Peter Lamb MP: speeches

I thank the Chancellor for her response. With the constantly growing evidence base behind it, wellbeing economics offers Governments an increasingly sophisticated means of supplementing conventional economics in decision making. It reveals that big-ticket items very often offer little wellbeing benefit to our constituents, while much cheaper interventions can have a dramatic impact. Wellbeing levels have even been shown across Europe to be a better predictor of electoral outcomes than traditional economic measures. Would the Chancellor be willing to meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group on wellbeing economics to discuss how wellbeing economics can enhance the work of the Treasury?

6. Whether she plans to update the Treasury Green Book supplementary guidance on wellbeing. [R]

The Government are to be commended for the largest ever investment in police technology, including facial recognition to catch serious offenders, and a drone squad to crack down on waste crime. However, the rules around admissibility of some high-tech evidence, such as the six-month crime rule, are holding back enforcement, which could enable us to stamp out low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. Can the Minister commit to reviewing these rules to ensure that the latest technology can be used to protect our communities?

9. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of allowing greater use of evidence from automated enforcement technology in trials.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. This issue has been on my radar for a very long time. I used to be the leader of the local authority in Crawley, and we have been aware for many years that the capacity limitations that are coming on the line will be so severe that they will gum up the entire network—the whole north-south link through London—from the coast in Brighton all the way through to Peterborough and Cambridge. Ultimately, we can address that only by resolving the bottleneck in Croydon. The Department for Transport has already commissioned scoping work and started the process of bringing CARS forward. A significant part of the land required to undertake the work has been purchased and is just sitting idle. Unfortunately, it was the victim of the great strategic vision of our previous Prime Minister, who cancelled HS2 and a number of other proposals. Since that point, it has been very hard for a Department to get things back on the agenda. The new Government have come in with a significant proposal for investing in infrastructure. People underestimate just how significant the Government’s proposals for infrastructure are. We are talking about £100 billion of additional infrastructure investment under this Government, which will transform a very large part of the country. The risk we run into, however, is where that investment goes. There are different pressures acting on the DFT as a consequence. Some of it is about trying to regenerate regional economies in the north of England and other parts of the country. As someone who lives in south-east, it is to my benefit for other parts of the country to develop. The direction of travel of policy in this country for many decades has been, essentially, “We are going to move the entire population of the United Kingdom to the south-east, and that is where the only jobs will be.” That is not sustainable. The housing pressures are just not sustainable. We have to have regeneration elsewhere. However, the risk with insufficient investment in the south-east is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The south-east as a whole generates more economic activity than London. In combination with London, we are talking about a third of the UK’s economic activity. If we do not invest in the infrastructure that sustains that, we will run into very significant problems. The Gatwick airport expansion is supposed to come forward in my community. My community already has full employment, and it has a housing problem. With the capacity limitations expected on the line by 2030, my community will have a very significant transport problem—and I should add that those limitations will come into effect without Gatwick expansion. Gatwick expansion will not necessarily bring any additional benefits to my community, but it brings benefits to the country. I can understand that, and I respect why the DFT is going in that direction, but if we are to see additional benefits to the country coming out of economic activity, that has to come with the necessary infrastructure not only to enable my community to avoid the negative consequences of the housing and transport pressure that will result if the scheme is not put into effect, but to enable the country to get the best possible rate of return on the investment. Ultimately, that is what those of us involved want. A large number of business groups now support the scheme and are making the point that we are cutting off investment in the area. I was at a meeting last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and a number of business and transport groups. One business group, which tries to bring inward investment to the United Kingdom, said that people refuse to move here when they have experience the railway capacity or the delays on the line getting to and from Gatwick. That is a real consequence of the UK’s inward investment strategy. We need to ensure that we have the infrastructure to get the maximal benefits of the private investment that is coming in, and the south-east will deliver on that. This is the only profit-making line in the GTR network. The numbers coming through will quickly increase the rate of return for the Treasury, based on the investment. We are one of the very few areas where rail investment would do that, and subsidise other railway lines elsewhere. It will pay for itself in the long term, but we need the pump priming at the start. If we pump prime this part of the south-east with the relatively limited amount of capital we are talking about, it will deliver a much greater return to the Treasury and the UK, through the social and economic benefits of the resultant growth. It is worth noting that passenger volumes are projected to increase by 50% by 2045, which is 15 years after we run out of capacity on the line. If CARS is not the solution to that, what is the DFT’s strategy for dealing with capacity limitations of that scale on the line? I am happy to lobby for something else if I am pointed in the right direction, but my understanding, from talking to transport people, is that this scheme is the only thing that is going to resolve that particular problem. There will be some temporary stops along the way, but they can be dealt with. Despite the reduction in passenger volumes after covid, we are now essentially back to having the mid-week peak, so there is no time for delay. The works are urgently needed if we are going to move things forward. I appreciate that the Treasury needs to address a range of concerns, but this need is urgent now, and will ultimately deliver a much better offer for the United Kingdom in the long run. Please can we just get on with it?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Local government is an area of great interest to me. I did my master’s dissertation on models for English devolution; I have worked at the UK’s leading think-tank on devolution; for 17 years I worked as an adviser to local authorities, and I have served in local government in a county council and a district council, including almost a decade as a council leader. From 2015 onwards, I have also been involved in various devolution proposals for Sussex in one way or another. I say all that because, despite that background, I still cannot get my head around what the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is trying to achieve with all this. That is despite talking to the director at No. 10, special advisers and Ministers on this policy area. In fact, the more I delve into it, the more opaque it becomes. My understanding is that this reform all kicked off with Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves—two people without any background in local government—making a deal: more money now, in return for local government reform. The only reason they thought it would deliver any results was that the County Councils Network had, for many years, been putting forward a document that seemed to set out a case that there would be financial savings if county councils were merged at the unitary level. Those figures relied on population sizes of roughly half a million people—that figure is critical; I re-read all the statements made by local government Ministers on this before this debate, and it is a figure that has been repeatedly stated and was consistently pushed for the better part of a year. The reason was that, when we look at the County Councils Network figures, the £2 billion savings it talked about delivering, which it presented as if it were an annual statement—it is not, it is over five years—are achievable only when dealing with population sizes of 500,000 or greater. The problem, when we come down to it, is this: for the Labour party, that is completely unelectable. We have pockets of support within the south east, but we do not have larger footprints. With the politics unravelling around this question, we have started to talk about smaller sizes for unitary authorities, but here we run into a problem: unitary authorities do not save money. Merging existing councils saves money. We could merge districts together—that would save money. We could merge counties together—what an idea!—and that would save money. We could merge existing unitaries together—that would save money. However, when we start creating unitaries, we are merging two different tiers together; if that is a smaller footprint than existing upper-tier authorities, it will always end up costing more money than the alternative. We now have a proposal that will not deliver politically or financially. I will return to the finances in due course, because the situation is much worse than people think it is. This proposal is somehow still on the table long beyond the original document that set this all out. If there are other figures on this then, like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), I would be delighted to see them. I have asked for them repeatedly. However, when Governments do not release data, we come to the conclusion that they do not have data that backs up their case. The evidence base here is very hard to find. The other argument that comes up very frequently is that two-tier areas are too complicated and people do not know who runs what. I have lived in two-tier areas essentially my entire life, apart from when I was at university, and that is not something I have come across, despite being in roles where I might expect to come across it very regularly. If we say tiers are a problem, adding mayors across the country and encouraging people to set up third-tier authorities increases the total number of tiers at the local government level. It adds to the complexity rather than decreasing it. We hear bizarre arguments about issues such as waste collection and waste disposal authorities, as if the idea that someone collects the bins and someone gets rid of them is complicated. What particularly grates my gears about that argument is that there are many unitary authorities that are not waste disposal authorities. Take the Thames valley waste authority as an example—take Greater London—take Greater Manchester: in all those areas, waste is collected that is then disposed of on a larger footprint. There are many such areas where the powers do not perfectly align, and people manage to get through them without any great deal of controversy. The argument for much of this change, particularly with the mayoralties, was that we were would get wider public sector reform, which would deliver astounding savings. The problem with that argument is that the footprints that the change was supposed to create would align the mayoralties, the police authorities and the integrated care boards, so that we would get all the services in one area and they could deliver efficiencies. However, we are now talking about creating police authorities on a larger footprint than the existing mayoral footprint, so the two would no longer correspond. There will be a much more complicated structure now, with deputy mayors sitting on different boards in relation to it. Similarly, the ICBs have had to expand, so they no longer go along with the devolution footprint. The only form of public sector reform that we can now carry out around this process is reform of local government on its own, and that will not deliver the projected savings. Most of the areas that a district council deals with and most of the areas that a county council deals with do not interface in any meaningful way when it comes to savings. If they did, the County Councils Network report, which it paid PwC to produce in order to create the strongest possible case for reform, would have put that forward. Instead, the report solely states that savings can be made by reducing senior officer numbers. As anyone who has been involved in the sector knows, many of those posts no longer exist in the numbers that they did at the time that the PwC report was formed. At this point, such figures simply do not exist. The only people I can find who have any difficulty with the idea of two-tier areas are civil servants and politicians from unitary authority areas. One might imagine what other people might feel if we went to their areas and tried to impose our culture upon them. There has also been the claim that these reformed authorities will be engines for economic growth and housing delivery, but let us think about it in this way: I was the leader of a local authority that delivered over four times our Government-assessed numbers for housing, whereas—unfortunately—Mid Sussex district council, which was previously under Conservative control, often did not even have a core strategy for that entire period, never mind delivering any actual housing numbers. We are about to create unitaries where the areas that deliver large volumes of housing, and that need such housing at an affordable rate, will be swamped by rural communities. What do we think will be the dominant factor in these new authorities, where the politics is controlled by rural communities? Will it be a focus on economic development? Will it be a focus on housing delivery? Or will it be stamping down on those two things, as we have seen time and time again? This plan does not deliver on the Government’s missions; it kills them off, as many Members have tried to point out in recent times. The reality is that demography is destiny, and rural communities will have control over those authorities. Returning to the issue of finance, in my area the actual cost of the merger is estimated as three times greater than the estimate put forward so far. In fact, even on the most optimistic assumptions, on these footprints no savings would be delivered until the end of the next Parliament—but it is more likely that there would not be any saving at all. In fact, the situation gets even worse than that. Who knows when most of the country’s leisure centres were built? I will give Members a clue—it was in the early ’70s. What happened in the early ’70s? We merged all the district councils, and they looked at their accounts and said, “I am not handling this over to the next council”, and they got busy spending. We can see that in the country currently. The reality is that, until the protections come in with the new authority, people will be getting money out the door. Debt is going up, budgetary decisions are being postponed and savings are being put off in order to invest in local communities while there is one last chance to do that. Over the next 12 months, section 114 notices are far more likely than in any preceding period. I will move on to the issue of democracy. Resident satisfaction surveys of local authorities have consistently shown a positive correlation between the perception of a local authority and the size of that authority. It is not the other way around, as though suddenly authorities delivered much more effectively when they got to a much greater footprint—why would that be the case? More remote Government is not necessarily going to make people any happier. Currently, the average size of authorities in the UK is seven times larger than not the European average, but the authorities in the European country with the next largest—and this programme will make our authorities 14 times larger than those. Why are we such an outlier? Why are councils in Europe, which have far greater powers and far greater money than we do, apparently perfectly capable of running their local areas, while in our areas we have to bring things up to a central Government level? Again, I think that the civil service has far more to do with this programme than any actual rational thought does. The changes will also prevent people from having any meaningful relationship with councillors. In the UK, we are far less likely than in any other part of Europe to have independent councillors. The reason is that with footprints of this size we cannot build a meaningful relationship with a councillor. The distance cuts people off from their democracy and any sense of control, and increases their scepticism. Conversations about area committees are frankly meaningless; anyone who has actually worked with those structures knows they do not replace meaningful representation. The fundamental problem we will run into is geography. When we strive to get population sizes in rural areas, we come up with enormous geographies; for my patch, we are most likely talking about an area in excess of 50 miles wide. Greater London is just over 30 miles wide. What common interests can exist in that footprint? What common services? What common identity? We will end up with competition between the different communities in those areas, and policy will be driven by those communities whose voices are heard loudest in whatever administration is in control. That will, again, mean that the rural beats out the urban. Urban communities such as mine, which includes some of the most deprived parts of the country—certainly in the south-east, at least—will lose out as a direct result of the restructure. There are 71 Labour constituencies that trusted us at the last election, but that will see their quality of life decline as a direct result of the policy as well. When we look at the numbers, it might well be that if the Labour party, sacrificed those 71 constituencies, it would never be in office again. I am sure that Opposition Members would be delighted; it is why I thought they would be pushing the policy, not the Members on the Labour Benches. Talk to any Labour party organiser and they will say that the policy undermines our organising model. They are up in arms. Most Labour Governments in the last century would not have happened had there been a reform such as this. We are arguing for a policy that no longer reflects the principles on which it was first brought together. It no longer reflects the same goals: it will not save us money, it will be more remote and it will undermine the deprived communities that this Government are allegedly in place to serve. It is clear that the advice given to Ministers in MHCLG is poor; we have seen that in just one month, with fair funding miscalculations that took place, and we have seen that with the elections, with the conclusions that we now all have to deal with. Having been through the detail of the policy over and over again, I cannot see any way that it is not another example of that poor advice.

On a point of order, Mr Vickers. Regarding my earlier breach, I just want to apologise to you and to the Chamber for referring to my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) by their names rather than by their constituencies, and without forewarning. I was unaware of the process. I will make sure it does not happen again.

There are three areas, and social care is one of them. The finances of upper-tier authorities have been totally compromised, initially by the costs of social care, where we have still not taken decisions all these years after the Dilnot review. We all know that social care is slowly bankrupting councils. Go to any single council presentation on local government finance—whether a unitary or upper-tier authority—and that is the thing that will be mentioned. Then there is SEND, which again has absolutely crippled local authorities’ funding to the extent that we allowed them to keep it off their books because the cost would have bankrupted them. That has now been taken away from them to be covered centrally, so that is one less problem to deal with. Lastly, there are the costs of temporary housing, which housing authorities, like the districts, are mandated to provide. They have no control over it, and are often dealing with the consequences of central Government decisions that move more people into the area and create that level of housing need. However, those costs ultimately stem from a failure of housing policy in this country. Those are the three areas bankrupting local government. Despite the fact that local government started out as the most efficient part of the public sector and has become still more efficient since, taking sensible decisions to maintain its survival, it cannot deal with pressures that are not being dealt with centrally. If we deal with those three problems, local government finance problems will go away—but they are central Government’s problems to resolve, and we have not yet quite resolved them. I accept that all that is in motion, but when I talk to people in local government, very few of them want this policy. The reality is the boundaries are most likely going to end up lasting for another half a century—just look at the pain we are going through now; we are not going to want to go through it all again. We should not be embarking on something that will last 50 years when we cannot publish the evidence base because it is so weak. A pause is now needed to reflect on these proposals. I will continue to argue more and more loudly for that, adding more and more things to the debate about the best outcome here. I say to Ministers, “You’ve inherited a mess from other people; it wasn’t of your making and I really wouldn’t jeopardise your careers seeing this through.”

Is the hon. Gentleman astounded, as I am, that the majority of that debt is with the public works loan board, which sits underneath the Treasury. Where was the Treasury when that debt was being allowed to accumulate?

Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the reason for the difference in defence spending is that those nations’ security is at much more immediate risk than that of the UK? If we are going to maintain a leading role and ensure the security of our people moving forward, we must be honest with our constituents. The reality is that, in order for our current way of life to be maintained, sacrifices will now be needed to secure the funding necessary to guarantee our defence.

Crawley A&E’s closure was accompanied by a commitment to a 24-hour urgent treatment centre, a commitment that the trust is now breaking. Can the Minister meet me to discuss how local services can be preserved and improved?

I have great respect for the Secretary of State; I believe that he is one of the finest Ministers on this Government’s Front Bench, and I have great sympathy for him. The reality is that at times, we have all been presented with advice that has proven to be poor. Frankly, the reality that a lot of us are aware of is that he inherited a mess when he moved away from the very fine job he was doing in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to his current Department. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will not publish figures to indicate the savings that this work will allegedly generate. The only figures we have available are those produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which have been quoted by Ministers previously. When we look through the figures at the geographical sites that we are talking about, we see that there are no savings through local government reorganisation, particularly when the wider public sector reform agenda is being taken apart by larger police areas and changes to the size of integrated care boards. On that basis, we are undertaking a situation in which there will be significant financial costs to the local authorities but none of the savings that are currently projected. If the Government have contrary figures, I welcome the publication of them and of the advice. The sizes that we are talking about are 14 times larger than the next largest authorities in Europe, with a greater diameter than Greater London and without any community of interest, so given that this will leave Labour communities at the mercy of right-wing councils—

Immediately, yes. Given that poor advice has previously been given by the Department to the Secretary of State, is it not time to pause and reconsider the evidence base for local government reform?

This package of measures will transform the lives of thousands of my constituents. On fleecehold, residents in Forge Wood are paying thousands of pounds for services that other constituents receive for free. Can the Minister confirm that he will act as quickly as possible following the end of the consultation?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am here replacing another Member. When they told me the subject, I said, “Great! It is the first time I have ever actually known something about the subject.” They said, “For goodness’ sake, don’t let the Whips hear you say that”—such is the time in which we live. At the risk of incurring the wrath of Members who would clearly like to get out of this room as quickly as possible, I hope I might be of service to the Government on this issue. For almost a decade I ran a local authority that collected one of the highest levels of business rates in the country. We are seeing the second highest increase as a result of changes being instituted now—such is the consequence of having a major airport in our patch. However, I am aware that we are likely to hold a vote on this topic, so I would like to frame in people’s minds exactly what is being debated before we get to a vote. The current system of discounts for the hospitality industry is running out; no additional money has been put forward to fund it—it was not in the Budget. Currently, these things are not done through legislation or statutory instrument, but operate through guidance, with local authorities essentially given discretionary relief and paid back by the Government. If we do not put another arrangement in place, that collapses. The proposed system delivers a lower rate than the previous system. If Members do not vote in favour of it, a system will come into effect that has a higher level of rates for the hospitality industry—with its level of interest in this—and for businesses that are struggling at the moment than is currently the case. This is the only proposal on the table at the moment.

I would be delighted to have a different system in place. In fact, I spent many years as a local authority leader, lobbying the last Government to try to do anything on that front to resolve a system that, frankly, is still Elizabethan in design and in no way reflects the changing nature of local economies. It requires a fundamental review, and I understand from the Minister that we are looking at various changes at the moment, and further measures are being put in place to support people. However, I say to Members in this room today that if this proposal goes to a vote and they vote it down, they will in practice be voting for higher rates on these struggling businesses. A second thing will happen. During covid, I was leader of my local authority, and businesses were suddenly unable to pay business rates. The liability around business rates is such that, regardless of what we have coming in as a local authority, we have to pay that money to the Government or they will take legal action; that is technically the requirement. My largest donor was Gatwick airport— [Interruption.] Rather, my largest contributor was Gatwick airport; it has not donated any money to me at all. It suddenly found that because aviation was hit so hard, it could not afford to pay its business rates at all. We faced a situation where local authorities in the area could not make payroll under the existing system. When Members vote today, they must therefore be very clear that they are voting to bankrupt not only the hospitality industry, the retail industry and other struggling sectors, but their own local authorities. That is all I will say on that. If Opposition Members would like to propose something else in the House, we would be more than happy to debate it. However, if this proposal goes to a vote and they vote against it, they will have voted to put a higher rate of taxation on the hospitality industry.

T10. What action are the UK Government taking to support Tamils in seeking justice for past and current injustices?

5. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the UK’s membership of the European convention on human rights on the Belfast agreement.

Given the chaos around the world that is being experienced by politicians playing fast and loose with international law, it is deeply concerning that Conservative and Reform MPs are speaking so flippantly of the risks of violating the Good Friday agreement by leaving the European convention on human rights. Will the Secretary of State give his assessment of the risk of that?

Despite its rural setting, Crawley’s travel-to-work area has a larger economy than many of the UK’s core cities. Despite that, it has been held back over recent years due to a lack of grid capacity at its major connection point with the national grid, resulting in the loss of several major investments under the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State look into what can be done to upgrade the connection point and unleash that restrained economic growth?

8. What steps his Department is taking to help increase the capacity of major national grid supply points.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is good news that the Government have now proposed national minimum standards, her new clause represents the other part of the Casey review’s recommendations, without which the House would have failed to act on the licensing requirements specified in the review?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts to move these provisions forward. I will relay the key points of our agreement on this issue. The key challenge is that since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have a system in which councils no longer know who is operating in their area, on what basis they are operating, and what standards they are operating on. I am directly familiar with how the system has shifted as I was a member of the licensing committee from 2010 onwards. Most significantly, councils have no power to enforce or investigate when things go wrong. City of Wolverhampton council really needs to go and investigate the entire country because of the way in which the systems are operating. If we are not going to have a national system, the only way we can get back to a system where someone has the confidence that if their daughter gets into an Uber tonight, the council will know who she is, can intervene if she is in danger and will investigate if something goes wrong, is by returning to national standards, and by having a situation where local licensing authorities can once again control who is starting or ending in their patch—not having people coasting in from out of area.

I thank the Minister for his response. I have several residents who have been waiting almost a year for a refund from the Home Office. Given the dramatic improvements that we have seen in asylum application processing in the last year, can I trust that the Minister will put the same zeal into ensuring that the other Home Office processes work just as efficiently?

8. What steps she has taken to tackle delays in the payment of refunds by her Department.

T5. Crawley has the worst air quality in Sussex, yet under the previous Government, a new incinerator on the town’s border was approved; the town will be directly in its plume. In the context of incinerators, will the Minister set out how we can enhance air quality, and will the Government consider a moratorium on the building of new incinerators, given the oversupply in incinerator capacity?

I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a new standard for vehicle headlight glare. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this motion today; it is the first time that I have been successful in an application for a Westminster Hall debate, and I feel that I have been incredibly lucky with the coverage that it has received so far in the news. But I suppose that I should not be surprised. This issue has been raised with me by many constituents, and polling indicates that 80% of all drivers are concerned about headlight glare. I am sure that most Members have at one time or another struggled to see the road because of the glare of oncoming headlights—I certainly have. No one should deny the valuable role that headlights play in enabling people to drive safely. They enable drivers to see potential hazards, and other people to notice vehicles in motion. It is for that reason that we encourage cyclists to ensure that their bikes are properly illuminated at night—the conversation about their lighting, and particularly the flashing lightbulbs that they often have, can wait for another day. However, in recent years the glare from headlights has begun to tip over from enhancing road safety to compromising it. On average each year, police are called to 280 collisions and six fatal collisions where headlight glare is cited as having played a role in causing the accident. Several factors have a role to play in driving the increase in headlight glare. Poor alignment of headlights means that often car headlights are angled too high up in the road, and consequently the light enters into cabins. There is increased adoption of SUV-style cars, which sit higher in the road, so again the light is more likely to enter a car’s cabin and impact drivers. However, the most significant change has been the replacement of traditional halogen lightbulbs with light-emitting diodes. LEDs are a significant improvement on halogen bulbs; they are far more energy-efficient, last far longer and have the ability to be brighter and better directed than traditional lightbulbs. Unfortunately, although car companies feel the advantages of the increased brightness of LEDs—which, due to emitting large volumes of blue light, unlike halogen lightbulbs, take far longer for the eye to recover from—they do not appear to have considered the impacts on other road users. It is hard to say whether that is by accident or design. Brighter headlights may well be attractive to those purchasing a car; they can be more aesthetically pleasing, and drivers benefit from increased visibility, but that all comes at the cost of other road users. The tension between the conflicting interests of those living in this country sits at the heart of our politics. It is our job as representatives to decide where that appropriate balance sits—curtailing the freedoms of some to protect the freedoms of others—and there will always be winners and losers. Fortunately for the Government, on this issue the balance seems clear. When four out of five drivers are telling us they are concerned about headlight glare, we know that the balance of freedoms in this country rests clearly on one side. We cannot have a road network where one in 20 people have stopped driving completely and a further 22% would rather not drive at night at all if they a choice.

Certainly, there is probably work to be done in general around how transport impacts social isolation, and particularly at different times of day. We know the impact that losing bus routes has had on rural communities, and the age brackets for which that causes huge problems. Transport for many people is an essential part of daily life; they do not have the options that those of us lucky enough—I say lucky—to live in an urban area have available to us. We have to think of the enormous impact that this issue has not only on convenience, but on someone’s ability to get through life. There are options available to drivers to reduce headlight glare. They can try keeping their windscreen and glasses clean; they can adjust mirrors to reduce glare; and they can ensure that their own headlights are properly aligned and avoid buying SUV-type vehicles. [ Interruption. ] Well, they could. Although all those things would see an improvement in our roads, driving-related law in the UK should not be reliant on voluntary measures by drivers. The law relating to driving begins from the starting point that every vehicle is a lethal object and rigid rules are required to manage that risk. The track record of accidents stemming from headlight glare is now sufficiently clear, but it is time for that to be recognised in law with a new standard to ensure that headlights in the United Kingdom do not exceed safe levels of brightness. I am glad that the Department for Transport appears to have recognised that, with the Transport Research Laboratory having been commissioned last year to study the impacts of headlight glare. I understand that research was supposed to have been completed in the spring, but it has not yet been published. Despite that, there have been positive noises, certainly in recent days, about headlight glare being addressed, in part through the new road safety strategy. I hope that hon. Members will receive assurances about that from the Minister, and I hope that this debate will help to maintain pressure for the action that our constituents deserve at the earliest opportunity.

I am very grateful for the time that we have been given for this debate, and I am grateful to all the Members who have taken the time to come along and participate. I thank the Minister for his response. We look forward to the publication of the existing research into the issue and for the research due to begin shortly. I very much hope that it can be completed promptly. It is recognised across the House that there is a need for action. There is support among Members, the public and the press to act. Politically, this is something of an open goal, readily available to the Government. We know from the figures that headlight glare poses a risk to life. It is putting real limits on people’s freedom to go out and exercise or to go places at night. It is beyond time that we finally put an end to it by introducing a new standard, which I hope will be forthcoming on the basis of the research. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a new standard for vehicle headlight glare.

Although the researcher involved did not look into particular age groups, I think we all know that on balance, it is often older citizens who are far more inclined to feel the issue of headlights and problems with driving in general. When looking at the numbers, which show the scale of people who are simply staying at home because they no longer feel safe in the road, we realise that something clearly has to be done. The overwhelming majority of those who say that they are no longer driving at night, or would not drive if they had the choice, cite headlight glare as the primary reason.

T2. Many other hon. Members have today outlined the proven track record of Access to Work in enabling disabled constituents to access employment, in addition to the challenges posed by the current shortfall in funding. Some £1 billion-worth of additional employment support funding has been announced this year. Can the Minister reassure the House that Access to Work remains one of the potential avenues for that funding?

I thank the right hon. Lady for the points she is making. Does she share my concern that much as in the US, where rhetoric has shifted through a sudden strategy away from explicit conversation about race to coded references about race, we should be concerned by the change in rhetoric? We no longer see racial terms being deployed and instead talk about things such as cultural coherence.

Grassroots boxing clubs do fantastic work with young people and provide a pipeline of future talent for our communities. Crawley has provided such leading lights in the boxing world as Alan Minter. Will the Secretary of State meet me and representatives of the sector to see what more can be done to support grassroots boxing?