Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on securing this debate, and on speaking so enthusiastically and eloquently about regional transport connectivity, inequality and the cost of toll journeys such as those on the Tamar bridge and the Torpoint ferry in her constituency. She is a powerful advocate for the people she represents.

I recognise the importance of high-quality transport links and infrastructure, and the challenges people face with the cost of travel, especially those living in coastal and rural areas such as South East Cornwall. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these key topics with Members today, including many from the south-west—the far south-west—of England, such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and, of course, for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). It is good to have the opportunity to explain the Government’s position and ongoing approach.

Improving transport connectivity is a top priority for this Government. For too long, people living in rural areas like Cornwall have felt isolated and cut off from essential services and facilities, and we are determined to take steps to change that. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for North Cornwall, but I am no longer the Roads Minister. However, I certainly agree that roads matter, and I am delighted that in the spending review we have provided £24 billion of capital funding for 2026-27 to 2029-30 to maintain and improve roads across England.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on her great speech and on securing this debate. On the Government’s spend on transport infrastructure, those present and the Minister may know that I remain a very strong supporter of the lower Thames crossing project, which will, when built, hugely reduce congestion at the Dartford crossing and make the quality of life and the air quality for my constituents in Dartford massively better. I thank the Minister and her team for the progress made on that project. We expect spades to be in the ground this year, which is wonderful. Does the Minister agree, however, that when the lower Thames crossing is built, and we have it and the Dartford crossing over the Thames east of London, it will be particularly important that the tolls for both crossings are equalised so that there is no financial incentive to use one rather than the other, and traffic can flow freely through both across the Thames?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will make a diversion to the south-east of England to say that the Government are committed to delivering the lower Thames crossing, which is the most significant road-building scheme in a generation. It will provide access to more than 400,000 jobs within an hour’s commute of local communities, and of course it will ease congestion at the Dartford crossing. Although the charging regime for the lower Thames crossing has not been set, like other crossings in England, such as the Dartford crossing, it will have a charge applied in order to cover the cost of providing the infrastructure, and the development consent order made clear that it is our intention that both tolls will be equal when the lower Thames crossing opens.

Turning back to the south-west, a question was raised about the role of National Highways. The A38 on either side of the Tamar bridge is the responsibility of National Highways as part of the strategic road network, but the bridge itself is not. However, while the Tamar crossings themselves are not the responsibility of National Highways, it does make an operational contribution each year towards the Saltash tunnel tidal flow system, which is monitored by the board that manages the bridge and the ferry.

We saw the completion of the essential major road network scheme in Cornwall linking St Austell to the A30 last July and look forward to progression of the Manadon interchange scheme in Plymouth, which will benefit so many people using the road network. The Government are committed to supporting local authorities in maintaining and renewing the local highway network, which is why by 2029-30 we will commit over £2 billion annually for local authorities to repair and renew their roads and fix potholes, doubling the funding since we came into office.

Business Rates

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will run this statement to about 3.15 pm, so we can all help each other. Jim Dickson is going to be a good example.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. The pubs in my constituency, from the Growler Stop and Ivy Leaf in Dartford to the Bull in Stone and the Spring River in Ebbsfleet, are the heart of our community. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial that we find ways to protect them as places for people to come together and build communities, and that the package he has announced today—with its 15% reduction on the revalued bill and protection for the next three years—makes a big contribution to that goal?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his engagement on this matter on behalf of the businesses in his constituency. We are making a significant intervention for pubs because we understand the concerns that have been raised about the methodology. As we have heard from my hon. Friend, pubs play a central role in his community in Dartford, as they do elsewhere, and they are important to the health, life and vibrancy of high streets, towns and villages in constituencies across the country.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13 make changes to the gambling duties regime, to better reflect the modern gambling market and to raise more than £1 billion a year to support the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. I will first speak briefly to the broader context of the package, and I will then turn to each clause.

Gambling is a significant part of the UK economy, generating an annual gross gambling yield of around £16.8 billion in 2025, according to figures from the Gambling Commission. The industry has changed markedly in recent years, while the duty system has not changed since 2019. Most notably, there has been a structural shift from in-person to online gambling. Between 2015 and 2025, remote gambling grew by 80%, while land-based gambling has declined by 10%. At the same time, evidence of gambling-related harms has become even clearer.

The estimated cost to the Government and society of gambling-related harms in England alone is between £1.05 billion and £1.77 billion a year. NHS figures show that over 40% of gamblers using online slots, bingo or casino games are considered to be at risk, compared with less than 15% of those betting in person on horseracing. Referrals for gambling addition have risen sharply—NHS England has doubled the number of clinics for problem gambling. I am grateful for representations from so many MPs and campaigners on this matter, alongside those with constituencies where horseracing plays an important role in the community and, indeed, the local economy.

In the Budget, the Chancellor made it clear that changes to gambling taxation are fair, proportionate and for a purpose, as they will directly contribute to lifting an additional 450,000 children out of poverty. This Government are very proud of that. Unfortunately, the Opposition showed little regard for child poverty when they were in government, and it is entirely in character, albeit no less shocking, that they oppose this Government’s changes and would increase child poverty as a result. Reform UK is even more brazen.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way during an excellent speech introducing what I think is an extremely positive change. Like many Members, I have campaigned for some years to ensure that the most harmful and addictive forms of gambling attract tax that is commensurate with those harms, so I welcome this measure, as I am sure do others who have campaigned on this issue. As a member of the Treasury Committee, which recommended this change in a report just before the Budget, I am very glad to see it. Will the Minister confirm that some of the revenue raised will be used to help the Government reach their objective of lifting half a million children out of poverty, and say how that relationship works? The Treasury clearly does not want to see a hypothecation of that sum, so how does the connection between the money raised by the tax and the lifting of children out of poverty work?

[Lucy Rigby]

The tax changes in the Bill disincentivise the most harmful forms of gambling. We have also introduced a statutory levy to pay for the prevention of some of those harms arising in the first place, and of treatment, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government announced the change in December because we had continued to listen to the representatives of family businesses and the farming community. I note that the National Farmers’ Union and others have welcomed the change, which will increase the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million.

I think it is the right change to make, and it ensures that we get the balance right. We are still raising £300 million from the very largest estates. If the Conservatives would prefer not to raise that money and give a £1 million tax cut to an estate worth £10 million, that is their choice. It is not our choice. We think we have got to the right place on this policy and are striking the right balance—both raising revenue from those with the very largest estates, and making sure that we have a higher threshold. Because of the changes we announced at the Budget, someone in a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million.

I can confirm to the House that I did not sign the tax information note for the change that was announced on 23 December before the Budget. On the numbers, as I said, the number of estates affected who claim agricultural property relief—including those also claiming BPR—is expected to halve, from 375 to 185.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. I was pleased to meet NFU representatives for Dartford and for Kent in late 2024 and January 2025. Following those meetings, I passed on the view to Treasury Ministers that it was right for the Government to close the inheritance tax loophole and stop the price of farmland from being inflated by people purchasing that land to avoid inheritance tax, but that the threshold should be set at a significantly higher level to reduce the risk of smaller family businesses being affected by the changes. Does the Minister agree that the reliefs are now fairer to family farms but will still achieve their purpose of reducing tax sheltering and raising vital revenue for public services?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Yes, I do believe that we have got the balance right. It is worth noting that the top 4% of claims accounted for over half the Exchequer cost of business property relief and the top 7% of claims accounted for 40% of the Exchequer cost of agricultural property relief. That is hundreds of millions of pounds in tax that was forgone but will now be raised under these changes from the very largest estates. I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on this issue over recent weeks and months.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As I said earlier, the Government take the Budget process and our responsibilities to this House very seriously. As the hon. Lady is aware, the permanent secretary has committed to keeping all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

As others have said, given that the “Economic and fiscal outlook” contains highly sensitive information on which billions of pounds can be traded, and given that the investigation report makes it clear that this was not the first time that confidential information had been released before a fiscal event, does the Minister agree that there might be a role for the National Crime Agency, alongside the National Cyber Security Centre, in looking into whether something untoward has taken place?

[James Murray]

As I set out in my earlier remarks, we will be taking forward the recommendations of the report. In particular, as my hon. Friend mentioned, we will be working with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation of a forensic examination of other fiscal events. The truth is that because of the early publication of the EFO last week, it has come to light from the initial analysis of the OBR that that also happened in March, but we do not yet know if it happened at previous fiscal events, including for previous Chancellors.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Like many in this House and many of my constituents in Dartford, I have had the dubious pleasure of paying stamp duty. I can testify to the fact that doing so when buying a home is not a pleasant experience. That is one small reason why I am sympathetic to the case for reform of property taxation in this country when properly thought through, as others have said. However, this proposal, from the party that brought us the former right hon. Member for South West Norfolk as Prime Minister, is simply not a serious one.

At the Conservative party conference in Manchester, the Leader of the Opposition, who previously was going to spend three years thinking through her party’s new policy platform—no doubt looking at all the alternatives and thinking through what the effects might be—produced a proposal, like a rabbit out of a hat, to abolish stamp duty on the purchase of main homes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons that, if that decision were implemented after the 2029 general election, it would cost the country or the Exchequer about £11 billion a year in lost revenue. Surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly given the fiscal situation left by the Conservative party last July, there is no serious proposal to replace the revenue. Instead, we have a promise that this policy would be paid for by taking the axe once more to spending on public services, with a promise of £47 billion in savings—a proposal to return this country to the austerity that was so roundly rejected by our constituents a little more than a year ago. Indeed, the £47 billion includes a saving, as others have said, of £23 billion on welfare—a figure vastly in excess of anything the previous Government even approached during their 14 years in office, and in fact welfare spending went up during that time. So to attempt to make such a saving on the timescale they are suggesting would inevitably mean a big increase in the number of families in our country living in poverty.

I take a moment to remind the House of the state of the public services and public finances at the end of the 14 years of Conservative Government—a plethora of unfunded spending commitments, and departmental spending plans that were so out of touch with reality that they left, as has been said many times, a huge black hole which this Government have had to try to fill.

Now Opposition Members are proposing to cut public services even further. This is not a serious plan to improve those public services or invest in or grow our economy. Clearly, stamp duty is a far from perfect tax and we should have a sensible debate on property tax reform, but this just isn’t it. In the short term, for instance, it would be possible to increase the number of council tax bands to capture the higher-value properties in some parts of the country and redistribute some of that income elsewhere. In the longer term, a wider reform of council tax and other property taxes could provide a fairer way of taxing property so that those with broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. Instead, as a former adviser to the party opposite when in government, Tim Leunig, said, this would be

“a very, very big tax cut for rich people”

and would have the effect of pushing house prices further out of the reach of first-time buyers.

The motion is disappointing. It is fantasy economics from what used to be a serious political party. I hope that the House will reject its motion today.

Property Taxes

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I have been asked by Madam Deputy Speaker to make some progress, so I will return to the hon. Gentleman a little later.

I hear from my constituents, as I am sure many other Members in the Chamber hear from theirs. They tell us that no matter how much effort they put in at work, their careful management of household finances and their diligent efforts to save for a brighter future, they do not yet feel that they are getting enough in return, and it has become harder to get ahead. At the same time, our roads and railways seem slow and less reliable and our classrooms seem fuller, while the NHS has a massive backlog. The root cause of all that is the chronic under-investment by the previous Government. That under-investment over many years has slowed our productivity growth to a rate not seen since the Napoleonic wars.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that it is thanks to the tight fiscal rules that this Government have introduced and the changes in the Budget that since the election my residents in Dartford have seen an investment in the lower Thames crossing? They have wanted that for 15 years, and it was not delivered under the last Government. They have also seen a £25 million hospital rebuilding project at Darent Valley hospital and a £1 billion structures fund from the Department for Transport, which will repair the ruined Galley Hill Road in my constituency. Is it not thanks to the Government’s rules and Budget changes that we are seeing those changes?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is only thanks to the fiscal rules that the Chancellor introduced at last year’s Budget and our decisions—the right decisions—to ensure that those fiscal rules are non-negotiable and that we keep to them at every stage that we have been able to boost investment by £120 billion over the course of this Parliament in many projects, including those that he mentioned and those in constituencies right across the country. That is the right thing for our country.

We were just talking about chronic under-investment. We are tackling that through ensuring that the Government invest across the country and by encouraging private-sector investments to get businesses across Britain growing.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Because the Conservative party had not done a spending review since 2021 and let inflation go through the roof, and the cost of doing business was higher, along with a whole string of broken promises from the Conservatives. The sooner they reflect on their mistakes and apologise to the country, the better for all of us.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

With major investments announced by this Government that will directly benefit my constituents—such as the lower Thames crossing, Darent Valley hospital and school building renewal—does the Chief Secretary agree that this Government have the fiscal rules in place to provide the economic stability we need to renew our social and economic infrastructure, which was left in a terrible state by the last Government?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for demonstrating the real consequences of fiscal discipline, but also the fact that the Chancellor updated the fiscal rules to allow for investment in precisely the kinds of projects my hon. Friend mentions in his constituency—in hospitals, schools, better roads, public transport and more affordable housing across the country.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. As he will have seen from the Chancellor’s previous statements, we are increasing investment in transport—whether rail, road or buses—specifically in the north and the midlands, so there is plenty of opportunity to bid for the project he mentions, and I am sure he will talk to Transport Ministers to make that case.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and for the national infrastructure strategy. It is particularly welcome that, after the dither and delay of the last Government—who failed to get important projects such as the lower Thames crossing, which has been mentioned, over the line—this Government are finally setting out a plan to do so. Does he agree with me that investing in infrastructure sets the foundation for growth across the whole country, so that there will be not only jobs in north Kent, a reduction in congestion and opportunities for small businesses, but majorly enhanced connectivity for businesses in the midlands and the north with our channel ports?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will see in due course, when the industrial strategy is published, that we have been thinking across Government about the role of infrastructure as an enabling investment to unlock other types of investment, and to create great opportunities for people and economies where they can afford to live and are able to get around to access those opportunities.

Spending Review 2025

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Blackpool will benefit from the affordable homes programme, free school meals for children and the roll-out of breakfast clubs. It also stands to benefit from the increase in the local transport grant—a fourfold increase compared with the plans we inherited from the Conservatives.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

People in my constituency will hugely welcome today’s statement—not just the investment in public services such as schools and the NHS and in new homes, but the commitment to investment in transport infrastructure. People in Dartford are sick and tired of living with the terrible congestion caused by the Dartford crossing as well as the collapsed Galley Hill Road in Swanscombe. Can the Chancellor reassure me that as a result of the spending review not only will families be better off, but Dartford will be helped to get moving?