identified. Defects were visible on the junction in 2021, including loss of topsoil and surface cracking. Those came to light as part of the standard inspections that take place across the network. At that stage, they were not deemed significant and so National Highways put standard operating arrangements in place to monitor the structure. However, that ongoing monitoring identified the need to undertake detailed investigations, which were commissioned in 2025, resulting in the identification of geotechnical issues. The later investigations will allow the root cause of the defects to be better understood. This is ongoing and can only be confirmed once the engagement with the contractor has concluded. I have now discussed the matter with National Highways, and I have formed the view that the hon. Member should have been informed when the decision was taken to undertake detailed investigations, rather than have to wait for the outcome of the work. Thirdly, the hon. Member inquires whether I will commit to a firm date by which the junction will finally open to traffic. As she will probably appreciate from what I have said so far, it is not possible to provide a definitive timeline for remedial works. Responsibility, liability and funding matters remain subject to ongoing technical and commercial discussions. Once those are concluded, National Highways will be able to develop detailed designs for the necessary remedial works and establish a delivery programme. It would not be possible or appropriate to announce arbitrary dates before those assessments are complete or before a deliverable programme has been confirmed. However, I recognise it is particularly frustrating that, after a long wait, the junction still sits empty. That is why I have emphasised to National Highways the importance of it looking at options to open the junction as soon as possible. Safety is of the utmost importance, but I also recognise that given the remediation will take some time, we need clarity on whether the junction can be opened in any capacity in the interim. I expect National Highways to provide a timely update on that review.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is very welcome to see this Bill back in the Commons to complete its final stages, even though we all expected to see it on the statute book by now. While I understand why there have been frustrations and concerns about the last-minute nature of the Bill’s reintroduction, it is important that we do not let process take precedence over substance. Fundamentally, in this debate we are considering amendments to the Bill, so it is important that we address those, but I think we should start as we always should: by recognising the unwavering determination that the Hillsborough families and campaigners have shown to this point. We should continue to recognise that they have fought so hard over decades not just to get the truth and justice for their loved ones but to bring about a structural change in the way that the state operates to ensure that public interest is paramount and is not placed behind institutional reputation. I am delighted to see that the Government have found a way through the problems that halted the Bill’s progression earlier this year. I know that it will bring my constituents great relief that we have found a way to amend the Bill to deliver on the commitment that we made to the Hillsborough families. I welcome the amendments that the Government have put forward. The fact that they have been welcomed by the Hillsborough Law Now campaign is testament to the hard work that has been put in by so many people to get this Bill to the right place. I thank the campaigners, the Minister and the former Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—and my many hon. Friends, many of whom have spoken today, who have worked closely with the Government to get the legislation to where it is today. When this Bill was introduced, I said to the House that the standard against which it must be held is “Never again”. It is clear that in most areas the Bill had already met that standard, as it was welcomed by campaigners, but it is clear that there were still concerns about the way that the Bill treated members of the security services and the potential for them to be absolved of the duty of candour. That is particularly important given the concerns raised by victims’ families in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing about the security services not providing an accurate picture of the key intelligence they held on the bomber. Not including those officers would weaken the Bill’s central duty of candour. The Government amendments, if accepted by the House, will ensure that the security services will no longer be exempt from the duty. However, being bound by that duty, it is necessary that there are safeguards to ensure that secret and sensitive material is handled securely and that the safety of individuals working at those authorities is protected. That is an important balance to strike as it will ensure accountability and transparency in investigations while not compromising national security. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in detail how the amendments will work in her opening comments. However, when she winds up the debate, will she explain a little more about how amendment 157 will operate in practice—particularly the application of subsection (2G)—and who comes within the ambit of representations that will be made to the Minister? Many concerns have been expressed both publicly and privately about how this duty might impact the workings of the security services, but I do not think for a minute that any Member in the Chamber would want to pass legislation that would, by accident or design, risk national security. I am delighted that we have found a formula that assures most hon. Members that that balance has been struck. There have also been concerns about how the duty will impact relations with countries with whom we share information, but I took particular heart from the evidence that Pete Weatherby gave to the Bill Committee. I add my thanks to him for his work on the Bill. He said: “The more candid that we can make this, the better the relationship with international partners.” –– [ Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 9, Q9.] I found that a helpful way to look at things. More than anything, the Bill will set new expectations for what it means to be a public servant. The vast majority of those working in our state institutions will not require the provisions of this legislation—they are already acting in this manner—but the Bill makes it clear that the duty of candour is not an optional extra; it is a core tenet of public service. Too often in the past, we have seen institutions forming a ring around people, more interested in their own reputations than in finding the truth and acting in the public interest. As we know, the Hillsborough independent panel found that 100 statements made by junior police officers had been deliberately altered by South Yorkshire police. That is as clear an example as there can be of institutional cover-up and a festering culture that we must never see again. We have seen that culture far too often, as hon. Members have referred to: in Grenfell, Manchester Arena, the Post Office Horizon scandal, contaminated blood, Windrush, Cammell Laird, Orgreave, the Shrewsbury campaign and many others. We have all recognised in those scandals the similar patterns of institutional defensiveness, delayed disclosure and an inequality of arms. The Bill will end that pattern and culture once and for all. As the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) reminded us, the law does not change things—it is the culture that needs to change—but the law gives us the basis on which we will see that change. As hon. Members have recognised, it is incumbent on us to ensure that once the Bill gets on the statute book, it does not stay static. We must regularly ensure that it is working as intended. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) said, there is more work to do, particularly on how it works in practice. I am concerned that the legal aid provisions may not mean that we get parity of arms in reality, but let us welcome where we are, because I believe that the Hillsborough families have waited far too long to see justice. On days like today, I think in particular about the families of Christopher Edwards, James Delaney and Jimmy Hennessy, who left Ellesmere Port on 15 April 1989 to watch a game of football and never returned. We remember all those who died and we repeat our vow: never again.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Home Secretary and other Members in sending condolences to the family of Ann Widdecombe. May she rest in peace. I have concerns not just about Members of this place, but about our party members, councillors and council candidates. Every week, volunteers go knocking on doors in my constituency; most of the responses we get are absolutely fine, but there is an increasing trend towards violence and aggression on the doorstep. These people are giving up their time to engage in the political process, and they should not be met with violence and intimidation. We need to do far more to tackle the causes of this division and aggression. I absolutely agree with what Members have said about social media companies and the algorithms that peddle hate, but we also need to look at what we can do. I have tabled some amendments to the Representation of the People Bill to deal with misleading information online and to provide for a statutory code of conduct to prevent abuse and intimidation in campaigns. I am concerned that intimidation on the doorstep is putting off the next generation of Members of this place. We need a wholesale review and real action to protect everyone who does their bit in democratic life.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for taking this action. I appreciate that these are not ideal circumstances, but much about the passage of the Bill has been less than ideal. Does he share my hope that tomorrow’s debate will be about the substance of the Bill and the important amendments, rather than the process?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Maritime and Coastguard Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB trade union. I am sorry to say that it beggars belief that the response of a Labour Government to a court judgment confirming workers’ rights should be to run in the opposite direction, in some perverse form of fire and rehire. I hope the Minister will make it clear that that is not what we stand for, and that he will do his utmost to address the situation. However, there is a wider point, isn’t there? Too often we see ambiguities in employment status dealt with by the courts on an ad hoc basis. Is that not a reason for us to get on with our manifesto commitment to move to a single status of worker?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Civil Service Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent logged into the pension portal this morning and it told him that he had only been employed by the civil service for one year, not the 35 that he had been employed for. He was told this by an agency that did not even exist when he started working for the civil service, and that still cannot tell him what his annual pension value is. That is after a software upgrade at the weekend, by the way, so God knows what it was like before then. This shows just what a shambles the system is. I welcome what the Minister said about the public interest test, but do we not also need to make a competence test a key part of that, so that these companies that are serial offenders do not get near public contracts again?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On 15 June, a vehicle crashed through the fence at Sunny Days nursery in Vale Road, Ellesmere Port, injuring a number of children. Thankfully, it does not look as if there has been any long-term damage. The parents want to praise the staff at the nursery and the local residents and businesses who came to the children’s aid, but the incident has raised questions about security and safety standards at nurseries. I understand that the Department for Education is looking at the issue, but will a Minister make a statement about it?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I start by referring the Chamber to my chairmanship of the leasehold and commonhold reform APPG, where I work closely with organisations such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign, to which I pay tribute. As we have heard, complaints from constituents about management companies and the exorbitant fees they charge are something that we all deal with on a weekly basis. It is not a new phenomenon; it is something that I raised on the Floor of the House five years ago because I could see it becoming the next big scandal, and sadly that has come to pass. Homeowners who buy their homes in good faith understandably expect to live in a functioning estate where responsibilities are clear and, where necessary, charges are fair. All too often, the opposite is the case. Homeowners are left in the pernicious situation of paying for services once in their council tax bill, and once again in extortionate service charges. Poor services are often exacerbated by a lack of accountability. Residents are forced to persistently chase matters, while frequently being passed from one organisation to another without resolution. But as soon as residents fall behind with a payment, these companies leap into action, often using aggressive debt collection tactics. Adding insult to injury, the financial structures of these estates are all too frequently opaque: governance structures lack transparency; companies are labelled as dormant for accounting purposes; and dodgy practice—where freeholders, management companies and debt recovery companies operate in an interconnected web—allows them to rack up eye-watering fees. I will cite one very recent example from my constituency, where a constituent owed some service charges to RMG, with which I think we all are familiar. Looking at his bill, the constituent had been charged an instruction fee and a client admin fee on top of his service charges, adding another £600 to the bill, yet RMG had somehow managed to inflate the £1,100 owed in service charges to £3,300 by the time court papers were issued. There is no world where a trebling of this sum can be justified, and it just shows what a scam the system is. Time and again, I see people raising problems from a range of new build developments in my constituency, including Ledsham Garden Village, Mersey View and Jacks Wood estates, where homeowners face a range of challenges. In Ledsham Garden Village, residents are facing combined service charges and fees running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, although only a fraction of the spending can be accounted for, which just rubs salt into the wound. Residents do not have any idea how the money is being spent and if it is being spent on the estate at all; they do not know whether the company is getting best value for money, how reserves are being used or how costs are allocated over different phases of the development. There are persistent maintenance issues, inconsistent grounds maintenance and safety concerns because of poor traffic management. People who buy their homes in good faith deserve better. Then there are the Jacks Wood estate in Ellesmere Port and the Mersey View estate in Bromborough, where the adoption process has effectively stalled, leaving residents in limbo. The regulation of managing agencies is clearly something this House would like to see, but I would like to make some further suggestions. We could introduce standard costs across the country for estate management fees so that there would be a baseline from which to judge these companies. Residents could be given a far greater say over who manages their estate. We could have three-yearly ballots in law on whether they wish to carry on with the same management agents, which could end the “put up or shut up” approach that a lot of these companies adopt. As we have heard suggested today, an immediate step the Government could take would be to make it a condition of any planning permission moving forward that the developers must hand over the whole estate adoption to the local authority and pay a commuted sum for it, ending that revenue stream entirely.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, for recognising the work done not only by me, but by Peter Bottomley and Jim Fitzpatrick on the APPG. I was struck by a comment in the Committee’s report about the argument put forward by some freeholders that ground rents are used to cover service charges and that people will be put in danger if they are lost. The Committee used the word “shameful” for that argument. Does that not show that this system is a money-making racket? People are using any excuse to carry on that income stream.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, indeed. Residents of an estate in Eastham have been paying for a sewer that they cannot actually locate, which just shows that there is too much ambiguity over what these charges are for. Finally, local authorities could be given powers to use their resources to bring estates up to an adoptable level and then charge the developers for that work retrospectively. The developers do not want to do it, and we need to find a way of breaking that logjam. These are just some of the measures that, alongside the many welcome reforms from this Government, would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On the application of ASBIs, I noted in the equalities statement that according to a Department for Work and Pensions survey, in 2022-23, around 66% of those receiving legal aid had a disability. Some 40% had a mental health condition, and around 10% had some kind of learning disability. Those figures seem alarmingly large. I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts on that, or perhaps he could go away and look into it.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because there are a whole range of factors, which I will come to, in why people are not purchasing the vehicles. The industry is still keen to have a clear signal on where we are heading, but the speed and steepness of the incline is too much for it to bear. We cannot ignore the fact that the figure of 26% relies heavily on subsidies from Government, which are pushing sales to about twice their natural level. I am afraid that there is deep concern among manufacturers about that. To fill the gap between demand and what domestic manufacturers are producing, the industry is already having to buy credits, in the order of hundreds of millions of pounds a year, which is clearly not sustainable. Meanwhile, importing manufacturers, including from China, can exceed ZEV thresholds here and sell their unused credits on to domestic manufacturers. That means that foreign manufacturers of EVs from China are not only taking ever-increasing shares of the market but profiting from exceeding ZEV thresholds. To be clear, this is not an argument about having no ZEV mandate. It is important that we tackle the climate crisis and put an end to internal combustion engines, but what bigger fillip could there be to the climate sceptics than UK factories closing down because of a rigid approach to net zero—an approach that sees millions of pounds go to overseas competitors whose manufacturing is often far more carbon intensive than ours? The ZEV mandate must be adapted to take account of the real-world market conditions, and the escalator must be changed to reflect them. It is clear that for many consumers, even with generous discounts, the cost of a new EV is out of reach. We need to be aware of limitations caused by cost, range anxiety and charging infrastructure. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) that we can do more in that area. As a number of Members have said in this debate, we need to take people with us; we are clearly not bringing them to where we need them to be in order to hit the target. I welcome the Chancellor saying that the review of the mandate will be brought forward to this year, but that needs to start now, and we need to get the right answers within a few months. On the subject of well-meaning policies that could actually be counterproductive, I raise a red flag about the proposed introduction of the deposit return scheme, scheduled for later next year. Most households already recycle their materials through kerbside collections. The participation rates for kerbside recycling are high: it works and it provides a revenue stream to councils. If we are changing that, the public will undoubtedly ask what problem we are trying to fix. The practical reality of the scheme for many people will be a minor inconvenience that they are happy to participate in, but for parents, carers, disabled people, elderly residents and those without easy access to large supermarkets, it could be a significant nuisance. People with complex lives will simply not do it at all. Once again, there is a well-meaning policy here that risks alienating people and damaging our road to net zero, which, on this side of the House at least, we all want to get to.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will attempt to be moderate and not twirl. The net zero transition is now a fundamental part of our economy, generating about £105 billion in value and, as we have heard, employing over 1 million people. Importantly, it is not focused in one part of the country, but spread all across the UK. Growth in the sector is expanding, with 400,000 jobs expected to be created by 2030. Given that productivity in the net zero sector is one and a half times the average for the UK, the potential is there for all to see. As we head towards the future, we need to have in mind the protection of existing jobs. The order sets the carbon budget for 12 years’ time, but there is an area where I think the Government are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good: the zero emission vehicle mandate. This country has a long history of building cars that should rightly be regarded as some of the best in the world. We have a strong manufacturing base for electric vehicles—including at the Vauxhall Motors plant in Ellesmere Port, which has embraced the transition to net zero by becoming an all-electric plant—but the market demand for electric vehicles has not developed as quickly as anticipated. As of May, the market share for electric vehicles was only 26%, which is a long way short of the 33% required this year in the ZEV mandate. The Climate Change Committee predicted that the market share for new electric vehicles would reach 55% by next year. Market share is going to need to double within a year for that prediction to come true, which is simply not going to happen. Its prediction that the proportion of electric cars and vans will reach around 95% of new sales by 2030 is not born out by experience to date, and needs revising down in light of the evidence.

• 17 Jun 2026 · High Street Shops: Illicit Activity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on introducing the debate. There are a lot of ideas and much intent to tackle this problem, because high streets are so evocative. They are a visual symbol of economic challenges and act as an ever-present reminder of what has been lost. That is one reason why people feel so strongly about the brazen illegality we see on high streets the length and breadth of the country. It is no longer a question of isolated bad actors but of a regulatory system that has been repeatedly outpaced by evolving criminal business models. My constituents are angry that where once there was an active high street with household names, there now stand illegal vape shops, mini-marts and a suspicious number of barbers. They know that something is not right, particularly when legitimate businesses have already vacated the area due to reduced footfall. But the law is fighting back. I have joined local enforcement activity in Ellesmere Port, where all the agencies came together and carried out co-ordinated raids, resulting in the seizure of illicit tobacco and vape products, with shops shut down under court orders. That was most welcome, but what was seized was sadly just the tip of the iceberg, and we see a repeated cycle of enforcement and re-emergence with connected parties. It is the recurring nature of these rackets that shakes people’s confidence in the system, especially when they are so brazen, so I absolutely welcome the Government’s intent to tackle the problem. There is much to commend in the blitz on dodgy shops programme, which contains measures that finally go beyond rhetoric. The creation of the high street organised crime unit has long been called for, and the commitment to double the time for which a shop can be closed after breaching the law will also help, but as a number of people have said, we can go further. A Business and Trade Committee inquiry found that “enforcement agencies do not have the necessary powers to permanently close” rogue businesses. The director of National Trading Standards said, “you seize, go back, seize and go back”. It is clear that the tools we have are not fit for purpose. Councils should have the power to close premises permanently without having to go to court, and landlords should not get off the hook if their property is used for illegal purposes. Landlords need help to make wise choices, and they could be encouraged to flag any suspicious or illegal behaviour. Those landlords who are indifferent about who is renting their property should have nowhere to hide if illegal activity is happening on their premises. If landlords are indifferent, they should face criminal sanctions, too. We also need a tougher approach on the collection of fines. Too often, they go uncollected. According to the Home Office, £18 million of fines were issued against illegal car washes in 2025, but the Department could not say how many had actually been paid. After a freedom of information request, we know that the figure is around 5%. We need a proper deterrent; these fines must mean something, and there should be tough enforcement action against individuals. I know that a number of Members wish to speak, so I will end my remarks, but I want finally to say that I welcome the action taken so far. There is no shortage of ideas about how we can go further. It is good to see that the problem is finally receiving the attention it deserves. Regenerating our high streets is critical to national renewal, but to regenerate them, we first of all have to reclaim them. Illicit activity on our high streets is an evocative issue that frustrates law-abiding people and erodes confidence in the state’s ability to tackle crime, so I absolutely welcome the blitz on dodgy shops and the action to back up the rhetoric, but we need to go further by addressing the problems at source, to prevent illegal shops from opening in the first place and then leaving no hiding place for those who are found to have broken the law.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that a number of colleagues have contacted him about this issue. In particular, I will speak on behalf of my Wirral colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern) and for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). None of them are able to participate in the debate because of their Government positions, but they have been engaging, as the Minister says. One of the things they are quite keen to emphasise is the allegation that the Government have already made a decision on this matter because the National Wealth Fund has supported this particular project. Will the Minister address that?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is giving a very balanced presentation of the differing views and arguments, and she hits on a really important point: a number of residents feel that this consultation is not really a consultation, and that the decisions have already been made. We should all be united in urging Peak Cluster to raise its game on this.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  15. What steps his Department is taking to reform the leasehold sector.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for coming to speak to the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform and setting out so comprehensively his vision for ending fleecehold for good. He has explained many of the things that need to be done to get us to that place, including fixing some of the flaws in the 2024 Act, which will enable enfranchisement to proceed. There is a great deal of interest in this issue, so can he set out when we will see the long-awaited consultation on valuation rates for enfranchisement?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is raising some interesting points, though I think they probably are slightly out of scope of what we are debating. I want to ask him about the use of the GDP deflator—when I saw that, I thought it was referring to previous Conservative Chancellors, but of course, it is actually about the way that the framework is set. The Scottish Affairs Committee recommended moving to a new system to use the highest levels available to increase borrowing for the Scottish Parliament. Is that something that he would encourage, or would he be concerned about such a recommendation?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents were delighted to see the opening of the Great Sutton medical centre, but it has brought into sharp focus the need for an urgent upgrade of GP practices in Ellesmere Port town centre. I have submitted an expression of interest to the neighbourhood centre programme, and I wonder whether the Minister would agree to meet me to discuss that further.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Digital Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this announcement, but is it not shocking that these companies have to be told what is unacceptable—that children should not be able to send and receive naked images? I ask the Minister: is this a tech problem or an issue of a lack of understanding and decency at the heart of these companies?

• 21 May 2026 · Costs for Motorists · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the efforts to support drivers at the petrol pumps, but this situation has not led to an increase in demand for electric vehicles. As the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) has said, the automotive sector is facing a real crisis because of the ZEV mandate. I was at the Vauxhall plant in my constituency last week; there is not, and there will not be, the consumer demand to meet the escalating demands of the ZEV mandate. Will the Treasury please use its convening power across Government to bring forward the review of the mandate?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to say that I have not been able to feel the same enthusiasm as the Prime Minister in recent days, and we are at odds over a big issue—Arsenal’s premier league victory. However, I join the majority of people in this country in wanting the champions league final, which Arsenal are participating in, to be a success for English football, so it is very upsetting to see that the game will not be free to air on TV. It is a moment for the nation to come together, get behind a great English football team and have a victory in Europe. Will the Leader of the House do what he can to ensure that the game is free to air for the nation to enjoy?