Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Peter Dowd, †Emma Lewell, Mark Pritchard, Pete Wishart

† Beavers, Lorraine (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)

† Collier, Jacob (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)

† Dickson, Jim (Dartford) (Lab)

Franklin, Zöe (Guildford) (LD)

† Glover, Olly (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)

† Griffiths, Alison (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)

Hall, Sarah (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)

† Lumsden, Douglas (Aberdeen South) (Con)

† Madders, Justin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)

† Martin, Amanda (Portsmouth North) (Lab)

† Osborne, Tristan (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)

† Prinsley, Dr Peter (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)

Quigley, Richard (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)

† Raja, Shivani (Leicester East) (Con)

† Reader, Mike (Northampton South) (Lab)

† Smith, Greg (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)

† Wheeler, Michael (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)

Robert Cope, Francis Morse, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Edmund King OBE, President, The AA

Steve Gooding, Director, The RAC Foundation

Ben Garratt, Interim Director of Policy and Communications, Logistics UK

Declan Pang, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, Road Haulage Association

Michael Whelan, M6toll General Manager, M6toll Operator (Midland Expressway Ltd)

Ralph Smyth, Consultant, Transport Action Network

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 29 October 2026

(Morning)

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

Highways (Financing) Bill

11:30

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch all electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed in the sittings. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral sessions begin. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally and quickly, without a debate.

Ordered,

That—

1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 29 October) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 October;

(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 November;

(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 November;

(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 November;

(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 November;

(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 November;

2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.

Resolved,

That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Justin Madders.)

11:31

The Committee deliberated in private.

Examination of Witnesses

Edmund King OBE and Steve Gooding gave evidence.

11:33

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from our witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? No one does, so we will hear evidence first from the Automobile Association and the RAC Foundation—welcome. We must stick to the timings that are in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 12.05 pm. Will you please briefly introduce yourselves for the Committee?

Edmund King: I am Edmund King. I am president of the Automobile Association and director of the AA Charitable Trust. I am a former visiting professor of transport at Newcastle University, and I have been involved in roads and road infrastructure probably for about 30 or 35 years. I used to be a member of the British Road Federation, which campaigned for better roads in the late ’80s and the ’90s.

Steve Gooding: Good morning, I am Steve Gooding. I am the director of the RAC Foundation, the charitable research body set up by the Royal Automobile Club back in the 1990s to conduct and disseminate research relating to motoring.

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Good morning, gentlemen.

On one level the Bill, particularly on Second Reading and in other narratives that have come out since it was first published, seems to be presented as answering the question: how do you solve a problem like the lower Thames crossing? But it equally has a lot of other provisions—perhaps it is due to badly drafted clauses or perhaps it is deliberate—that seem to allow tolling and road pricing to extend further than the lower Thames crossing. Is that something your organisations are concerned about, and do you feel enough focus has been given to parts of Bill related to everything other than the lower Thames crossing—to the general motorists in this country?

Edmund King: Obviously if you look at the need for the lower Thames crossing—the congestion and the environmental issues currently at Dartford—it is easy to see that some alternative solution is needed. But, as you rightly say, this Bill is not just about the lower Thames crossing; it could allow that finance model with other schemes. It might have been easier if it was concentrated on the lower Thames crossing because then you could have brought in more restrictions and safeguards on tolls for motorists.

As the Bill stands, on the one hand you have the Office of Rail and Road as the regulator for it, and then you have drivers who are the consumers, whether they are individual motorists or heavy goods vehicle drivers. To some extent, there might be a conflict between those two. The ORR has to ensure that the licensee makes money from it so it can be viable, but at the same time, it regulates tolls for the drivers. You could argue that there might be a conflict in that at times.

When we looked at similar schemes before—I did a paper on road miles with an economist, which looked at the broader issue of road pricing—one thing we called for was an independent body to oversee tolling and ensure it is fair. I certainly think that the responsibility of the ORR when it comes to tolls could be strengthened and given more independence within the Bill.

Steve Gooding: Clearly, the Committee will want to look very closely at clause 3, which I think is the key thing here. Yes, we looked at it and wondered whether this was a way of creating a framework that could then be applied to the existing road network and the existing motorway network. Clearly, the provisions relate to the trunk roads—the National Highways roads.

I think the way clause 3 is drafted tightens that down to where capacity is being added, but we want the Committee to look at how much capacity is being added in order to make that a valid use of the powers in the Bill. Is it simply, for example, playing tunes with the speed limits or maybe adding a lane? What is it? In those circumstances, would we really be contemplating transferring sections of the existing national road network over to a private company? I do not think that is the intention, but the intention is not always the actuality.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is very helpful. I want to dig a bit deeper on that because I think the part of clause 3 that you are referring to is where it says:

“A licence may also provide for the holder of the licence to secure the maintenance, operation or improvement of any other highway”.

Is it the view of your organisation and members that people would expect that to be about an entirely new road or perhaps a dualled road where there is currently a single carriageway, rather than making what many might consider a relatively minor improvement, such as—I do not know whether this is an improvement—adding smart motorway cameras?

Steve Gooding: Our understanding of it, and this is why I think the Committee will want to make sure this is clear, is that the subsections of clause 3 relate back to each other. It is not relatively minor maintenance of itself that would enable the licence to be awarded. In our reading of it, it has to be linked back to enhancement and capacity—but perhaps the Minister will want to make that clearer.

[Greg Smith]

Q Lastly, where a new scheme is being proposed under the provisions of this Bill, is enough thought being given to other nearby existing roads and to those who rely those nearby roads—businesses, homeowners, people who live there, schools, hospitals and so on—and are they being properly consulted on this? Too often in this world, the new, shiny thing gets all the attention without due regard to existing infrastructure. Do you feel that that has been adequately explored?

Edmund King: You can say that in relation to the lower Thames crossing, because in that part you know the two elements—one is the current Dartford crossing; one is the new crossing—and you can look in that area. But if you look at the Bill more generally, it is very difficult to say because we do not know where it will be applied. Clause 3(1)(a) does say

“construction of a highway specified in the licence”,

but we obviously do not know where that highway is or what the competing interests are with housing, the economy, routes and so on. In terms of this Bill, it is difficult to say unless a concrete scheme is being considered.

Steve Gooding: It is within the duties that are being placed on the Secretary of State to consider where these powers will be used: there are duties in relation to having regard to users of the network, for example. It could be made more explicit. After all, we are talking about a national asset here, and if faced with a toll and an alternative, people might well choose the alternative, with negative traffic impacts in the round. That would have to be taken into account.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

Q It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. Thank you to the witnesses for coming in. I will follow up on some of the questions from the shadow Minister, but in terms of the operation of clause 3(1)(c), it refers specifically to the maintenance of the licensed area, which is the part of the highway where capacity is being increased as part of the legislation, so it is not a general maintenance issue across the whole network.

There is a narrative that the Bill is a Trojan horse for widespread road charging. We have made it very clear that the operation of this legislation will be for specific and limited circumstances. Is there something more that we can do or say to reassure you that there is no secret plan to widely use this?

Steve Gooding: I certainly do not think that it is a conscious Trojan horse, if I may say that, but having been involved in similar drafting exercises before, one always wants to destruction test whether something could be used in a way that was not anticipated. When one looks at the proposals for the Dartford crossing and the lower Thames, you are bundling the existing crossing into the package, as it were, that the private sector licensee is going to run. One wonders whether there might be other instances where something will be brought into the ambit of the licence that we will not have been expecting or intending at the point of passing the legislation, for which we might need further tightening of clause 3.

Edmund King: Part of the problem with Governments and tolls is their previous record. If you go back to the original Dartford crossing, the tolls were meant to be removed when the bridge was paid for and certain maintenance was put aside; that occurred in 2003, and subsequent Governments have not removed them. Drivers do remember that Governments have rescinded their promises, so there is that mistrust. Having said that, when we talk to drivers about new infrastructure—and about it being new infrastructure, not existing infrastructure—they are much more open to it being tolled because they can see the benefits in time savings, reducing congestion and so on. Certainly with the lower Thames crossing, they can see the benefits from that.

[Justin Madders]

Q I have just one more question. You mentioned the importance of having an independent body to oversee the interests of road users, and you referred to the potential tension between the needs of the investors, road users and other stakeholders who may have an interest in this. What more would you like to see from the ORR to deal with your concerns in that area?

Edmund King: Clause 83 talks about a stakeholder group being appointed by the ORR even though the chair is approved by the Secretary of State. In a way, if the ORR is the regulator, surely the stakeholder group should be more independent. We would rather see that clause changed so that the Secretary of State appoints the stakeholder group, so that it has a degree of independence. If the regulator appoints the stakeholder group, surely it will say what the regulator wants it to say, so more independence could be built in there.

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve on another Bill Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. One of my key concerns about the Bill is that a lot of it is about stuff being decided by regulations and secondary procedures, and by the ORR. There is a real concern about making sure that rights of consumers—the people who are going to be charged to use these roads—are protected. Do you have any suggestions, in addition to what you have already said, about better safeguards that the Bill could have to make sure that tolls are set and continue to be maintained at an affordable level for the people who will use these roads?

Steve Gooding: Our starting point would be that the right sort of duties are applied to the ORR in the Bill, in terms of having regard to the interests of road users and customers of this service. Of course, there are certain things that the Bill provides for that we have not seen yet: we do not know what the terms of the licence will be, we do not know what the terms of the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR will be, and we do not know exactly the ORR’s template will be. I am well aware that there is always a balance to be struck between what goes into those documents and what could actually be in the Bill. In principle, I think that the protection is there, but in practice, it might be sensible to have a bit more in the Bill and a bit less reliance on the other documents—but until you see the drafts of the other documents, it is quite hard to tell.

Edmund King: Clause 26 talks about tolls being “fair and transparent”. I think that we would like to have seen something built in there about affordability, because they can be fair and transparent, but can people afford them? In effect, the lower Thames crossing and Dartford will have a monopoly position. If you want to cross the Thames to the east of London, they are your choices.

When the M6 toll first opened, it was rumoured that the tolls for HGVs were initially artificially high and that the operators did not particularly want HGVs to cause wear and tear on the toll. I think that question of affordability is important, and it goes beyond cost: if people cannot afford the toll, they will use other, inadequate roads or go the long way around the M25, which is already vastly congested near Heathrow. I think something about affordability should be built in—perhaps linked to inflation; something more—so that the monopoly position cannot be exploited.

[Olly Glover]

Let me make a brief comment. On your point about some of the things that are dependent on the Bill, such as the licence, not yet being specified, we had a similar debate during the passage of the Railways Bill through the Commons. I think the Government ultimately decided to at least start publishing some of those things alongside it, so I hope the Minister might give some thought to that.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here. You will not be surprised to know that, as the Member of Parliament for Dartford, I have residents who are hugely inconvenienced by the overcapacity of the current Dartford crossing every day and who really welcome the plans, which have been advanced very well under this Government, to build the lower Thames crossing.

One concern for them is that there might be perverse incentives via the tolling to use one crossing rather than another. Do you have views about how we could make sure that does not happen and what the ORR would need to do in negotiation with the licence holder? Do you have any views about local resident discount schemes, including how well they have worked elsewhere and whether they should be a necessary part of any future arrangement, although that may not be in the Bill?

Edmund King: Those are all relevant questions, even down to the time that the toll applies—is it 24 hours a day or 6 am to 10 pm, as it is currently? Are motorcycles free? What is the resident discount? Could there be a resident discount? We believe that there should be, because frequent users, such as those who live on one side of the crossing and work on the other, are already paying motoring tax in other ways, but is this a tax on jobs? Those issues are vital. It is also vital to get the support of local people, whether they be businesses or drivers. Giving those concessions would help win that support, particularly when we know that the construction period will cause a lot of congestion and adverse effects. Those are all valid points.

Steve Gooding: All I would add is that this is one of the challenges with creating an overarching framework in the Bill rather than something specific to the Dartford and lower Thames crossings. I do not doubt that in the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR, there will be explicit reference to the need not to create the sort of problems that you envisage and to set toll levels in such a way that manages the traffic flow between the two crossings, but we have not yet seen that.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

Q I want to clarify something, because it is important that we do not speculate. To deliver a scheme under the regulated asset base model, it has to have a certain scale and it needs to be developed with that in mind. You said that the model could be used for other schemes. What other projects under development in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline are you referencing?

Steve Gooding: I cannot point to anything else in the Government’s programme that specifically lends itself to that case. I have found myself wondering whether, having been announced and dis-announced many times, the Stonehenge tunnel might reappear under something like it as another key link on a longer arterial route, but I do not have a list.

[Mike Reader]

Q There may not be other schemes. The engineering challenges with the A303 probably outweigh any benefits of using finance through RAB. Could you both set out whether you think independent regulation under this model would give stronger consumer protection, particularly in the light of evidence you have given, Edmund, that the M6 toll and Dartford have perhaps not been managed in the best interests of the public? Will independent regulation be a better solution for taxpayers?

Edmund King: I do not know whether there has to be independent regulation, but there should be a greater degree of independence alongside the ORR. The ORR to date has had much more to do with railways than roads. Yes, it is the overseeing body of National Highways, but I think five of the ORR executives are from railway backgrounds and two are from road. It needs to be strengthened there.

I still feel that there should be, alongside the ORR, an independent body that looks at things such as the level of tolls and feasibility. If drivers are going to be paying a higher toll to use these crossings, if a crossing is not working for some reason—for example, if there are roadworks or incidents that need clearing up—it should be a two-way process and drivers should get money back. If this really is an independent business model, it has to work both ways. Under this regulated model, you could push it a bit further to give that degree of independence. That might be through the stakeholder group and you would then change how it is reported, but I certainly think it would help.

Steve Gooding: The independence is of more importance on the other side of the equation. If the investment world does not have reassurance that tolls will be set at a level that enables it to remunerate its efficient cost, it will be more suspicious. As I have dealt with in my past, historically, the political pressure has been to keep the charges and tolls down. If anything, consumer pressure is greater politically than it is for the regulator. That is why it is important that the regulator has a clear duty on consumer protection, as Mr King and I are saying.

[Mike Reader]

Q On that point, for the investor to get a return, it is on them to keep tolls at a reasonable level and the road open. It would be counterintuitive for them not to fix roadworks quickly, because they want people to go through to pay the toll, and you do not want to set a high toll if that would put off your users.

Steve Gooding: They will certainly want the income—there is no question about that. We are comparing it with the M6 toll—one of very few examples of this in this country—where there is an alternative, free-of-charge route. Here, the operating cost for commercial traffic to go around to the west of London, for example, would realistically make that a much less viable alternative.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

Q To continue the conversation on the ORR, as shadow Rail Minister, I am struck by the fact that in the Railways Bill, the role of the ORR is significantly downgraded, but in this Bill, the balance seems to tip the other way. What is the right balance to make sure both that the ORR has the independence we talked about and that we get the right results for consumers and road users?

Steve Gooding: I worked at the ORR back in the day—

[Alison Griffiths]

I used to work at RAC.

Steve Gooding: As somebody who worked there, I think there are two key things: one is independence, and the other is capability. We are talking specifically about growing and making sure that the ORR has the requisite capability to undertake the tricky and, in a way, very public task of setting that. It would need to build that up. As you say, a lot of the expertise in the ORR today is on railways. Yes, that is engineering, construction and all that, but I would certainly like to see a significant strengthening in the capability of the ORR around some of the specific things about this project and its relationship with the existing crossing.

Edmund King: I agree. I believe the ORR is looking to bring in new skills, particularly in economic regulation and the broader issues, which will be needed. There are similarities between road and rail, but there are also differences and some of the consequences in regulation are quite different, so it will need to be beefed up.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I have two questions. First, the Bill looks specifically at the crossing, but there are other infrastructure upgrades—as an MP in north Kent, my example is the A229 Blue Bell Hill upgrade. There are key junctions where congestion is a problem. In your view, does the Bill take into account the other, wider infrastructure upgrades that might be necessary?

Secondly, this week, the Public Accounts Committee, which I sit on, released a report on the RAB model for Sizewell, which there are concerns about. Do you have a view on that model? I appreciate that you have indicated that the model will not be used elsewhere, but is there an educated view on whether an alternative model might have worked better?

Steve Gooding: On the first point, the Bill is not specific even to the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, so I do not think that it takes account of the other schemes we have talked about per se, other than in the general duty for the Secretary of State and ORR to consider the network as a whole. That has already been raised, but the Committee might want to probe it a bit further.

As for the RAB model, I can certainly see the logic, but one has to start with a decision that the Chancellor does not wish to borrow the money himself. If that is the case, in these circumstances, given where National Highways has got to already with contracting for the construction of the tunnel, this appears to be a sensible model, provided that lessons are learnt from past RAB projects. One of those is about the ability and capability of the regulator to do what it is being relied on to do.

Edmund King: One of the features of the RAB model that is quite hard to get your head around is that it is open ended. There is no finish date. On the M6 toll I know that it is a different private finance model, but it was given a 53-year concession. Under this model, in effect, the concession could be 100 or 120 years unless the licence is revoked. That is quite difficult to get your head around at first, because when you look at the Dartford crossing and the tolls going to the Treasury, this is totally changing the model. We have to be sure that the safeguards are there and built into the model. That is why I think toughening up and strengthening the Office of Rail and Road and bringing in a greater degree of independence is increasingly vital.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Q I am the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket in Suffolk, where we have a lot of problems with our roads and no motorways. I think the general public are anxious about the price and what it is going to cost for them to take their vehicles through this new tunnel. On what you said earlier about there being very little choice—people will use this tunnel if it is there—there is a fear that the public will be held to ransom. That is the problem. How are we going to deal with that? What do you anticipate the price of taking my car through this tunnel will be when it opens?

Steve Gooding: I hesitate to say what the price is going to be. I suspect it is going to be whatever it costs today to go across the Dartford crossing and some more. Given the anxiety that people quite rightly feel at the moment when looking at the cost of the lower Thames crossing, there must be a question whether it has to cost quite that much. Whatever further pressure can be applied, everything is going to flow from that initial estimate. How the RAB is valued over time will flow from the question of what it costs to build this thing. That is why it is so important at the outset that as much pressure is put on National Highways to keep the costs under control and preferably drive them down. That is what will affect things. Subsequently, some quite big bills will come in for the refurbishment and renewal of the existing bridge and tunnels. Keeping pressure on those is important and that is why, as we keep saying, the pressure from the regulator to press for the efficient cost is so important to the structure working.

[Dr Prinsley]

Q And you would like to see that written into the Bill?

Steve Gooding: It is very hard to write it into the Bill. However, there is absolutely the need to keep the pressure up. That is why we have the independent regulator—some entity that is effectively saying, “You can tell me whatever you like about the cost of this, but in my opinion, the efficient cost of it is x.”

In this model, particularly if we are talking about the lower Thames crossing, that first estimate will be derived from the National Highways model, obviously with ORR involvement, but it will not be quite the same as subsequent reviews where it will be entirely down to the ORR.

Edmund King: Currently the cost at Dartford is £3.50 for cars and £8.40 for heavy goods vehicles. It brings in about £130 million a year. If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, on a 120-year concession, that would bring in £15.6 billion. It is estimated that the scheme might cost £11 billion now. People accept that the £3.50 and it is affordable. I think it should be based on that figure with limits built in, whether linked to inflation or something else. It is vital that it is to be affordable for people, not just fair and transparent.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions to this panel. On behalf of the Committee I thank our witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Ben Garratt, Declan Pang and Michael Whelan gave evidence.

12:04

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Logistics UK, the Road Haulage Association and M6toll. For this session we have until 12.45 pm. Will the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record, please?

Ben Garratt: I am Ben Garratt, interim director of policy and communications at Logistics UK.

Michael Whelan: I am Michael Whelan, general manager at M6toll.

Declan Pang: I am Declan Pang, director of policy at the Road Haulage Association.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. Can I start with Ben and Declan from the logistics and haulage sectors? There were a lot of questions during the last panel about the overall cost of the lower Thames crossing and any other schemes that might get a licence through the provisions of this Bill. I know from my role as a shadow Minister doing roundtables with Logistics UK and visiting haulage firms in my own constituency that margins are very tight in the sector right now. Equally I get that the juxtaposition of margins is even worse if you are stuck in traffic and cannot get across the Thames or to wherever it is you want to go. Can you comment on where the breaking point is for the sector? If a toll for an HGV, for example, came out too high, there would be a perverse incentive for haulage operators to use existing other routes to avoid that. Is there a risk that we end up building these things too expensive, the toll is too high, and the haulage sector finds itself in a worse position?

Ben Garratt: It is a tricky question. What we know is that the current situation and reliance on the Dartford crossing costs the logistics sector, as well as other users of the crossing, a lot in terms of the congestion that comes from that. The cost of sitting in traffic is estimated at £200 million a year. That is based on the time sitting doing nothing, but does not take into account the wider cost to the logistics sector and supply chains of goods not arriving on time. It is just based on the wasted time of the driver. We also know that reliability, or lack of it, is a cost borne by the sector that is then passed on.

When we speak to our members, they tell us that what they want is a reliable transport system so they can factor in how much a job is going to take—how much time, how many drivers and what they should charge for it—and unreliability means it is much harder to do that. As a sector we potentially have more assets than we need to cover the same amount of ground, which is why it is really important for the sector that capacity increases and why we support, therefore, the delivery of the lower Thames crossing.

In terms of a breaking point it is quite tricky because the reason that the sector has a low margin—between 1% and 3%—is because it is a highly competitive sector. It is a feature of the sector rather than something we would say we complain about. It is because there are lots of logistics businesses all competing with each other to deliver the best price. When there are cost pressures on the sector over the medium to long term, it generally keeps that margin where it is, but it results in the overall cost being passed on to the public. Unless it is priced ludicrously, the risk is more about the overall cost being passed on to the public rather than it breaking the operators, as it were.

[Greg Smith]

Q On the inflationary impact of that example, I think on Second Reading there was largely cross-party consensus on the need for the lower Thames crossing. That is not a point on which there is a political divide. Where the Bill opens up wider questions is on the “what else” bit—how many more schemes under this model could come to pass in future? Without wholesale change to other things, such as fuel duty, road fund licence and so on, there will be an inflationary impact if we suddenly end up with lots of schemes used by general motorists as well as the haulage sector. There will be a tipping point, where the inflationary impact—with the pass-on of tolls to customers—becomes high. Do you have any modelling on that?

Ben Garratt: No, we do not. We would say that the inflationary impact is a balance between the direct input costs—paying a toll, fuel duty and taxes—and the indirect costs of congestion. As a sector, we want to keep those two things in balance, but one of the things that we do want is more investment in the transport network—road, rail and beyond—because some real hotspots are causing congestion and therefore passing the cost on. This is one of them, but it is not the only one.

We need to make sure that is in balance. We are not disputing building this particular crossing, but not building things in general has a cost in itself. It is about making sure that this is fair, and therefore about considering the different ways of paying for it. Traditionally, such things have been done under general taxation, which we all pay for, but given the fiscal situation, we as a sector are not against a toll approach, a private finance approach, for this particular crossing.

This crossing is one heavily used by the logistics sector. For us, it is a key part of the trading route between Scotland, the midlands and the north, and Europe; it is not simply an issue for the east of London, Essex and Kent. We want to see it happen and, as a sector, we are prepared to help pay for it. We just want to make sure that the toll takes into account the different vehicles, and that the different toll rates for different vehicles take the sector into account. The toll should not be based just on the weight of vehicle, and wear and tear; we need to take into account the economic value that the logistics sector provides to the rest of the country. Ultimately, we all pay for that in a way that is slightly different from other road users.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is a point I fully understand. Declan, will you add your thoughts and your organisation’s perspective? I will add one rider to the question I asked Ben: the previous Government removing tolls from the Severn bridge was pretty well received by general motorists and the haulage sector. That is where I am coming from—to get an understanding of where the tipping point is.

Declan Pang: The cost and affordability of toll rates is a significant concern for us. As you all know, the majority of those in the haulage sector are small and medium-sized enterprises. Small businesses, many of them microbusinesses, are the major users of the trunk road network, so their interests need to be front and centre of how toll rates are set. At the moment, we also have quite a fragile situation in the haulage sector—a particular rate of mergers and acquisitions, as well as a high rate of insolvencies—and that difficult climate has certainly been exacerbated by higher input costs and fuel costs. That should certainly be considered when the Bill is looked at.

In the Bill itself, we are particularly concerned about the affordability of tolls and the transparency of how those tolls will be set, as well as the wider impact of the financing model. We would very much like MPs to think about and look at how tolls will be calculated, how they might increase over time, and how the ORR, as the regulator, will assess the affordability of tolls, because we do not feel that that is clearly set out, as the Bill stands. Lots of concern is about whether the Government have plans to use the Bill powers to introduce tolls on roads that are currently free. We certainly seek additional assurances on that point from the Minister.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is incredibly helpful. Given that the affordability of tolls is so critical to your members, do you believe that there should be a presumption or something even stronger locked into the Bill that, within the bounds of safety and meeting the correct standards, there should be due regard to ensuring that schemes are built as cheaply as possible? For example, the lower Thames crossing is already being made more expensive by banning the use of diesel plant to build it. Should there be a presumption that things should be built, within safety and other due standards, as cheaply as possible?

Declan Pang: Absolutely. The costs of constructing these schemes are essential in terms of reducing the level of tolls. We particularly think that the Bill as drafted is quite open ended in terms of the phrases it uses. As a previous witness said, affordability should be part of it, rather than just “fair and transparent”. We would like to see that included. We are very supportive of Jim Dickson’s amendment on the rates as well. We would like to see more consideration given to affordability for businesses.

Ben Garratt: I agree with everything Declan said. In the assurances space, clause 1 talks about the ORR having regard to economy. That also comes up in other clauses of the Bill. We would like assurances that that includes an understanding that freight and supply chains are a part of “economy”. It is quite a broad term otherwise.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is incredibly helpful. Mr Whelan, you have a niche interest around the M6 toll elements. Do you feel that the Bill delivers for an existing toll road operation? Is there anything you feel is missing from the Bill?

Michael Whelan: Our specific interest in the Bill is part 7, which will enable us to introduce free-flow tolling. At the moment, on the M6 toll, we have barriers where you need to slow down, stop and pay. Part 7 of the Bill is the first step for us to enable free-flow tolling, which will help my freight and logistics friends sitting to either side of me—they will not have to slow down and stop. That has many benefits, including time savings. The M6 toll is a very reliable route compared with the alternatives, so it further increases that reliability through increased time savings. It will also mean reduced carbon dioxide emissions because of less stopping and starting.

[Justin Madders]

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. It would be quite helpful to hear from Mr Garratt and Mr Pang in a little more detail about the current importance of the area for the whole of the logistics network. In particular, it might be useful for Committee members to hear what the current arrangements are when hazardous items have to go through the tunnel, because that is a big challenge at the moment.

Ben Garratt: The current situation lacks resilience. The sector uses the Dartford crossing, which crosses east of London, as a part of what I describe as a core route for the whole country; it connects Scotland and the north, the midlands, the south-east and Europe on that trading route, particularly in trading across the short straits, which handle more than half of all goods traded between Britain and mainland Europe. It is a really important part of the network to get right and it is currently overloaded. As we know, it is causing significant congestion, which adds costs. As you have noted, that is not simply an even matter of a busy road; it is also the crossing being closed to allow hazardous goods to cross, which everyone else has to wait for. That has a significant impact across the whole network. It is not sustainable.

That also takes into account the assumption that the crossing is broadly open all the time, but things will need repairing over their lifetime. Across the rest of the transport network, there is the structures fund and National Highways is focused on other structures that will need repairing at some point. We have a resilience challenge as well as a costs challenge because of that capacity issue.

Declan Pang: We absolutely need to increase the resilience of that particular route as well as the whole road network. Vehicle miles are increasing and congestion is forecast to increase, so this is a problem we have to get ahead of. That means making sure we can increase trunk road capacity.

[Justin Madders]

Q I have one further question for you both. You have talked about the impact of increased tolls. In terms of the overheads for the organisations you represent, could you give us a sense of what proportion tolls would be of the costs of running a business? Is there any way you can equate that to the delays that congestion causes? Is there a balance or a trade-off there?

Michael Whelan: I can only really talk about the M6 toll; I will not be broader than that. What our customers pay for—they choose to pay; there are alternatives they could choose—is reliability and travel time saving. Interestingly, we have recently seen that HGV growth on our road is up more than 50% compared with pre-covid numbers. That is predominantly because of the reliability that we offer. We have also found that the freight industry in particular finds savings in terms of lower fuel costs, time and making deliveries on time.

In terms of where toll money goes, we are 100% privately funded; we do not receive any funds from the Government. The money goes first of all to the Government. Like every other good law-abiding citizen, we have to pay our taxes and we do. Then it goes into maintenance, and because we are owned by pension funds, at the end of the day the residual money actually goes back into pension holders’ pockets. It is a cycle of pension investors cycling around the money. I hope that answers some of your questions.

[Justin Madders]

That is very helpful. I wonder whether the other two witnesses have anything to say from the other side of the road, so to speak.

Ben Garratt: It is a challenging calculation. Look at how much the logistics sector is currently paying to cross the Dartford crossing: it is about 40% of the road use but it is more because HGVs and larger vehicles pay more than that. We can assume they are paying over £100 million a year to cross it, as a rough calculation. The cost of congestion to drivers is about £200 million a year. We can add on to that—we do not have the numbers, but we know beyond that is the cost to wider supply chains and the cost of unreliability. We can make an assumption, thinking about the experience on the M6 toll, that the sector would rather pay up front for reliability than pay during the day for a lack of reliability, knowing that the costs for that are much bigger than the £200 million because of the impact across supply chains.

Declan Pang: The most important thing for our members is reliability. They want reliability and consistency of journey times. Congestion can be very unreliable, which drives a significant amount of cost into the supply chain, so that is, first and foremost, the most important consideration. Clearly, if we ended up in a situation in the future where we had multiple tolled routes, the cumulative impact of that situation would be deeply concerning to us, but I appreciate that the Bill is looking specifically at the lower Thames crossing.

[Olly Glover]

Q Could you say a little more about what you think can be learned from the M6 toll in terms of how we might look to improve or amend the Bill? That is perhaps the largest geographical manifestation of tolling at the moment, and the most similar to the presumed application of this Bill to the lower Thames crossing.

Ben Garratt: There are features of the Bill about which we are not seeking amendment but seeking reassurances. For example, it must be ensured that there is a strong regulator for establishing the scheme and monitoring it going forward. That relates to the licensing conditions too. Therefore, we see value in there being a Bill setting a broad framework and including the regulator in that, rather than potentially doing things how they have been done in the past in the sense of having individual schemes. We would seek reassurances about the strength of the regulator in that space, and that it will think about freight and logistics when it thinks about economy.

We have heard from Michael about how the sector is voting with its feet—

[Justin Madders]

With its wheels.

Ben Garratt: With its wheels, indeed—in terms of using a toll road to improve reliability in that space. The risk of rolling this out to other roads was highlighted earlier. We would have concerns about that. That is why I mentioned that this is a particularly important route for UK trade. We would not want to see the powers in the Bill used to push out tolling much more generally without new capacity. There is language in the Bill about associating it with new capacity, and again, we would seek further ministerial reassurances that the Bill is focused on that and not widespread tolling.

Declan Pang: I would just add, in relation to the role of the ORR, the stakeholder group needs to be strengthened much more in terms of how it is described at the moment. There is no statutory requirement for a representative of freight and logistics to be in the group. Really, it is quite vague as to who would be sitting in it. In theory, you could have representatives from toll companies or from the DFT, for example, and exclude any industry or road users. Clearing that up and making the governance of that much clearer is vital. I agree with the previous witness who talked about having a more independent role for a stakeholder group, which would make it much more impartial.

Ben Garratt: We would concur with all of that.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

Q Both yourselves and the previous witnesses have talked about stronger independent regulation being something that you would support. Obviously, we have the M6 toll, which is a current operator. How well do you think current regulation works for the M6 toll? Is there anything that we need to change that is relevant to this Bill? Those questions are probably for Ben and Declan.

Ben Garratt: It may be that there is a market dynamic around the M6 that means it is working reasonably well, in that there is a good alternative route that is not always congested. I assume that Michael would feel that they are playing in a competitive environment. Logistics businesses, as we said, are often choosing to use it. It is a slightly different situation in other parts of the network when the current crossing is full a lot of the time, so it could be more of a distress purchase, let us say, to use the alternative route. Therefore it is important that it is regulated and that there is a role for the regulator in ensuring fairness, which the broader market might not necessarily apply in all parts of the network.

Declan Pang: The role of the regulator is certainly very important. As part of the process we need an independent element to that and to strengthen the role of the stakeholder group as an independent group.

On the specific aspects of the Bill that relate to toll amounts, clause 25 talks about classes of road vehicle in respect of which tolls are payable. We have some concerns about how that might impact different types of haulage operation and HGVs, which may disadvantage certain types of businesses. That is an example of something that we think needs to be a bit more consistent, given what we have with the M6 toll at the moment.

[Alison Griffiths]

Q This is predominantly for Mr Whelan, but Ben and Declan, if you wish to weigh in, please do. For the M6, have the economic and operational outcomes that have been delivered over the last 20 years been what was envisaged? On the role of the ORR, does the regulation outlined in the Bill provide sufficient certainty for private investors?

Michael Whelan: In terms of economic benefits, the best way to look at the M6 toll is to consider the fact that 50,000 vehicles use it every day. If it was not there, the M6 and surrounding network would be quite a mess. As a result of the M6 toll, we have seen significant investment into the region. Numerous businesses have invested in logistics sites up and down that corridor—for example, there is a massive Amazon site near us. That also creates jobs for the region. I will not go through it all; please refer to the pre-reading that I know you all have.

In terms of part 7 of the Bill, which we are specifically interested in, as we see it, as it is an existing road, the ORR regulations do not apply. If they were to apply, that would have a significant impact on our concession agreement, on investors and, in particular, on lenders, who have all invested into the roads. Having this conversation is important, but for us it is a separate issue.

Declan Pang: On the RAB model in particular, we are supportive of any measures that will be brought forward to increase road building and capacity, and efforts in that regard. We think that RAB gives some certainty to the market around providing investment opportunities.

In addition to my comments around the stakeholder group, the ORR has been heavily weighted towards rail regulation and currently has a much smaller role in highways monitoring. As a proportion of what it does as an organisation, its role from a roads perspective is smaller than the rail element, and that is probably reflected in its level of engagement with the sector as it stands. The Bill would reflect quite a significant change in its level of responsibility, and we would want to be sure about the capability and capacity for it to take on that responsibility.

Ben Garratt: I want to expand on something Michael said about the wider benefits. Understandably, the logistics sector invests where there is transport capacity and junctions, from where it can then access the rest of the country. Particular parts of the road and rail network have a lot of logistics clustered around them. It is also about having good journey times between large conurbations.

We can definitely see, in other parts of the country, what we would say is artificially less logistics investment than there should have been, because of transport constraints in parts of the network. It particularly affects the north-west, where it is more of a rail issue. A lack of capacity on the west coast main line leads to more modern logistics being clustered further south than maybe it otherwise would be. There is a real economic benefit for the country in getting the capacity right.

[Jim Dickson]

Q Ben and Declan, you have set out very clearly the effect on your sector of the Dartford crossing being hugely over capacity. I have talked about how it affects hugely my residents’ quality of life and air quality. It has been suggested by some that we do not need the project and should look at modal shift instead of, rather than alongside, the solution of the lower Thames crossing. What do you think would happen if the lower Thames crossing was not built—what is your scenario over the next decade?

Ben Garratt: I think it would inhibit economic growth. Thinking about the modal shift piece, using the right modes for the right kind of journeys in our logistics system is really important, but it is not simply about getting more off congested roads and more on to rail. Rail can play a particularly strong role, as you would understand, where there are railway tracks that connect to ports and are bringing in containers. As this area gets congested, I do not think that would automatically lead to the logistics sector switching to rail, because of the lack of rail connectivity.

It could, over time, lead to less use of the short straits and more use of container shipping but, really, those dynamics are shaped by where the goods are coming from in the world. It would largely just be a bottleneck. It would increase the costs, over time, of exporters connecting to new markets. The current situation will invariably be inhibiting businesses from thinking about going to export, because it has an effect on the costs. We want to see that resolved. In short, it would be bad for the economy if it did not happen.

Declan Pang: We are very much behind it and we are grateful for your efforts in campaigning for it. We are pleased to see that the development consent order was approved. It is already having a significant impact on the economy, given the level of congestion. It is vital that we get it delivered.

[Jim Dickson]

Q It has been suggested that the requirement to sign in separately to use each tolled arrangement in the UK—the Mersey tunnels, the Tyne tunnel, the M6 and elsewhere—is a burden on a whole variety of road users. Mr Whelan, what do you think of the opportunity to create interoperability among tolled arrangements, thereby making it better for the logistics industry and consumers who use multiple tolled arrangements?

Michael Whelan: We fully support that and are looking at it as an industry—some operators of toll roads have come together to discuss that. Having one account makes a lot of sense, particularly for freight and logistics organisations. On top of that, interoperability can be expanded into other things, such as signage. Anywhere else in the world, toll roads will have a unique colour or symbol. That is important, because it helps to make sure there is some consistency and knowledge for the customer of what they are approaching, such as about when to pay. When it comes to free-flow tolling, it is important that people understand in advance what the rules are. Hence, we fully support part 7, with some minor amendments that we would like to see to clauses 92 to 94. Those are outlined in the pre-reading, but I think we might have run out of time to go through them now.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Q Mr Whelan, we heard from the previous panel about the potential to offer discounts to local residents. Does M6 toll do that at present? How would that work?

Michael Whelan: We have done that. About two and a half years ago we put in place a new toll system—we spent £20 million on it—and that enabled us to introduce new toll pricing. We reduced prices for locals to £4, and we have held that there for the two and a half years. We have not increased it. That is something we are conscious of and have actively looked at, as well as having new products, some with discounts and some without. Interestingly, the account product that does not have a discount is our most popular one.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q Which one is that?

Michael Whelan: The Lite account.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q What does that do?

Michael Whelan: It provides an easier way to get a receipt. It also provides the ability to drive through what we call our breeze lanes, on which the gates will open automatically if your account is in good status.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q Mr Garratt, you mentioned that you would like ministerial assurance that the Bill will not be used more widely across the rest of the country. Is ministerial assurance enough, or would you like to see something in the Bill to ensure that it is not a Trojan horse, as the Minister says it will not be?

Ben Garratt: Our sense is that the way in which the Bill is drafted is relatively strong. That is why we are seeking assurances on the record, rather than amendments. We do not want it to be used as a Trojan horse to spread this across the country, but there is a particular case for it on this particular route. Given the wording at the moment, to have assurances would be proportionate.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q We have heard that moving to a smart motorway and using the hard shoulder could increase capacity, meaning that tolls could be charged.

Ben Garratt: Again, it would be good to get an assurance that that will not be the case, but that is not our reading of the Bill at the moment. That does not mean that others could not interpret it differently at some point, when looking at it in the future. That is why we are seeking a strong assurance that this is about adding actual new trunk road capacity and not doing things like what you just said.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q Mr Pang, do you have any concerns?

Declan Pang: We are concerned about how the Bill could be applied to introduce tolls. We want greater reassurances from the Department about that. Clause 81 in particular gives the Secretary of State the power to direct any road to be made a trunk road, so we are concerned about what could be brought into scope. We want greater reassurances.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allotted. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witness

Ralph Smyth gave evidence.

12:44

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Transport Action Network. We have until 1 pm for this session. Will the witness briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Ralph Smyth: My name is Ralph Smyth and I am here on behalf of Transport Action Network. I have about 15 years’ experience, including influencing the Infrastructure Act 2015 and serving on the National Highways strategic design panel and seeing some of the schemes that we are discussing today, as well as working on road freight decarbonisation projects.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good afternoon. As you look at the totality of the Bill, including the elements around the lower Thames crossing, do you think the Government are joined up enough in looking at where new schemes, be that the lower Thames crossing or anything else that might come to pass, are delivered in respect of the existing infrastructure, local roads and intersections, and, as we just heard from the haulage sector, things like roadside driver welfare facilities? Does the Bill risk bringing nice new shiny things to the strategic road network without the necessary back-up to the existing intersections and roads that the new schemes will rely on?

Ralph Smyth: It is a very good question. I point first to the second national infrastructure assessment, which was published three years ago. That said that by the end of 2026—so where we are now—the Government should publish an integrated strategy for road and rail. If you can see how you are going to improve the rail links and the road links, that would join up better and give confidence about where there should or should not be, for example, a change to the roads.

The other dimension is the local angle. We have heard recently in the media about how mayors might be given more of a say on water, for example, but the Bill goes in the opposite direction. It actually weakens or removes the mayoral input on transport. Transport has been the totemic issue of devolution and, oddly, the Bill removes that. A special new category of highway is created that is not subject to something called the network management duty, which is about joining things up in long-term planning and in short-term operations, such as where there is disruption. My concern is that for some of the schemes talked about, like the lower Thames crossing, it is going to be difficult to attract the private sector to invest without making it easier—for example, without reducing the risk of mayors getting in the way or trying to promote a railway line that would actually abstract some of the traffic.

[Greg Smith]

Q Are you suggesting that those areas of the country that currently have a mayor should be locked into the Bill as key consultees, in planning speak, before anything can go ahead?

Ralph Smyth: I would not want to leave out the rural areas where there are perhaps not mayors.

[Greg Smith]

Absolutely right—do not leave the rural areas out.

Ralph Smyth: Quite. The problem is the bigger context and the discussion about rewiring the state. That is talking about removing consultation, so simply a duty to consult to give your views might not be worth much.

The problem is that it needs to make economic sense for the investors. The M6 toll did not make a profit for 20 years. You are going to have to tilt this, particularly for very big schemes like the LTC, to make it attractive for investors, and that could mean making things less affordable for drivers and there being less involvement for mayors, despite transport being one of their big issues.

[Greg Smith]

Q Looking at the whole national scene, if you take it as read that there is no change to road fund licences, fuel duty and so on as the core funding for the road network, where is the tipping point in terms of the number of additional toll roads across the network that will just make driving unaffordable—for a haulage sector that is using longer routes every day of the week, and for the average motorist that maybe does not travel that far every day but needs to make those journeys to see relatives, go on holiday and so on across the strategic road network?

Ralph Smyth: The tipping point depends on the sector and the type of journey. For discretionary journeys, like seeing a relative, a sudden increase in toll might have an impact quite quickly. If you are commuting and doing the same journey every day or if a haulage firm is doing the same routes, it might take longer for a response to happen. As we are talking about tipping points, I will also talk about climate change, because some figures from the Environment Agency have shown that by 2050—not long after some of these roads might be built—about half the UK transport network will flood regularly. That obviously means a lot of disruption and a lot of increased costs for the operator or owner of the assets. Those things will also affect, given where we are going, our use of roads, railways and everything else.

[Greg Smith]

I am mindful that this is a shorter session, so I will stop there.

[Justin Madders]

Q I will briefly follow up on your comments. Obviously, this Bill is designed to cover the trunk roads network. It is correct, isn’t it, that mayors currently do not have any specific control over those?

Ralph Smyth: That is correct, yes. It is almost like an area that devolution has forgotten. We hear about the importance of roads; we heard about that from the previous witnesses, so it does appear a bit odd that there is not much there. One thing is that currently there is a duty, whether you are a local highway authority—county councils and so on—or the strategic highways authority, which is National Highways at the moment, to co-operate, but this Bill will create a new type of private highway authority and it will not join up. Some of the schemes that have seen funding withdrawn in road investment strategy 3 are very close to urban areas, and if they were funded via this route, that would not be an integrated approach and would be very different from what we are hearing about for the railways, where the Government have talked about the need for a single guiding mind.

[Olly Glover]

Q On that theme, do you have any concerns that the financing arrangements proposed in the Bill and its general intentions could affect the balance of investment between strategic roads and local transport networks?

Ralph Smyth: Very much so. There is the issue of crowding out. If there is certainty that there is going to be a road scheme, that makes it harder for a mayor or someone else to promote an alternative, such as a tram or a rail or bus upgrade. After this meeting, I am taking part in the mass transit taskforce, where perhaps those issues will come up.

[Mike Reader]

Q If tolling is used, what is preferable—a statutory regulator with enforceable licensing conditions, or an unregulated commercial tolling arrangement?

Ralph Smyth: We heard a lot about regulation in the previous session. If you look at Ofwat and Ofgem, their income comes from lots of different companies. Whatever you might think of some of the water companies, at least that means diversity of income. You can compare that with the ORR. With nationalisation, now—or soon—all the money will be coming from the Department for Transport. It is similar for much of the road function. That is about National Highways. We are talking about only a very small bit if there is going to be only one toll scheme. If you put yourself in the shoes of an investor, would you be confident that that was an independent regulator if pretty much all its business came from one person—the Secretary of State for Transport?

[Mike Reader]

Q My question was not whether the regulator is independent. It was whether, in general, your preference is for a regulated tolling arrangement or an unregulated commercial tolling arrangement. Which is better for the public?

Ralph Smyth: I am not sure how much difference there is. The problem is that if you build an expensive road scheme with a regulated model, you can want to make it affordable, but at the end of the day, there will need to be a return for the private investor. There is the theory and then there is the reality that this is not a way of creating new money. It is either going to be paid out of public funds or, if it is going to be a regulated system—as other witnesses have said, many of the roads do not have alternatives, but it is hard to see how a regulator can really make much difference.

[Mike Reader]

Q For as long as I have known of LTC, although the previous Government perhaps suggested that it would be delivered by public funds, it was always assumed that it would end up going down a public-private partnership route. Surely, this model delivers cheaper finance and better certainty for investors. Therefore, under a specific RAB model for the lower Thames crossing, what you suggested about investor uncertainty may not be true.

Ralph Smyth: On investor certainty, the problem is that that assumes that traffic will keep growing, but, as I covered in the written evidence TAN submitted to the Committee, the latest ONS forecasts say that from about 2055, the population of the UK will be going down. I heard the Minister say that demand will only increase, but if demand starts to go down, it is a very different picture. That will mean that each user will have to pay more per journey, so it could lock you into higher, unaffordable charges.

[Jim Dickson]

Q Thank you very much for being here to give evidence. The Transport Action Network is on record as being against the lower Thames crossing, under any circumstances and however it is funded. Do you recognise that, as the Committee heard in evidence this morning from the logistics lobby, and as I have heard from my residents, there are not many other ways to deal with the congestion? Are you still against the scheme? What is your alternative to deal with the manifest problems that the Committee has heard about, and that I hear about every day?

Ralph Smyth: I may struggle to persuade you on this within the 15 minutes allotted.

[Jim Dickson]

Give us a summary.

Ralph Smyth: I was interested to hear other witnesses say that if it was not built, it might mean a shift in some of the trade routes to help to rebalance away from the overheated south-east. If you want to read more, there is a report by TAN on what the alternatives are. I would be happy to send that to the Committee, if it would be helpful.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions from Members, I thank Mr Smyth for his evidence. That brings us to the end of this morning’s sitting.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Wheeler.)

12:57

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.