Highways (Financing) Bill

Tuesday 3rd November 2026

(began 4 days, 6 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:25
09:26
09:26
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you. Noted.
09:26
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you.
09:26
09:26
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Pleasure to serve with you in the chair this morning on this important bill. On its first day in Bill committee. Seems that whenever I do a bill committee, I'm opposite the honourable gentleman. We spent many, many happy weeks on the Employment Rights Bill together earlier in this Parliament, and I look forward to the next few weeks. But I rise to speak and to propose amendment 46. There is a lot in this bill where I genuinely believe there actually is cross-party consensus, certainly between the government and His Majesty's loyal opposition. However, as we explored in some of the evidence sessions the other day, as we explored in the second reading debate, there are some question marks over many aspects of this bill, no doubt, that we will explore in future groupings during committee and later in the passage of this bill in our House and the other place.

 However, it is my proposition through this particular amendment 46, that we should seize on that which there is agreement in order to get progress on a project that I think all sides of the House wish to see built, namely the Lower Thames Crossing, which is why amendment 46 seeks to restrict this bill to just the Lower Thames crossing. There are other parts where I think there is a genuine consensus, such as the provisions for barrier free tolling on roads such as the M6 and the Mersey Tunnel, and I think that could be very easily brought forward in separate legislation.

But the real purpose for amendment 46 is so that the government can get on with the Lower Thames crossing, something that I know, particularly members, are in the direct locality of the crossing very much want to see happen from the government party, as well as a number of conservative members from Kent and Essex. And if we can do that, then I think there can be a a speed that we don't often see in infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom. I think when we had that evidence last week around the differentials between ourselves and the United Kingdom and our nearest neighbours in France, on the differential in the way that they get stuff built faster and cheaper.

 And so why don't we grasp the nettle for once in this Parliament, take that which we do agree on and move forward with it, and then have the debate on those other aspects further down the line. And one of the arguments I really make about that is that something I have seen throughout my political career, both in this place, in local government and just as an activist, is the importance to trial a new model to prove that it works? This is innovation around the Lower Thames Crossing. So let's test it. Try it, work out the gremlins before the government, whoever that might be at that point comes forward with other projects that could be financed and secured through the Rab model and the innovations of this bill.

 So if I can ask the minister a few questions to that point. Given so much of the media narrative and the debate narrative has been around the Lower Thames crossing, what other projects do the government think might come forward or could be financed through the model proposed in this bill, other than the Lower Thames crossing? Because if there is literally nothing on the table, why are we legislating? Why are we legislating in this place for something that nobody has the first clue what it might be for? We can all gather around the point on the Lower Thames crossing.

 There may well be divergence on other projects, particularly if no one can name a single one of them. The framework that this bill brings forward really is an open ended one, and I think the public we serve in all of our respective constituencies would expect us to have far greater clarity in any law that we pass in this place around what precisely it is for. I think my constituents and those in every other honourable and right hon. Members constituency can understand and get behind the Lower Thames crossing. It is far more difficult to get behind an abstract, to get behind something that they cannot see, touch, breathe, smell, etc.

 so I put it to the minister. Let's, let's, let's let's accept this amendment. Let's get an act on the statute book that can move forward at pace that that favorite political phrase at the moment with the Lower Thames crossing to get it built.
09:32
09:32
09:33
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you, Mr. Dowd. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair this morning. And can I thank honourable members of committee for attending, and I hope we will all learn a little as we go along. And can I start with recognising the shadow ministers desire to try and reach consensus wherever possible? I'm sure as the committee goes on, he will find that he's in agreement with me 90% of the time, and if not, the committee will make sure that that we are in agreement with the government position. But he makes he makes a lucid argument, Mr.

 Dowd, which obviously I'm here to address. So I think the the amendment obviously is is very clear in terms of its intention. It is to restrict this bill to the Lower Thames crossing, and I understand that there is a desire from the shadow Minister to seek some clarity about what other projects might be used for this legislation. Is the case that this is very much made with a one, a single project in mind, the Lower Thames Crossing, but I think that naming it in the bill would actually undermine the attempts that we are trying to make here to actually set up a framework for potential future use.

 So it's clear that under the intended operating model, ownership and operations of the Dartford Crossing would transfer to the new regulated private sector entity, which would be responsible for operating and maintaining both the Dartford Crossing and the new Thames Crossing, which would ensure a consistent and reliable service. And it's important to have both crossings covered because that will ensure that the crossings are operating in an integrated way. And I think the amendment actually only spoke specifically about the Lower Thames crossing. So that would be something that would undermine the intention of the government restricting the bill.

 So the the legislation can only be used for Thames Crossing would undermine the purpose, which is to build a framework for major road infrastructure. We should not unnecessarily constrain future governments where this financing approach may be appropriate. I think the honourable member has tempted me to come up with a shopping list of potential projects, but the truth of the matter is that at the moment, The crossing is the only project that is suitable. It's probably worth flagging up that the Street Works Act of 1991, under his party's watch, created a power to create tolling roads.

I think there's only ever been one project built under that, and that's not to say that that's what will happen here. But I think the the importance of getting the Lower Thames crossing right will give us confidence moving forward. If a suitable project does arise in the future, and we don't want to constrain future governments in terms of this, I think it's also worth bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the potential procedural consequences of this. He mentioned the potential risk of hybridisation, and of course, that's a matter for the House. But actually, this amendment would actually risk hybridizing the bill.

 It would, of course, as the honourable member has referred, to, bring additional parliamentary stages and, of course, considerable delay to the delivery of the Lower Thames Crossing. Hybrid builds are often actually used for projects which do not have planning consent and which need planning consent via Parliament, and that is not the case for Lower Thames Crossing. It is, of course, as we know, finally got planning consent and as we all know, the Lower Thames Crossing has had already a very long history, something that we discussed at second Reading. We know that the original work to address the capacity issues around the Thames goes back as far as 2009, but risking hybridisation of this framework Bill will put the timetable for the legislation.

 Therefore, the financing and ultimately the delivery of the new crossing at risk. The 2025 Autumn budget confirmed the importance of harnessing private investment to build the Lower Thames Crossing, unlocking the next stage of delivery for one of the UK's most important infrastructure projects. This amendment would, I'm afraid, actually risk the opposite happening. And of course, the honourable member's party's recent amendment at second reading recognized the urgency of this particular project, and therefore I would gently suggest that actually, if we accepted this amendment, the progress that's been made will be put at risk of further delay, and I invite him to withdraw it.

 Thank you.
09:37
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Dowd. I do hear and understand the points that the minister has made, but the key word he used in his response to this amendment was risk. And whilst I accept that that risk can exist, well, I can't accept and don't accept is that that risk cannot be mitigated away, that that risk cannot be worked through. At the most powerful question all of us have to ask, particularly when honourable and right hon. Members find themselves in a ministerial position wanting to make progress on manifesto commitments, on other things that the country needs and that the government perceives the country needs isn't to ask the question around the procedure, but to ask the question how?

 How do we make this happen without a hybrid process? How do we make this happen in the fastest possible way? And from the research I have done, whilst that risk exists, that some may be able to argue that a hybrid process would be the only way forward, I can see that there are pathways to ensure that it could be done as more straightforward legislation. As with a usual second reading Bill committee report, third reading before we get to the other place, therefore, I we are going to push this one to a vote because we do want to show our commitment to the Lower Thames Crossing being built, but not writing a blank check for other schemes that give way in one second.

 I certainly I'm always very happy to give way and to have a have a discussion on these matters. That's fundamentally what we are here to do in the line by line scrutiny of this , of this bill. But to get us to a place where we can just move forward around one project and not a blank check, and on that, I will happily give way.
09:37
09:37
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do hear that the point that he makes, and actually, it's in exchanges like this that in theory, we we the we can the four of us from His Majesty's loyal opposition and the the crowds from the government side is our current Parliament can work to improve the bill if there is that willingness. I do understand the point he makes, and I would be very open to something that that did connect that that limited the scope to the lower Thames crossing and existing crossing points, the Dartford Crossing that affects his constituents so considerably.

 We've heard from the honourable gentleman in other debates on that point, but the wider point still stands that what this bill is doing at the moment is writing an open ended up unpredictable future under this model. Beyond those projects that I think all of us can get behind can support, that our constituents will understand no matter where in the country. Many of us that wish to get down to, particularly Kent, perhaps down to the Dover to to get on a ferry, to go to France, will will find themselves behind their wheel or worse still, the kids in the back screaming because of the delays getting to the the Dartford, the Dartford Crossing and therefore everyone can get behind the need You can get behind the need to get this particular project done, but let's restrict it to this project, albeit with and I state for the record very clearly with that integration with the the existing for the existing Dartford Crossing, because the very worst thing we could create with any new project, Lower Thames Crossing being a good example is for there to be an unintended, unintended consequence and unintended impact on existing road networks, existing crossings, existing tunnels, etc.

that that integration does have to to be there. And I fully, fully accept the honourable gentleman's point on that. But on the core principle of this amendment, which will be no surprise, we fully expect to lose given the current parliamentary maths. We do want to put that marker down to show our support for the Lower Thames Crossing, but our skepticism on the way this model could be applied to other unnamed schemes in the future.
09:39
09:40
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

No, no.
09:40
09:40
09:40
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Your okay. We go.
09:41
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

For advice today.
09:41
09:41
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

The rain. Beavers.
09:41
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

I know.
09:41
09:41
09:41
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

I.
09:41
09:43
09:44
09:44
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Thank you, Mr. Dowd. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Clause one. Clause one currently obliges the Office of Rail and Road with regard only to avoiding adverse impacts on the strategic road network, creating severe statutory asymmetry that leaves potentially council maintained local roads completely unprotected. And this amendment corrects that omission by elevating local road protection onto an equal statutory footing regarding requiring the regulator to actively evaluate and mitigate traffic displacement, road surface wear and congestion on local surrounding roads, which is caused by potential toll avoidance surrounding A and B roads managed by local highways.

 Authorities face accelerated asphalt degradation when heavy commuter and freight traffic diverts from tolled highways, creating potentially massive uncompensated repair backlogs for local council taxpayers. We all know the challenges our local roads face under our local highways authorities. As Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, cautioned, the public bill committee drivers faced with a toll will naturally choose local free alternatives, creating negative traffic impacts across adjacent networks and this must be taken into account. And as Ralph Smyth from the Transport Action Network highlighted in evidence, creating private toll infrastructure without a statutory duty to protect adjacent road networks, breaks integrated transport planning and leaves local highways authorities without recourse.

 Why does clause one three be explicitly protect National Highways strategic network from adverse impacts, while leaving out local council roads to absorb the traffic gridlock and financial fallout of toll evasion and avoidance? So I ask, will the Minister accept amendment 37 to ensure the regulator has an explicit statutory duty to protect local communities and local highways authorities from toll diversion impacts? And I would like to indicate, Mr. Dowd, that we would wish to move this to a division on this amendment.
09:48
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Greg Smith.
09:48
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Dowd. Within this this grouping, I particularly wish to speak to amendments 47, 48 and 68 tabled in mine and my hon. Friend's name, but also speak to the amendment 37 tabled in the name of the honourable gentleman, the Liberal Democrat spokesman. So if we cover that one first, the His Majesty's official opposition does have considerable sympathy with amendment 37. The unintended consequences that we sometimes see from infrastructure projects must not be. Brushed to one side. They. They must be taken seriously because I was in a small hamlet in my own constituency at the weekend, where the unintended consequence of something as simple as a road diversion in.

 I have to say it, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman is an Oxfordshire MP in Oxfordshire, has forced. Has forced a considerable volume of traffic through a very small hamlet, causing considerable distress, very narrow rural lanes and the same could happen from any major infrastructure scheme we've heard in the oral evidence sessions, and we've heard in the second reading debate of the concerns immediately surrounding the Lower Thames crossing, that traffic displacement can be a very serious problem for communities, for people trying to get their kids to school, trying to get to work, trying to just go about their daily lives.

 And it is those local roads that are the the very veins that flow the , the traffic to these newer infrastructure projects as they are built. They are the roads off which people predominantly live. Nobody lives on a motorway or on a bridge or in a tunnel. And therefore without, without the due regard for how you get vehicle movements through those roads from people's houses, businesses, schools, hospitals, doctors surgeries, to those new major infrastructure projects like the Lower Thames Crossing, nothing is going to work. It is almost the very definition of needing joined up, government joined up planning, joined up approaches to anything at all that we build in this country, including those things the Lower Thames Crossing and other potential future unnamed projects that this bill would allow for.

 So the official opposition does have considerable sympathy with amendment 37. And if the Liberal Democrats push this to a division, conservatives will vote for that amendment. Moving to the other amendments in Group two, Mr. Dowd, 47, would remove the author's duty to have regard to contributing to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under this act. That is not an attack on the environment or anything like that, but it is about getting the balance right between getting infrastructure built and doing it at the lowest possible cost. And we saw in the oral evidence sessions, I've certainly seen in my own research that one of the things wrapped up in sustainability in this is the through separate order.

 But, but but fundamentally, coming back to the wording in this clause, the banning of the use of diesel plants in construction. Now, with white diesel running at between 20 and 25 per litre cheaper than HVO Hydrotreated vegetable oil, which is the primary current alternative that can be used in diesel plant. Although it has to be said it's not a drop in fuel, it does require mechanical changes to fuel filters and other parts of the vehicle to be operational. That is just going to drive up the cost, which will ultimately borne be borne by payers of tolls.

In one second. I will finish my point. The honourable gentleman knows I will always give way where I can. That is going to be borne by the ultimate toll payers of the Lower Thames crossing in any other scheme that could be built under this. And that is a position that I don't think any of us really want to see. We know from other debates that there seems to be either an unwillingness or an inability to name what the toll is going to cost on the Lower Thames Crossing. But what we can be sure of is that clauses around this sustainable development point that we find in clause one of this Bill, and the duty specifically that the opposition is seeking to remove for sustainable development, can only possibly drive the cost up.

And I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
10:00
10:02
10:04
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Griffiths.
10:04
10:05
10:08
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Gentleman, Greta.
10:08
10:08
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman. I know he has a background in this field, and I respect his point of view on this. I accept that it is a small part of the build cost, but small parts are unchallenged and just allowed to persist and carry on unchallenged eventually become very large costs to the ultimate toll payers. Now to the point he makes about the DCO, and I put my hands up in the oral evidence sessions to it. There were things that the previous government got wrong. We paid a heavy price for that in July 2024, just as his party has paid a price for getting things wrong in government in previous general elections.

 Under our new leadership, we are putting our hands up to some of those mistakes and challenging, challenging some of those parts of the past that we think should be put right. And the DCO that he refers to, yes, was signed under the last conservative government, but I would put it to any incoming government, the government that he serves as a backbencher on in particular, not just to accept that and say to the contractors, just follow everything that went before. Don't question it, don't look at it again, but perhaps ask those questions and say, is this going to deliver ultimate value for the future toll payers on the Lower Thames crossing?

 And that isn't interfering. Second, and that isn't interfering. That isn't interfering with contractors. It's actually setting contractors free to be able to come to market without the restrictions. That clause one of this bill places upon them in this instance and the DCO in other instances, and be able to offer a better value to the future toll payers and in other schemes, the taxpayers of this country. And if he wishes to come back again, I will.

I will happily give way.
10:09
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Mike.
10:09
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Reader.
10:09
10:09
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I'm grateful, Mr. Dowd. No, I don't think we should stall this project. I was very clear in my comments in Group one that the conservatives want to see the Lower Thames Crossing built. We want to see it as a major road building priority for this country and therefore, no, anything that adds delay is something that we do have to think very, very seriously about. However, I do not believe it is beyond the wit of any of us to find a way to lower costs within the scope of that, without having to relitigate and to legislate on absolutely everything but to apply a bit of common sense, which is precisely what amendments 47 and 48, by removing that duty from both National Highways and the Secretary of State, sorry, the ORR and the Secretary of State would do in this instance, and I very much hope the Committee will consider those in the spirit with which they are intended, of delivering value and speed on this project.

 Indeed, when it comes to that point I made about HVO, it is whilst it is in fairly plentiful supply in this country, even with the global challenges we face at the moment, it is not in as plentiful supply as white diesel is. The other amendment in this grouping. Mr. Dowd is amendment 68 in my name and my honourable friends, and this amendment prevents the act from coming into force until the Secretary of State has published the guidance to the o. RR on how. And that is the critical word in there, Mr. Dowd, how it must undertake its regulatory functions under this act.

 I remember in future, in past bills that I have debated in committee during this Parliament, there does seem to be a bit of a theme of kicking many features of intended legislation, the Employment Rights Bill, as was into the long grass for future publication. And I don't think it's something. And governments from time immemorial have done this. And so it's not particularly a point I make just to the the current government. It's one that I invite the committee to reflect on more widely, where our constituents send us here to do things in the best interests of them, of our country.

 And yet, too often, including within this bill, we debate this this morning, we're in a place where we're we're straightforwardly saying we're going to pass a law. Too much of it has to come later, too much of the regulation that will actually shape the legislation will come far, far down the road that we cannot be confident as members of this place, whether we sit on the opposition benches or the government benches, precisely what this is going to look like. So I ask the minister to give examples of how duties will be applied and whether they could take they could actually form an override of the main task of delivering and regulating roads built under this scheme, including the Lower Thames crossing.

 So, Mr. Dowd, I confirm that we will be supporting amendments 37, as well as hoping the committee can back 47, 48 and 68 as part of this grouping.
10:11
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Minister.
10:11
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you, Mr. Dowd. Can I first of all thank honourable members for their contributions and welcome the honourable member for Guildford to the Bill Committee and for putting forward her amendment. It's clear that the concerns that she's raised in amendments are about the impact of licensed roads on the surrounding network, and that they should be properly considered. But that does not mean we need to actually extend the office for road and rails general duties in clause one. Nor does it mean that the licence holder would be free to simply disregard the impact of its activities on surrounding local roads.

 And the reason for that is that clause and reflects the scope of the licensing regime, which concerns trunk roads. The bill deals with the impacts on local roads in other, more appropriate ways. Elsewhere in the bill, for example, under clause four, before a licence can be granted, a licensing authority must consult appropriate persons exercising functions in relation to highways that enables local highway authorities to feed in their views where roads may be affected. And it's true to say that the relationship does not end once the licence is granted. Clause eight also allows the Or to require the licence holder to co-operate with other highways authorities as part of the licence.

 So the framework under this Bill provides a route for local roads impacts to be addressed without extending the overarching duty beyond the roads it is actually regulating. So it is the case that local roads are considered as part of the bill. The bill provides appropriate ways for their interests to be considered without extending the overarching, overarching statutory duties beyond the scope of the licensing regime. The existing provision provides the appropriate balance between ensuring the wider impacts are considered, and giving the RR a clear and workable statutory duty. And I think just in terms of the specifics of the Lower Thames crossing, it's difficult to to see what this other local road crossing the Thames would actually be that would be affected, which, of course, one of the reasons why the on ground for Dartford is explained so clearly.

 This project is crucial. So I would ask that the honourable member withdraw her amendments. I turn turn to the amendment 47 from the Shadow Minister. It's in, in effect, removing the author's duty to have regard to contribute to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Act, we have deliberately designed these duties as a balanced package. They are as principal focus remains the interests of road users, alongside the efficient and economic delivery of highways and the ability of licence holders to finance their activities and sustaining development is one of the wider considerations that the author must have regard to when carrying out those functions.

 It does not override those principle considerations. I think it's also important to say that this is not, in fact, a novel duty. It is an approach consistent with established economic regulatory regimes in the energy and water sectors, with sustainable development forms part of the wider statutory framework within which independent regulators operate. Projects put forward under this legislation will involve significant infrastructure works, including the construction and improvement of roads. This can have significant environmental and wider impacts, and therefore it is right that sustainable development, including consideration of environmental impacts, is expressed in the duties. On the face of this bill, I will give way, Douglas.
10:11
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you. Mr..
10:11
10:11
10:11
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

I'm not I'm not got any any particular details on that? I will I will I will write to him, but I think it's probably worth saying that the requirements on sustainable development are actually originating from the Environment Act 2021, which of course I know. I know he wasn't here at this at that time, but that was a piece of legislation brought in under the opposition and under section 19 of that act, ministers are already required to have due regard to the government's Environmental Principles policy statement. When making policy, these principles ensure environmental considerations are built into policy making from the outset, as we are doing here, so we're not actually breaking new ground or doing anything different to what has come before in respect of sustainable development.

 There are real considerations in delivering major infrastructure. I believe it is right that we consider those as part of the bill. I'm sure my friend who whose constituents are affected by this bill, would want the local environment to be considered. Turning to amendment 48. Now, Mr. Dowd, again, I think the general thrust of the arguments will be the same, because it is the case that this is a consistent approach with established economic regulatory precedents as seen in energy and water sectors. The Secretary of State's primary focus remains the interest of users of trunk roads in England, with particular regard to the efficient and economic delivery of highways, and the ability of the licence holder to finance its activities.

 And as I've already stated, sustainable development does not override those considerations. Decisions under this framework should take into account the wider public interest factors set out in the clause, and not focus on any single consideration in isolation. In terms of the honourable, honourable member's questions about diesel. As we've heard, the evidence is clear. This is at best a marginal issue in terms of costs. It is something I think the honourable member for Northampton South suggested. If we were to reopen, that would possibly lead to significant delay on the project. And of course, the DCO has been settled for a considerable period of time.

 It has actually brought significant benefits already, particularly in terms of Lords landscape scale, environmental enhancements of semi-natural habitats, woodland species, rich grasslands, open mosaic habitats and wetlands. This will support a greater and more diverse range of wildlife than areas such as agricultural land or amenity grasslands, and by making it LTC a tunnel and extend it, the project actually avoids protected wetlands on the banks of the River Thames, helping to reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive habitats such as marshes, Special Protection area and Ramsar site. So it is, I think, something that we would say is of benefit to the wider community, and I would consider that the suggestion that we withdraw that element of the bill to be something that would be regrettable in terms of amendment 68.

 This this was in the groupings. Mr. dab, I don't think the shadow minister spoke to it. So set your advice as to whether we are dealing with that now.
10:11
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

I spoke to 68.
10:11
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Did you. I must have missed that. Well, this. This would, in effect, force the Secretary of State to publish guidance for the IRR under clause 1.5 before the act came into force, and would simultaneously also remove the government's ability to make regulations ahead of particular clauses coming into force. The amendment would mean that the vast majority of the act cannot come into force until the guidance of the section 105 is published, but there would be nothing meaningful to issue guidance about until the act is enforced, because the bidding will not have happened for the opportunity, and we do not know who the investor might be, and therefore we do not know what they would have to provide guidance on.

 So the Secretary of State, in those circumstances, could not meaningfully provide guidance. And. Mr.. I want to move on to clause one stand point now as well with those. Yes. Okay. So I will turn to clause one, stand part. Now, I think this is something we have probably covered in some detail already. This is in relation to the overall duty that will guide the office for Rail and Road, which I will, for ease of reference, now refer to as the IRR in future, and this will relate to their duties when carrying out their functions under the bill or R must act in a way it considers best.

 Supports the interests of users who use highways covered or potentially covered by the licensing regime. This also includes future users. This is important because the IRR may make decisions about a road before construction or improvement works has been completed. When carrying out this duty, there are must consider the efficient and economical construction, improvement, operation and maintenance of those highways, or must also consider the need for licence holders to be able to finance their activities required under the licence. Of course, these are not the only considerations. They must also have regard to safety. As I've said, sustainable development, competition and the effects of its decisions on the wider strategic road network.

 This clause also reflects the principles of good regulation. Our hours regulated activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and should be targeted only when action is needed or must also have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Of course. Therefore, one therefore places road users at the heart of the role while ensuring that it takes account of safety, efficient delivery, financial viability and wider public interest. I believe that is an important framework to set forward , and I commend that clause to the Committee.

 I'll turn now, Mr. Doctor. Okay.
10:11
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:17
10:18
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Well, I'm grateful for the honourable lady's question. There is a plan in place, but of course, it would be a little bit ridiculous for us to have everyone ready now when the legislation has not been passed. But I can assure her that already a number of considerations have taken place about having the right skills. I think the evidence we heard last week was that there is confidence that the right skill sets and the right people will be in place to provide the important functions that the Orr will have to deliver under this legislation. I'll turn now to clause two.

 Stan, part if I may, Mr. Dowd. This sets out the overarching duty that will guide the Secretary of State when exercising functions under the Bill. It mirrors the duty placed on the Or in clause one, and ensures that both key decision makers operate within a consistent statutory framework. As the bill gives important functions to both the Secretary of State and the LRR is therefore important that decisions made by each are guided by the same overarching objectives and principles. The clause further requires the Secretary of State, like the. Or are to act in a way that furthers the interests of road users.

 In doing so, the Secretary of State must balance a range of important considerations, including efficiency, safety, sustainability and the impact of decisions on the wider strategic road network. Those duties are underpinned by established principles of good regulation, helping to ensure that decisions are transparent, accountable, proportionate and targeted only when action is needed. Therefore, I commend the clause to the Committee.
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:22
10:22
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Aye.
10:22
10:23
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Lorraine Beavers.
10:23
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

No.
10:23
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Jacob Collier.
10:23
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

No.
10:23
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Jim Dixon.
10:23
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

No.
10:23
10:23
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

No.
10:23
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Amanda Martin.
10:23
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

No.
10:23
10:24
10:25
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Happy to withdraw.
10:25
10:26
10:26
10:27
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Aye.
10:27
10:28
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Dowd. I wish to propose amendment 82, an amendment that would ensure that licences could only. And the key word in that is only be granted for the construction of new roads. I would be grateful if the Minister, when he responds to this amendment, could explain in detail why the government thinks a licence should extend beyond simply the construction of a new road, and how the bill prevents modest works being used to justify a toll backed licence. I think this really does go to the crux of what we are debating today, what we are being asked to consent to on behalf of all of our constituents who are motorists and who use the strategic road network, and who will, I am sure, enjoy the new Lower Thames Crossing once it is constructed, but that are concerned that some of the drafting of this bill does open a back door, does open a pathway to enable things that most people, via any lens of common sense, would consider to be minor to enable increases in tolls in the future, or indeed new tolls in the future.

 I do not think anyone that backs the Lower Thames Crossing would necessarily be willing to back something that isn't supporting, something as significant as a major new piece of road infrastructure, be that the Lower Thames Crossing or anywhere else in the country, and that that is a point that we explored a lot in the oral evidence sessions last week and in the second reading debate. Now, the minister has been very clear, and I commend him for the clarity that he has given at the despatch box in second reading, and in his own evidence that he gave in the Boothroyd Room last Thursday, that the government has that favoured political phrase, no intention of delivering, of delivering new tolls for other projects, for things perhaps as simple as new cameras, or perhaps some line painting that makes the road a bit clearer, or smart motorway provisions.

 Not that I believe there's anything smart about smart motorways, but using any of those mechanisms to introduce new tolls. But the question that we therefore have to ask ourselves, and which is why the opposition have tabled amendment 82, is well, if that is a clear signal, if there genuinely is absolutely no intention. And for the record, I believe the minister, then let's put it on the face of the bill. Let's say clearly and unequivocally this is only repeat only about the construction of new roads in the United Kingdom. Well, Scotland, I'm sorry to say to my hon.

 Friend not included in the scope of this bill . Always. Therefore, can the Minister rise to the challenge? Can he put the legislative commitment where his words have been at the despatch box and in the evidence sessions of this Bill . Committee and accept amendment 82, because I fear, Mr. Dowd, if the government is reluctant or straightforwardly doesn't want to accept amendment 82, those questions are forever going to persist in the minds of British motorists, in the minds of all road users who they. Driving the car themselves, or reliant on the passenger seat of a car to be taken to wherever it is they want to go.

 I think that is an important point of principle, on which the minister surely must accept the view out there in the country, accept the view of His Majesty's loyal opposition, and put this on the face of the Bill.
10:38
10:38
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for that to that question. It's really a question for the minister, but he highlights he highlights one of those key points that the public out there, all of our constituents, will be asking about what what this really means and the scope within the way the bill is currently drafted , at best, allows for a bit of a lawyer's Paradise to argue over it for many, many years and decades to come, and at worst, straightforwardly allows precisely the fear that my hon. Friend has outlined to the committee this morning. So let's just have clarity on this, Mr.

 Dowd. It's a simple amendment. We're not asking for the world in this. We are saying we're broadly with the government on introducing this model for the Lower Thames crossing. But it has to have that legislative certainty to it that does not allow for mission creep. From where the current minister sees the world under this legislation, compared to where any future government might wish to try and take it. The opposition does not believe that tolls should apply beyond the construction of wholly new roads. There should not be the mission creep that this currently allows, which is why amendment 82 has been tabled in my name and that of my honourable friend.

 Also within this grouping is Opposition Amendment 81, and that is an amendment that would require consultation with relevant local and mayoral authorities before granting a licence for a road that is to become a trunk road. I think there is considerable concern in the country, particularly with councils, particularly with a number of mayors. Certainly arguably the best mayor in the country at the moment. The mayor for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, a very old and dear friend of mine, if I need to declare an interest on that currently, whenever I phone him up, frustrated as I try and do the journey from Buckinghamshire, the.

 The journey from Buckinghamshire to Suffolk, where my in-laws are and the minute you hit Cambridgeshire everything stops and everything seems completely dug up and so I immediately phoned him to have a go and he will continually push back and say, but the government hasn't given him any highways, powers or authorities, whereas we know other mayoralties in the country do so. I think it is very important for this for this amendment to be looked through that lens of the importance of ensuring that when new projects are to be stood up, starting with the Lower Thames Crossing.

 But any other projects that may occur anywhere else in the country, in England , under the terms of this bill, that local authorities and those areas that have mayors are properly consulted on them because local authorities and mayors are engaged in their own infrastructure projects. They are engaged in those things where they are trying to do their best of whatever political persuasion to improve the lot of the residents of their areas and to fail to adequately. And I use the word consult relatively lightly to to fail to adequately engage and discuss and be joined up with those local authorities and mayoral areas that are affected, I think, is a pathway to failure, a pathway to end up making mistakes, a pathway to expensive retrofitting of projects where if only that engagement had taken place at the very beginning, may well have been avoided.

 So on those two amendments, Mr. Dowd, I look forward to the minister's response. They are not made with any intention of trying to undermine the bill, but to concretely improve the bill to ensure that voices are heard that can make sure it works as it is intended to work, as opposed to so many of those instances in infrastructure projects of the past of going off course. We also have in this grouping, Mr. Dowd, the amendment 44 in the name of the honourable gentleman, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, around, and I won't steal his thunder, but setting that strict physical threshold for what legally constitutes increasing capacity.

 Again, the official opposition does have sympathy with this amendment. We are we always come from the standpoint that clarity is better than leaving something completely vague and anything that seeks to pin down precisely what the government means by that actually does work pretty well hand in hand with amendment 82 in my own name. To be really clear about what it is that we are trying to do. And if the Liberal Democrats do wish to push their amendment to the vote on that, His Majesty's loyal opposition will give their support to it. So when the minister responds, can he please be as clear as he possibly can be about the full intent of this Bill and whether he will, particularly around amendment 82, put the legislative commitment where words have currently been.
11:42
11:43
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Thank you, Mr. Downs.
11:43
11:43
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Hope you're not too.
11:43
11:43
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Been in the chair for some of the other very exciting transport bill committees we've had this year. In terms of this bill committee, I want to start by addressing amendment 82, tabled by the shadow minister. We understand where he's coming from from this, because we did hear evidence from Steve Gooding of the RAC Foundation in the public Bill Committee about the dangers that cause three could be used as a Trojan horse for widespread road pricing, something that the minister has given his assurances that it won't be done. We. Perhaps our amendment 44 is a different approach to the problem.

 From excluding non new roads altogether from this. And as I said at second reading, we feel that the idea, the idea of tolls and fees is a reason, one in principle and is used quite widely in Europe. But of course , the safeguards for that must be very clear. And that's why our amendment 44 would require a a strict threshold for applying tolls to existing roads which would which we are defining as a continuous extra lane to show that that is genuine and improvement in capacity for the road and to justify any introduction. In terms of clause three, I think I mean, I'd agree with the Shadow Minister , insofar as he was saying that so much of this bill relies on us to take on trust that the government will do the right thing with the very extensive powers that it brings.

I mean, the economists wrote a good article a few years ago about the problem with the good chap theory of government. That has been a historic feature of the British so-called Constitution. But I think the problem with that is it is difficult to just take things on trust and to rely on the current generation to do the right thing and interpret a bill as it's intended. Because, of course, a bill can't force the hand of a future government. But those future governments do need to work to the legislation that has been passed. So we have some concerns about that, and I'd be interested to hear the Minister's comments on clause 81, the tabled by the Shadow Minister.

 We support this amendment. We think it is sensible to require consultation with the relevant local and mayoral authorities, because it's so important that they are involved in major changes to their area and major, major changes that would potentially increase local traffic flow and the burden on the local community. So we would we would support that if were to move to a division, but subject to what the minister says at this point, we would be keen, with your permission, Mr.

 Dowd, to move amendment 44 to Division.
11:49
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Alison Smith.
11:49
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Sorry, Griffiths.
11:49
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you, Mr. Dowd. And I'd like to speak to amendment 82 in in the Shadow Ministers name and in my own name. And it's on the face of it obviously looks quite straightforward that this license would be granted for works involving not delivering notice, just involving the construction of a highway specified in the licence. But the consequences of this particular clause, the granting of this licence for the lines that are involved in our amendment 82 mean that the author is responsible for determining what is fair and transparent in terms of a toll which could be could be charged in the future for these words.

 And again, sorry for these lines. And and again, just being very clear, it's not talking about delivery, it's just talking about involvement, total lack of clarity there. And the author is going to rely on a code which has not yet been written, will not come before this house, and for which we will have no say in in what it looks like. As far as I am aware, there will be no constraints on cost effectiveness for the licensee, so the toll could be considerable and the toll doesn't need to end at the point where the costs have been recovered.

 So these lines in in clause B and C are of of the granting of the licence creates the prospects of a never ending toll upon our constituents. For a pretty unspecific piece of work. And so I just go back to the points that already made by the shadow minister, that this granting of a licence should only be for the construction of new roads. And if we want to look at future roads and the code should be subject to a parliamentary vote at a later stage, and if we if we refer to the to the discussion we've already had this morning, we should be looking at.

 Obviously, we've voted against this now, but we would prefer that. We were looking at the very specific two roads, the Lower Thames Crossing and potentially the associated Dartford and other Thames crossings. But without those constraints, this is a very problematic piece of legislation and I support this amendment.
11:53
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Thank you.
11:53
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We heard last week that this bill was potentially a Trojan horse, and we could have narrowed it down earlier by amendment 46. We could have said it was just for the Lower Thames Crossing. But that was that was ruled out. But we also have issues around what constitutes actually an improvement that would increase the capacity. We've heard it's not necessarily a new road. It might not even be a new lane built along the whole length of the highway. It could just be a smart cameras. It could be other little improvements that that increase the capacity slightly.

 Now, we've had some assurance from the minister that this won't be a Trojan horse bill, that it would only be used for the Lower Thames crossing. But as we know, ministers change, government changes, and we're just trying to put this all down to down to trust. So I think what we have in amendment 82 really makes it quite clear that it has to be a new road, and it would only be able to use on that new road, because the way it stands just now, I think we're leaving too much down to interpretation, leaving too much faith in governments that may, may come, may go.

 And I think it's I think this is probably the most important amendment that we're going to be looking at today. So I think it's vital that this is included within the bill to make it as really as clear as possible that it is just for new roads, and it even should be just for the Lower Thames crossing. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11:53
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Thank you, Minister.
11:53
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Thank you, Mr. Dowd.
11:53
14:00
14:00
14:00
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Yes.
14:00
14:00
14:00
14:01
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Formally.
14:01
14:02
14:02
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Lock the doors.
14:02
14:04
14:05
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Brooke. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair this afternoon. You've missed some exciting debate this morning. I hope we can maintain the standard set this afternoon. So I'll begin by addressing the provisions in this group. It is primarily related to the licensing regime. It's about making sure that the licensing regime works, not just when the licence is granted, but of course, throughout its life. The bill provides a clear process for applications, the duration of licenses and continuing regulatory oversight to ensure licence holders are properly held to account. Clause five makes provision for applications for licences under the new licensing regime.

 It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how applications must be made. Those regulations may cover the form and manner of application, the information and documents that must accompany it, and any application fee. The Secretary of State must consult the order before making such regulations. The clause also enables a licensing authority to require an applicant to provide any further information or documents that it reasonably needs to determine the application. This will help ensure that licensing decisions are made on the basis of sufficient and relevant information. Once a decision has been made, the licensing authority must notify the applicant as soon as reasonably practicable.

 If the application is refused, the notice must explain the reasons for that decision and give the applicant at least 28 days in which to request reconsideration. This ensures that the applicant understands the basis for the refusal, and has an opportunity to ask the licensing authority to reconsider it. If the licensing authority upholds its decision not to grant a licence after reconsideration period, the applicant may then appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Clause five, therefore, establishes a clear and transparent application process. Was providing flexibility to specify detailed requirements and regulations and appropriate safeguards where an application is refused.

 So I therefore commend clause five to the Committee. Clause six makes provision for the duration of licences granted under the Bill. A licence may be granted for a specified period where no period is specified. The licence will remain in force until it is revoked. This allows the duration of a licence to reflect the circumstances and requirements of the particular project. Where licence has been granted for a specified period, the order may extend that period with the approval of the licence holder. This ensures that a licence cannot be extended without the agreement of the licence holder.

 The clause also requires the owner to give the licence holder appropriate notice of its intentions at least one year before the end of a specified licence period. The order must tell the licence holder whether it proposes to extend the licence. This requirement provides the licence holder with certainty and sufficient time to plan for the extension or expiry of the licence and the future operation of the highway. Clause six therefore, establishes a clear and flexible framework for the duration and extension of licences, whilst ensuring that licence holders receive suitable notice before a time limited licence is due to expire.

 Therefore, commend it to the Committee. I will turn briefly to amendment 49, possibly my closing remarks once we've heard from the Shadow Minister.
14:11
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Greg Smith.
14:11
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, miss Little. Pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon. Let's see if we can rise to the Minister's challenge of maintaining this morning's quality of debate on this bill. I particularly wish to speak to amendment 49, standing in my name and that of my honourable friend at 49, is essentially about requiring the author to review each licence at least every five years and publish that review. The review includes compliance, user satisfaction, value for money, financial performance and resilience, toll returns, and a continuing a theme of some of the amendments we discussed this morning that flow through this entire bill.

 That review should include the effects on surrounding roads, off the trunk road network, the strategic road network that are the feeders to the new infrastructure, the Lower Thames Crossing and potentially others that this bill enables. And I put it to the committee and particularly to the Minister, that why should a long term licence not be subject to a mandatory review period published ? At least our position would be every five years, I. I am open to other suggestions on that period, because this is something that is going to impact motorists from across the whole country, particularly in the case of the Lower Thames Crossing.

 The honourable gentleman from Dartford has already expressed concerns about the impact on local roads. If a licence is granted for much longer than that and I can't see how it wouldn't be in order to bring realistic commercial payback under the tolling arrangements. What if it is a complete disaster? What if things don't pan out as everyone expects them to? We don't want things to go wrong, but let's face it, sometimes they do, and they often don't go wrong for any eventuality that has been foreseen. Wouldn't have done it in the first place if there was a plan that that saw things go wrong.

 But when things go wrong, we need clear answers that are accountable to those that will be paying the tolls on these roads. And indeed, the government who will have set up the whole scheme in the first place. And actually, that goes in many respects to some of the conditions that the minister spoke to in section six, clause six of this bill around timely notice, I gently say to the minister, yes, it's important for any operator to get timely notice of any change be that termination of a licence as it's coming up to its expiry anyway, or indeed an extension.

 But what is missing within clause six of the Bill is anything that talks to this point of what if things are going wrong, what if the government needs to step in and salvage a a pretty horrendous situation that you might be able to conceive in the future? Of course.
14:18
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Jim Dickson.
14:18
14:19
14:22
14:23
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Correct me.
14:23
14:25
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Alison Griffiths.
14:25
14:27
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Greg Smith.
14:27
14:28
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I don't.
14:28
14:29
14:29
14:32
14:33
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
14:33
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I'm grateful for that. I think I think he may be unwittingly making my point for me, which is that we actually do want to have regular consideration, in fact, an ongoing process from the regulator. And we did look at how existing licensing regimes work, for example, the Civil Aviation Act of 2012. And in there, I'm sure the honourable member will realise that there is no review period specified in in that particular act because in practice, the Civil Aviation Authority regularly reviews and updates licences that it has issued and the fact that there is no specified review period has not hindered them in carrying out that role.

 Indeed, what we're trying to do here, what we would say is apparent from the Civil Aviation Authority operates, is that actually they take a proactive approach. They don't wait five years to spot a problem and deal with it. They actually deal with issues as they arise. And I'm sure honourable members see why that is actually a preferable approach to waiting for five years between reviews. And second. Secondly, I would just say that a number of the issues listed in the amendment are already reflected in the statutory duties. Clause one puts the interests of road users at the heart of the role.

It also requires the owner to have particular regard to efficiency and economy, and the ability of the licence holder to finance these activities and to have regard to matters including safety and impacts, on the strategic road network. Under clause one, subsection five, the Secretary of State can provide guidance to the owner about how they would like them to interpret or carry out their duties, and the Secretary of State can update that guidance if they're not satisfied about the interpretation. So those duties are continuing duties under clause one. They do not suddenly trigger, after five years or any other arbitrary point in compliance with the licence is already covered by the bill's regulatory regime.

 Part four gives the powers for monitoring and information gathering and provides for enforcement when licence conditions are not met. Also, clause seven requires the or to keep tolling conditions imposed on licence underclass seven under review. And as my hon. Friend the member for Dartford has referred to, clause 11 gives powers to amend licences and the shadow Minister talked about the absolute disaster scenario, which we hopefully not see here. But of course clause 12 does give existing powers to revoke licences, so there wouldn't be a need to wait five years. I think it's clear that actually the flexibility on ongoing review that this bill sets out is the correct approach.

So I've just finished.
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:43
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thank you, Miss Lowe. Pleasure to serve under your chair. Our amendment 39 would create a mechanism for compulsory compensation for local councils as a result of additional traffic due to people avoiding tolls. Local council tax payers must not be forced to subsidise private toll road profits by picking up the repair bill for local local roads damaged by heavy diverted traffic. As Declan Pang, of the Road Haulage Association, noted in front of this committee last week, local A and B roads are heavily used by small businesses and hauliers, and severe wear caused by toll evasion can hurt the wider the wider local economy, and placing compensation in court would make it a binding legal condition that private operators cannot bypass or negotiate away these wider impacts.

 And one of the reasons for tabling this is the problem with the current roads funding formula, as it's based overwhelmingly on miles rather than use levels, and therefore without a mechanism like this, because a higher use of existing roads wouldn't necessarily lead to more funding to local authorities. As a result, we need a mechanism to deal with that. Our amendment 40 would in effect introduce extend the delay repay concept from the railway to toll roads and would mean that an automatic toll refund scheme that issued partial or full refunds to drivers trapped in severe congestion, roadworks or operator induced disruptions would come into existence.

 Motorists paying premium commercial tolls expect a reliable, free flowing journey and should not be charged full price when the operator fails to maintain traffic flow. Drawing on European tolling models like the Italian network, there is a motorway refund system there which creates a direct financial incentive for operators to clear incidents and manage roadworks efficiently, which is not always what they manage to do currently. We're not necessarily saying that's the right system for the UK context, but it is an illustration of what is possible and an example that the Minister may wish to consider. Now. As Edmund King told us last week in the public Bill committee, if drivers pay a higher toll under an independent business model, it must work both ways, giving drivers money back when the roads.

When the road fails to operate properly. I look forward to hearing the minister's comments.
14:47
14:48
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you.
14:48
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Miss Little. I largely wish to comment on amendment 72 in my name and that of my honourable friend, but before I do so, will speak briefly to amendments 39 and 40 that we have just heard about from the honourable gentleman, from the third party, on the point on the use or increased use of local roads that feed vehicles onto new infrastructure, like the Lower Thames Crossing, or indeed bring motorists, be they private motorists or haulage operators, off those pieces of new infrastructure. He makes a very good point, because the current modelling that finances local highways authorities, predominantly councils up and down the land has no mechanism whatsoever for acknowledging the point that the hon.

 Gentleman makes, and when traffic flows are massively increased on an existing road, I'm sure we literally all see it in our own constituencies. Those road surfaces very quickly degrade. They very quickly start to resemble the surface of the moon. And that is something that drives all of our constituents absolutely potty, myself included, on a daily basis. And I can see that in my own constituency where we've seen a large amount of big infrastructure being built over recent years, such as east west rail, where where compounds are put in for HGVs, groundworks, vehicles, etc., to come in and out of those compounds to go to site to move earth away, bring aggregates in the traction zones in and out of those compounds where the trucks are accelerating to pull out or braking to come in very, very quickly degrade.

 And it makes absolute sense to me that where an existing local road is suddenly being asked, as they will be in the case of the new Lower Thames crossing and potential other schemes in the future, those roads that are owned by a local highway authority that are the responsibility of local council tax payers should be taken into account, and that there should be a flow of funding , either from the licensee or something that the government acknowledges through the Department for transport and ultimately the Treasury. That ensures that council taxpayers in local areas aren't asked to pick up the bill.

 As my council, for example, has been asked to pick up the bill for roads broken by HS2 construction around both the construction of the Lower Thames crossing and other schemes under this Bill, and indeed the ultimate operation of it. So I do have some sympathy with the honourable gentleman's amendment 39 on amendment 40. I think it is a more problematic proposition. I don't disagree with the sentiment of the honourable gentleman's amendment. I think it is something that makes eminent common sense that if somebody has been asked to pay a toll of, no one can tell us what the toll on the Lower Thames crossing would ultimately be.

 But if we presume it to be commensurate with the M6 toll, for example, where an average vehicle is paying seven £8 to use that toll road at the moment, that if they then get snarled up in a traffic jam, if they've paid their money and just sit in a queue that they could have sat in on the original M6 anyway, and I've sat on the traffic jam on that road many, many times over my life. Well, it's surely reasonable that they're entitled to some sort of compensation or some level of money back where I think there is a problem with the proposition that the honourable gentleman from the third party has put forward, is how that would actually be determined, because with trains delay, repay, it's very straightforward.

 What time does the train ultimately pull in to the destination station? That is very, very clear. It is either on time or a number of minutes late. Certainly since Chiltern Railways was nationalised, I think I've been on late trains every single day from my constituency, but that is beside the point in a private vehicle. How is that level of delay really determined? Everyone's journey will be slightly different. What is to stop someone driving deliberately, slowly, in order to avoid paying the full toll and making their journey artificially seem longer? Is it for the ORR to determine whether someone has had a longer than usual journey, and how will they determine that without some level of.

 And I don't want to sound all conspiracy theorist here, but some level of state snooping on their exact movements in order to determine how long that journey actually took them, I'd be delighted to. For that.
14:59
15:01
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

To the honourable gentleman for that. That clarification. I'm sure the Italian model works very well in terms of its scheme of number of minutes delayed commensurate to the compensation paid. But he excelled himself, acknowledges in his response that he doesn't know the manner in which that is actually determined either. And I would be happy. I would be happy, Miss Little to work with the honourable gentleman, to look at options as to how there's no coalitions here. Thank you very much. I think there's only one audition going for the next general election, and it's not looking towards our side of the House.

 And the the point I would make is if there is a sensible solution that doesn't involve state snooping on our motorists as they use this new infrastructure, that principle that if someone has paid their money, they should expect a quick journey time is a fundamentally good one and should apply. So turning to amendment 72, this amendment prevents the act from coming into Turning to amendment 72. This amendment prevents the act from coming into force until. Until after the Secretary of State has published a report setting out the proposed licence conditions, including. And this is the $64,000 , I hope, not literally tolling arrangements we've had throughout the debates so far.

 A number of questions asked, and I understand the technical nature of the answers, but that bluntly doesn't cut it with our constituents. No one can answer how much how much will these tolls actually cost motorists to use the Lower Thames Crossing, or indeed, how that tolling mechanism will give very will be regulated to give clear, unambiguous rules around how a toll must be set. Any caps on that toll so that drivers, motorists, private cars and hauliers alike can have confidence that they know what is coming. And that is simply what amendment 72 seeks to do.

 The public should know how tolls will be set and how any increases, and I think that's as equally important. A point will be approved before the regime starts operating. It's not good enough for the road to be built, and then people to find out that they can't actually afford to use it. Why should Parliament commence this act before those conditions are published? I simply say to the Minister, on looking at that, if he can come back with some clear guidance and rules around that, I think we will be much closer to having a full throttled support of what he's trying to do on this than is currently the case.

 We want the Lower Thames Crossing, but we don't want it at a rate that nobody can afford to actually use.
15:08
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Alison Griffiths.
15:08
15:12
15:13
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Good luck.
15:13
15:15
15:18
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
15:18
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you. Thank you to the honourable members for their amendments. In terms of the honourable member for montages amendment, I think he's he's trying to make a noble case for something that I think this government is actually already dealing with, with the record funding for highways maintenance that we have announced and are already delivering on. But I can understand the thrust of his argument about compensation for local highway authorities around displaced traffic, the right approach that we need to take. Is to undertake an assessment of the whole of the strategic road network and understand what improvements likely increased overall capacity could achieve more widely, and then we should assess what happens to the impact if we don't proceed.

 Of course, the whole thrust of this is to actually reduce congestion, not increase it. And we know, as my friend from Dartford has said on many occasions already, that that part of the country is already at bursting point. We know what happens when things go wrong at that vital section of the strategic road network, and there are already local problems as people try to find alternatives and avoid the congestion cause. And that is clearly not because people are trying to avoid the toll, because the toll is is already there and has been there for many years.

 But it's actually about lack of reliability at that vital pinch point. So the answer to that is not to compensate people for delays trying to avoid that unreliability. The answer is to make the Dartford Crossing more reliable, and make it a road that people actively want to choose. I will.
15:21
15:22
15:25
15:27
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
15:27
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I understand the honourable member's point. I can't say I agree with it because this is traffic that is already there. This is traffic that is already on the local road network, and it is the whole purpose of the bill to actually take traffic away from there. And I think it's worth just reiterating, Madam Chairman, that we're not intending to do a deal at any cost. We need to do the right deal for road users, make sure this legislation has the necessary protections in place for road users, and actually heaping more costs onto the project by bringing in a wide and broad compensation package would, I think, have unintended consequences.

 The honourable member did mention the the perceived unfairness with the roads maintenance formula. It is something that the Department is committed to to reviewing. But but I can't accept his amendment. And I'll say the same about amendment 40. Because of course, this would insert a mandatory licence condition requiring an automated refund system to be provided by a licensee. And as I've already stated, this would actually go contrary to what we're trying to achieve here. I did find it quite amusing, the shadow minister talking about people driving deliberately, slowly to try and get some repayment. I'm not quite sure that the people would would be that that Machiavellian.

But maybe those are the circles he mixes in and. So it's fair to say that road users rightly expect a well maintained road and operators to minimise disruption in line with the network management duties. But safe roads require maintenance and maintenance. Of course, sometimes requires roadworks, so to actually put in an automatic refund requirement would actually disincentivize the operator to undertake that necessary maintenance and road work. It would give them a financial incentive to postpone what might be necessary maintenance. The better approach, I would suggest, is to hold operators to account for how they manage expenditure and deliver the service, rather than create an incentive to put off essential work.

 The Bill does provide for independent regulatory oversight of expenditure and performance. It is backed by enforcement powers , by a performance falls below acceptable levels, and I believe that is the correct approach to take and the honourable member to withdraw his amendment. I'll turn briefly to clause seven, Stan part, which sets out the two types of condition that must be included in every licence. First, every licence must include conditions controlling the tolls that the licence holder may charge. Those conditions may set the amount or the maximum amount of a toll. Alternatively, they may require the toll to be approved by the owner.

 This does mean a licence holder will not have an unrestricted power to set tolls. The licence will set out how tolls are controlled. Tolls and conditions must also state how long they will apply. They may set different arrangements for different purposes and the owner must keep these tolling conditions under review. This will help ensure that they remain appropriate over the life of the licence. Secondly, every licence holder must require to maintain suitable arrangements so they can carry out their functions as a highway traffic authority for any roads covered by the licence. This is an important safeguard.

It ensures that the licence holder has a proper arrangement in place to carry out its responsibilities, and taken together, these requirements provide clear controls over tolling and help ensure that licence holders remain capable of carrying out their functions. A brief early address amendments 72 and the points put forward by the Shadow Minister. This would be over and above the requirements already in the Bill, but the bill does allow for both standard licence conditions under course seven of the bill and for individual licence conditions under clause eight. We will come to those clauses in a moment, but this is not clear from the amendment specifically what what it's referring to in terms of licence conditions, because, of course, the bill is scheme is mostly, as we've just established, so referring to an amendment for a licence actually doesn't take us further forward.

 Clause four of the bill already requires the licensing authority, be that the Secretary of State audio, or to consult on a licence before it can be granted. And in my view, this is adequate consultation on licence conditions that may include and and consultation at an appropriate time. It also added that requiring publication of a report about licence before that come into force would actually delay and add inefficiency into the process. It's also duplicate, duplicative, and I think we've already said several times we've been waiting an awful long time for this project to proceed, and I'm afraid the honourable gentleman's amendment would add further delay into an already truncated process.
15:37
15:39
15:40
15:40
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Abstain.
15:41
15:41
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

No.
15:41
15:41
15:43
15:43
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Not yet.
15:43
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

No.
15:43
15:43
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Miss Liu. As you said, I will start with amendment one in my name on the order paper. This is a small amendment to clause eight, which I will go on to discuss in a moment. The government's proposal is to is to remove an unnecessary paragraph. Of course, a two paragraph L under clause eight, subsection two currently specifies that a licence may have a condition prohibiting transfer of the licence unless done so under the provisions set out at clause 14. This is not necessary, as compliance with these provisions is already required by clause 14 itself.

 The amendment is therefore a minor amendment to remove an unnecessary provision. I'm hopeful that the Minister will be able to support. Now, turning to clause eight in itself and its part, this provision allows a licensing authority to include additional project specific conditions in a licence. These sit alongside the conditions that must be included under clause seven. The flexibility is important because each project will be different to the licence needs to reflect the particular road works and arrangements involved. Conditions may set out what the licence holder must, may or must not do. They may also control how the licence holder carries out its activities.

 For example, conditions may cover the use of land, the licence holders, financial arrangements and requirements relating to the design or operation of the highway. A licence may also require the licence holder to follow directions from the Secretary of State or on matters specified in the licence conditions may cover the provision and publication of information, co-operation with highways and planning bodies and the referral of particular matters to draw for a decision. A licence may also require the licence holder to meet costs incurred by the Secretary of State in carrying out functions connected with the licence. The list in the clause is not exhaustive and not designed to be.

This ensures that a licence can include any other appropriate conditions needed for the project. I think it is pretty clear from the list included in the bill at clause eight, subsection two A to K, what the overarching principle is. But just to give the committee a bit more detail, subsection A is about making sure the licence holder is financially stable and resilient. This gives the the option to lay out things like the level of debt the licence holder can have. Subsection B is about making sure the licence holder has all of the things it must or may do in respect of the road spelt out in a licence such as that, they must construct the road.

For example, subsection C is about how they do things spelt out in a licence. For example, it might be abiding by planning conditions laid out in the planning permission for a scheme. Subsection D is about detailing the consents that the licence holder will or will not need for certain actions. Subsection A is to make sure it is clear the licence holder must abide by directions from the Secretary of State, or the subsection F is to make sure the licence holder refers. Appropriate matters to the RR. G is to make sure the licence holder is clear that they have to pay the Secretary of State for any costs incurred by the Secretary of State on their behalf.

 H is to make sure the licence holder cooperates with, for example, National highways or a local highway authority when fulfilling their duties under. To give one example, the Highways Act 1980 I is about information the licence holder may require to share with the. Or others. J is about making sure the land required acquired for the building of any scheme under the road model. For example, on the Lower Thames crossing, land acquired for environmental mitigation is used for its intended purpose and not for some other purpose. For example, if the land is designated for environmental education but the licence holder tried to build a housing estate on it instead, this would be a breach of the licence.

 And lastly, K is probably the easiest to explain because it is there to ensure the licence holder abides by the licence. In particular regarding making sure that the correct standards of road construction and operation are used. Clause eight, therefore, provides the flexibility to tailor each licence while ensuring that the licence holders responsibilities are clear because the licence will change over time depending on the stage of the project, the clause needs to reflect that the road licence holder is required to construct will be completed at some point, for example, and then they will no longer need to have a construction condition in their licence.

 So I commend the clause as amended to the committee. As I've said, the clause is not an exhaustive list but is designed to ensure that the licence can include any appropriate conditions needed for the individual project brought forward. I commend it, as amended. So, turning to clause nine, Stan Park now, this provision enables the Secretary of State to determine standard conditions for licences granted under the Bill. These conditions will provide a clear, consistent baseline across the new licensing regime that will give licence holders, investors, the RR and road users certainty about the core obligations that apply, while avoiding unnecessary repetition in individual licences.

 The standard conditions must be published and provided to the O.R.. They will then be incorporated into each licence by reference, unless the bill provides otherwise. Conditions published after a licence is granted will not apply to that licence automatically. This clause also preserves appropriate flexibility. A licensing authority may exclude or modify standard conditions when granting a licence where that is justified for the project, of course, ten, which I'll go into more detail shortly, requires publication, consultation and protections against undue competitive disadvantage before it may do so. Cause nine, therefore, has a combination of regulatory consistency alongside proportionate project specific specific flexibility, and I'll briefly address clause ten Stan part.

 This sets out the safeguards that apply where a licensing authority proposes to exclude or modify a standard condition when granting a licence before or excluding or modifying the condition, that authority must publish a notice setting out the proposed change, its effect and the reasons for it. The notice must be sent to the licensing Authority, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons. At least 28 days must be allowed for representations. The licensing authority may proceed only if it considers that the change will not unduly disadvantage either the licence holder concerned or any other licence holder competing with others.

 If it proceeds, it must publish the final change, explain its effect on reasons and state how representations were taken into account. This clause therefore ensures that project specific flexibility is exercised transparently, proportionately and without distorting competition. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
15:57
15:57
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, Miss Little. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of those clauses and government Amendment one. He will be pleased to know that His Majesty's loyal opposition does not object to government Amendment one. We might ask why it wasn't such such an obvious duplication in the Bill and wasn't picked up before it was published. But we will perhaps leave that up for another day. Speaking more widely to clause eight, nine and ten, probably more in the realm of clause eight. I'd be grateful if the minister could could visualize some of these schemes, specific variations that he spoke of in the.

 With only the Lower Thames crossing really in anyone's eye at the moment, under the provisions of this bill to help the House at the Committee and our constituents watching. Understand, can you give us some practical, concrete examples of where those schemes, specific variations may well come about so that we can fully understand the scope of this. But but my main question to him is that in clause eight, in section two A, talking about the financial resilience of the holder of the licence or otherwise relating to the holder's financial arrangements. In his comments, the Minister directly referred to how much debt a licensee might be allowed to have under the scheme of a licence.

 I don't object to that as a core principle. However, if it is to be the case that something can be laid down as clearly as how much debt gearing an operator or a licensee is permitted to have, then surely it can also be written into any licence, not necessarily the exact pounds and pence of what any toll may be, but some sort of ruling that says a toll must be proportionate to, for example, the overall build cost over a certain number of years, or maybe even as we're talking about debt gearing to build any infrastructure, such as the Lower Thames crossing, that the toll mustn't be any more than the total debt divided over however many years the Secretary of State or the deems that licence to be.

 That's the crux, the most important question flowing through all the amendments and all of the debates we've got on this bill. How much? How much is it actually going to cost people to use these tolls, to use these roads and pay in tolls? And I accept I fully accept that as pounds and pence figure is a very difficult one to conjure up. But the rules, the rules around it. In clause eight, part two, letter A surely would give us the ability to set the parameters of what that toll may be. If we can set what the debt limit is, can set where the limits are around the tolls, surely.
16:05
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
16:05
16:08
16:11
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Miss Lill. I'll start, I think, by if this is okay, generally by generally addressing the provisions, because I think if I dive straight into the amendments, it may over complicate matters. And what is already fairly complicated piece of legislation. So the sections that we're talking about now in the bill set out how licences can end or be transferred by the licence holder has requested further amendments two, three and four and 22 and 25. Licences can also be transferred under the provisions set out in schedule one for the regulated asset base model. To function properly, it is important that transfers of licences can take place and that the process be set out clearly.

For some schemes. Under the Rad model, the same person might hold a licence for a very long time. At some point, however, the licence may well need to change hands. These provisions allow for that to happen and set out clearly the conditions that the regulator may deem appropriate to apply in granting its consent. So I'll turn firstly to amendment two in my name on the order paper. This amendment allows for licences to be transferred under transfer schemes done under schedule one, as well as under clause 14. This amendment ensures that amendments 29 and 35 achieve their objectives.

 Those amendments allow for the transfer of a licence through transfer scheme as well as under clause 14. It makes clear that the provisions relating to modifying licence conditions, post Grant do not impinge on the ability to make incidental modifications to a licence when it is partially transferred, and schedule one or schedule three. Following the amendments 29 and 35 when only a part of a licence is transferred under the schedules, incidental modifications to the licence terms and conditions may be necessary to ensure that licence can be split and continue to operate effectively. Clause 11, as amended, will enable the licensing authority to modify licence conditions after a licence has been granted.

 That power is necessary because these licences may govern major infrastructure over long periods of time. Conditions may need to respond to changing operational, financial or regulatory circumstances. The course provides a controlled process for doing so. What it does is that before making a modification, the authority must publish the proposed change, its effects and reasons, and allow at least 28 days for representations. If it proceeds, it must publish the final decision. Explain how representations were considered and give at least 28 days notice before the change takes effect. The licence holder may appeal specified modifications to the Competition Appeal Tribunal during the consultation period.

The Secretary of State may also direct the or not to make a proposed modification. Clause 11 therefore balances the necessary flexibility, but it also has transparency, accountability and effective rights of challenge. I would therefore commend clause 11 , as amended to the Committee. Clause 12 then provides a clear process for the or to revoke a licence with the agreement of the licence holder or in accordance with the terms of that licence. This is necessary because a long term licence may need to end before its stated expiry date. The clause ensures that this can happen through an orderly and importantly, transparent process.

 Before revoking a licence, the owner must publish its proposal, explain its reasons and specify the proposed revocation date. It must allow at least 28 days for representations. If they are decides to proceed, it must publish the decision and the date on which the licence will be revoked. The notices must be brought to the attention of those likely to be affected. Copies must also be sent to the Secretary of State, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons during the representation period. The Secretary of State may direct the owner not to revoke the license.

 The clause therefore provides the necessary flexibility whilst of course, containing transparency, oversight and an orderly transition. Clause 13 provides for the revocation of a licence where that is necessary in the interests of national security, strategic road infrastructure may be of national importance. The statutory framework must therefore contain a clear mechanism to act where continued operation under a particular licence would present a national security concern. This power is deliberately narrow. The Secretary of State may direct the Or to revoke a licence only if it is satisfied that revocation is necessary in the interests of national security, or must then publish a notice of direction in a manner appropriate to bring it to the attention of any persons likely to be affected, there must send a notice to the licence holder, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons.

 The notice must specify the date on which the license is revoked. This clause provides a focused national security safeguard, while the bill's wider provisions ensure that responsibility for the highway can continue after revocation. I therefore commend these two clauses to the committee. Moving now to Government Amendment three, this proposal is intended to ensure that clause 14 refers to both licence conditions as well as licence terms in relation to transfers of the licence. I hope that wasn't a comment on my amendments. Sorry, Minister. The amendment makes it clear that the licence transfers into clause 14 are subject to the terms and conditions of the licence, as well as its licence.

 Transfers under clause 14 are subject to the conditions of the licence as well as its terms. Conditions relating to licence transfers may be imposed on licences under clauses eight and nine, which are, of course, have been covered in a previous debate. The conditions may affect how and when licence transfers are made, and it is thus important that licence transfers under clause 14 are subject to them. Turning now to amendment four. This ensures alignment between clause 14 and schedule one. Once amended by schedule amendment 29. They are therefore interlinked. This amendment is consequential on amendment 2029, which we will come to another time.

 But as a brief word of explanation, amendment 29 allows for transfer of all or part of a licence through a transfer scheme. Without that, clause 14 will prevent transfer of the licence under schedule one. The amendment fixes this and ensures clause 14 aligns with the amended schedule, which permits transfer the licence through a transfer scheme. I will now move to clause 14, stand part clause 14, alongside the processes set out in schedule one. Establish the statutory basis for transferring the whole or part of a licence. These licences may operate over long periods. It is therefore sensible to provide for a change of licence holder or a transfer of part of the licence responsibilities where that is appropriate.

 However, transfer cannot take place without regulatory control. The licence holder must obtain consent and comply with the procedure in clause 15 and any relevant terms or conditions of the licence. The Secretary of State may direct the or not to consent where that is necessary in the interests of national security, but subject to that safeguard, the or may refuse consent only if it considers that the proposed transfer is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence , or the part that is being transferred, and the Or may also impose appropriate conditions. These conditions may ensure that the necessary property rights and liabilities are transferred or created between the parties.

 The clause, therefore, provides commercial and operational flexibility without allowing licence obligations to be transferred free from regulatory scrutiny. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee. Finally, Mr. Liu, of course, 15 Stan part sets out the procedure. The order must follow before consenting to the transfer of a licence or a part of a licence under clause 14. Before giving consent, the owner must publish a notice stating that it proposes to consent and explaining its reasons. The notice must allow at least 28 days for representations about the proposed transfer. If the owner decides to proceed, it must publish further notice setting out its decision and the date on which the transfer will take place.

 Both notices must be published in a manner appropriate to bring them to the attention of persons likely to be affected, or must also send copies to the Secretary of State, each relevant strategic highway company and any other appropriate persons. When sending the proposal to the Secretary of State, they must identify any conditions it proposes to impose on the transfer under clause 14. This clause therefore, ensures that transfers are considered openly and on an informed basis, whilst providing a clear route for the transfer to take effect. I hope that that's been clear to members. The clauses, as amended, provide the certainty licence holders needs with regard to how their licence may come to an end, be transferred or revoked, should also provide an assurance to the author and to the public of the clear processes for how the end of a licence should be managed.

I therefore commend clauses 11, as amended, clause 12 and 13, clause 14, as amended, and clause 15 to the Committee.
16:30
16:30
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, Miss Little. I've never been considered a Tory wet, but my my acrobatics with my notes during that certainly mean my notes now are. For which I particularly apologise to the Hansard reporter when they eventually make it to the official Journal at the end of the session. The Minister suggests they're an improvement. I certainly can't read them anymore. Now, the. I, I don't think this is a section of the bill or a part of the bill that this particular disagreement on between the official opposition and the government. So I really just want to pose a couple of questions to the minister around clause 12 and 13 around the revocation of any licences.

 It is clear as anything that there may well need to be a revocation of a licence if things are going horribly wrong, or indeed, as the Minister highlighted in his own remarks, if there is indeed a national security concern, the first duty of any government is to keep citizens safe and if there is a national security concern, then it is absolutely right that there should be the power to revoke a licence. What is missing from clauses 12 or 13 is that if a license is revoked, but there is nobody out there willing to take it on where clauses 14 or 15 would come into effect.

 What happens? Who becomes the licensee by default? Is it the Department for transport? Is it the or? Is it somebody else? And I think that isn't a that isn't a disagreement with the clauses as they are. The clauses as they are seem relatively comprehensive. Certainly the power over national security concerns is absolutely right. But who takes over? What if there is no company that wishes to take on that liability, to take on that licence, to take on the cost of operating, be it the Lower Thames crossing or anything else granted a licence? I think that is something that we need clarity on.

 And so whilst the procedure set out in these clauses is unobjectionable, the net result in some circumstances, circumstances that I hope will never, ever come to pass, that you have to plan for the worst. We need an answer on.
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
16:36
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Move forward.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Liu, as as you've correctly identified, we've got a number of clauses in this grouping, clauses 16 to 21, which engage the fundamental legislative scaffolding required to operate the licensed highways. By plugging it into the existing legislative framework, they establish clear responsibility for operating and maintaining licensed highways. They give licence holders the legal status and functions they need, whilst of course retaining specific specified statutory powers with a public body. They allow a licensee to delegate without removing its responsibility or the oversight and protect continuity by allowing the Strategic Highways company to intervene when a licence holder cannot properly perform its functions, the clause allows for relevant clauses, allow for relevant responsibility to pass automatically to the relevant strategic highways company when a licence ends without replacement.

 I trust these clauses are uncontroversial. I'm going to go into a little bit more detail for the benefit of the committee. Clause 16 makes the licence holder, the Highway Authority and Traffic Authority for each highway specified in its licence. This gives the licence holder the legal status needed to carry out the day to day highway and traffic authority functions required to operate and maintain the licensed road clause is only concerned with trunk roads covered by licence, not with the wider responsibilities of highway or traffic authorities. Any licensed highway is treated as a highway, maintainable at the public expense for the purposes of the Highways Act 1980.

 This keeps its legal status clear even though the works and operation are to be privately financed. These arrangements take effect from the date stated in the licence or if no date is stated when the licence is granted. This provides a clear point at which statutory responsibility moves to the licence holder. Where legislation gives a strategic highways company functions because it is the Highway Authority or traffic authority for a trunk road. Those functions will generally be exercisable by the licence holder for the Licensed Highway Development Consent orders under the Planning Act 2008 are expressly excluded from that rule.

This avoids the automatic transfer of project specific consents in the DCO. These consents will need to be considered separately as part of specific licensing decisions and can be dealt with separately as appropriate, either under the bill's transfer provisions or under specific provisions under the DCO itself. This also gives much needed flexibility when establishing a new scheme. Subsequent clauses also retain certain functions to the relevant strategic highways company, which is, of course, national highways and provides safeguards for delegation and operational continuity. Clause 16, therefore, places responsibility for licence highway with the body that will operate it whilst preserving the statutory framework for trunk roads and other highways.

 Moving to clause 17, this sets limits on the functions that a licence holder may exercise as the Highway Authority and Traffic Authority for licensed highway. Although clause 16 gives the licence holder that status, certain functions should remain with the public body because of their nature and legal effect. The licence holder may not exercise functions relating to the making of schemes or orders under the Highways Act 1980. It may not exercise compulsory purchase functions under the act or functions relating to the making of orders or giving of directions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. These are delegated forms of legislation, and I think it's important to have proper public scrutiny of their use.

For those unfamiliar with the details of those pieces of legislation, it's an order making powers, including issues like changing speed limits, making trunking orders, restricting access to a road, or introducing one way systems. These functions will instead be exercised for the licensed highway by the relevant strategic highways company. This ensures that significant statutory powers, including compulsory purchase and most traffic regulation powers, remain with a public body. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about who may exercise highway and traffic authority functions for a licensed highway. It may, for example, be appropriate for certain functions to be exercised by a local highway authority.

 Depending on the specific scheme, these regulations may provide for a specified person other than the licence holder to exercise one of the functions retained by this clause, they may also allow another specified person to exercise other functions instead of or alongside the licence holder. The regulations may also make the modifications needed so that existing highways and traffic legislation operates properly, where functions are exercised. Under the new licensing framework. Clause 16 when read together with clause 17, therefore, ensure that the licence holder has the functions needed to operate the highway while keeping specified statutory powers within appropriate public body and allowing responsibilities to be allocated.

 Clearly moving to clause 18 now. This allows the licence holder to authorise another person to exercise functions conferred on it under this chapter from clauses 16 to 22. This provides practical flexibility in how licence holder carries out its highway and traffic authority functions. It allows another person with suitable suitable operational capability to exercise a function on the licence holders behalf. Where the licence holder authorise is a strategic highways company to exercise a function. The clause also allows that company to delegate the functions further under the Infrastructure Act 2015, subject to the modifications set out in the Bill.

 Of course, the author must be able to oversee all of these arrangements. The licence holder must therefore provide any information or documents that the or reasonably requests to review how a delegated function is being exercised. Importantly, delegation of the function does not transfer responsibility for it. Licence holder remains responsible for the exercise of the function even where another person carries it out. Therefore, suggest clause 18 provides operational flexibility whilst also preserving clear responsibility and regulatory oversight. Moving now to clause 19, this provides an important safeguard to ensure that essential highways functions continue. If a licence holder cannot properly perform them, it allows the relevant strategic highways company to exercise a licence holders function instead of a licence holder in two circumstances.

 The first is that an emergency that they are considered too seriously affected. Licence holders ability to carry out its functions. The second is where the licence holder has failed or is unable to discharge the function properly. That failure amounts to a breach of a licence condition and the owner has issued a contravention notice. The owner must, in those circumstances, both notify the licence holder and the Strategic Highways company when the function transfers. If the circumstances justify the intervention, come to know and come to an end, the author must notify both parties and the function would then return to the licence holder.

 The strategic highways Company may recover from the licence holder. Any expenditure reasonably incurred in carrying out that function. Clause 19 therefore, protects road users and supports operational continuity , whilst ensuring that the responsibility returns to licence holder when intervention is no longer required. Moving now to clause 20. This deals with the acquisition of land needed to carry out works under a licence, and must emphasise that this does not circumvent the normal planning process for major works. Invariably, Development Consent Order will set out the land to be acquired for the scheme in question, but it is possible that in the course of a licence for the construction, operation and maintenance of a licensed road, that at some point additional land will be required to complete works required to fulfil licence obligations.

 In some cases, the land needed for those works may not be available to buy by agreement. The clause therefore, allows the relevant strategic highways company to use its existing compulsory purchase powers to acquire land needed for the licensed works. This power is not going to be given to the licence holder. It remains with the Strategic Highways Company as the accountable public body, and the powers, of course, may only be used where clear statutory tests are met. The Strategic Highways Company must be satisfied that the licence holder has made reasonable attempts to acquire the land by agreement.

 It must also be satisfied that alternatives have been considered, that compulsory purchase is the better course of action, and, of course, that there is a compelling case in the public interest. Before acquiring land compulsory, the strategic highways company must also consult the order. Once acquired, the land must be transferred to the licence holder as soon as reasonably practicable. The Strategic Highways Company may recover from the licence holder the reasonable costs that it incurs in exercising that power. Clause 20, therefore, ensures that essential land can be acquired where necessary whilst keeping compulsory purchase powers with a public body and making their use subject to clear safeguards.

 I'm sure the whole committee would expect. Finally, clause 21 deals with what happens to the responsibility for a licensed highway where when a license expires or is revoked, it's important that the ending of licence does not create uncertainty about who is responsible for the highway clause applies where the highway is covered by the licence immediately before it ended, and is not covered by a licence on the day the license expires or is revoked, the relevant strategic highways company automatically becomes a highway authority for the highway. The highway is also treated as a highway, maintainable at the public expense for the purposes of the Highways Act 1980.

 The transfer takes effect automatically. This provides a clear and immediate change of responsibility when no replacement licence is in place. Clause 21 therefore, ensures that there is no gap in power authority. Responsibility for any licence comes to an end. I hope that adds a little bit more detail to the question that I answered from the Shadow Minister earlier on, but on that note, I move the clause is stamped out.
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Congratulations.
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you. Mr.. A couple of questions for me on this grouping. We have no problem with clause 16. On clause 17, the minister gave, for example, setting of speed limits as an example, where functions should be exercisable by persons other than the licence holder, the state, for lack of a better phrase, and I don't disagree with the premise of that. It would be unusual, to say the least, to allow a private company to set speed limits outside of the national scheme that we have for setting that. However, the question that that then begs within the totality of this bill is if a scheme is built and its original consent set by the appropriate body is, for example, the new scheme to have a 40 mile an hour speed limit.

 If the licence holder then makes a representation to the appropriate body in conjunction with whichever is the local police force or local authority. And it is determined, for example, that that scheme should be converted to a variable speed limit road. We are seeing a lot of those popping up across the country, and that involves quite considerable expense of putting gantries up, of having repeater signs with whatever the new speed limit is, changing speed limits as motorists go along. Where does that fit in with some of the other things we've debated in the totality of this bill?

 Would that be a capacity change? Because in theory, variable speed limits are meant to speed up the overall journey time to, to, to, to manage congestion spots before they necessarily appear by slowing the whole road down for a little bit so that you don't end up with a pileup. Can the minister assure the committee that that couldn't be a back door, that a licence holder could try and negotiate with the appropriate bodies to charge a higher toll with any change to a variable speed limit system? Then my other question in this grouping, Miss Lowell, relates to clause 19 of the Bill of the exercise of a licence holders functions by the Strategic Highways Company.

 Part two of clause 19 talks about the subsection , applying. If the order is satisfied that the ability of the holder of the licence to exercise the function is significantly impaired as a result of an emergency. Now, emergency might seem straightforward to some, but when it comes to scrutinising, legislation is a word that could have all sorts of definitions around it. I'm sure most would accept that something like a natural disaster. We hope that never becomes any of these schemes, or even worse, an act of terrorism or something like that would be an emergency. But what Schemes or even worse, an act of terrorism or something like that would be an emergency.

 But what else could be brought into scope under that definition of emergency? We have all seen in our own constituencies the extreme heat we saw earlier this summer caused significant damage to road surfaces. There are certainly roads in my constituency that have almost completely sunk over the summer and have now got the dreaded failed road surface warning signs around every corner. Is that level of prolonged extreme heat that could potentially damage the surface of a scheme funded and financed through the provisions of this bill, be deemed an emergency, or at the other end of that spectrum, the way it has been explained to me by highways engineers multiple times virtually every winter for the past few years that getting into a freeze thaw, freeze thaw, freeze thaw, rapid cycle entirely down to natural factors, the weather has caused significant damage to our road surfaces.

 Could that be deemed an emergency that a licensee could hide behind? So I'm really not trying to be difficult on this point, but clarity, as we have discussed in previous amendments to this bill, really does matter. Can the minister be really, really specific by the definition of emergency there, so that we don't find ourselves in future operation with licensees trying to argue up the force majeure rules around things that they want to argue are an emergency, but that are actually affecting everyone, whether they be a licensee under the provisions of this bill, once it's enacted, or any other highways authority out there that are all putting their hands up, there are all legitimately saying that it's not their fault, that it is something that has happened to them, not because of them, which could be argued to be an emergency position.

 Where does that word emergency really get defined within the scope of this bill?
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
16:36
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

I, if I may.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Minister.
16:36
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you very much. On amendment 79, standing in my name and that of my honourable friend, it tries to give more clarity, as we've been trying to do in most of the amendments we have laid today around what happens in the eventuality of that scourge. That is literally, I cannot imagine there is a member in this House that has not been out litter picking along the roads and highways in their own constituencies, and certainly not the motorway, but certainly parts of the strategic road network and a roads that is not entirely uncommon. I certainly see groups in my constituency doing that on a regular basis, and it's something that gets all of our constituents rightly upset when they see litter in the verges and on the side of the roads.

It gets me incredibly angry, too. And the point that this amendment is trying to get to is that a motorist or local resident should not be left guessing who is responsible for litter on a licensed road. So will the government accept a named, published accountable body and a direct route for complaints under each licence that is issued and if work is outsourced, who remains legally responsible for ensuring the highway is kept clear? The public facing accountable body should, in my opinion, be at least clearly defined within the regulations when they come to pass and provision to ensure that that is the case, as amendment 79 does, should be written into this bill.

It would be a disaster if these provisions are got wrong and there's an accident happens because of severe flytipping or litter on any one of these roads. We've all seen severe flytipping in our own constituencies and the impact they have, particularly on safety, certainly from the previous grouping and discussing the extreme heat, there were actually significant fires in that extreme heat and glass dumped on the side of the road only exacerbates that particular problem. So whilst I don't want to labour this point at length, I think it is incumbent upon the government to properly consider this amendment and to see if we can strengthen the Bill through its inclusion.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Liu. I'm grateful to the honourable member for moving this amendment. It does give me an opportunity to promote an upcoming litter pick in my constituency, alongside my friend the Whip's father. On Saturday morning, we will be doing our bit, as we always do, and pay tribute to all the volunteers up and down the country who do a fantastic job in showing great community spirit. Make it clear that the trunk road network is not a place for such activities, however, and it should be handled by an appropriate body, which is indeed what clause 22 seeks to do.

 But I'll just address amendment 79, and I think the minister is right to raise the issue of clear lines of responsibility for litter clearance on these licensed highways. He's right. There should be a clear responsibility. But that is why clause 22 exists. He will not be surprised that existing litter legislation was not drafted to account for privately operated highways under the new licensing framework, so there, for clause 22, allows the Secretary of State to make regulations so that existing litter duties can operate properly for licensed highways. That does not mean responsibility could be handed out arbitrarily.

The purpose of these regulations, to ensure that litter functions sit with the appropriate body for the licensed highway, with clear responsibility for them to carry out. So my objection is not to providing clear information as the honourable member. One it is about prescribing detailed requirements about contact details for complaint handling on the face of primary legislation, and clause 22 already provides a regulation making power to establish how these functions will operate. Turning to clause 22 itself, this provision ensures that the existing framework for litter under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can be applied appropriately to the highways specified and relevant licences.

 Therefore, the clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations so that litter responsibilities can operate effectively on licensed highways. These regulations may apply existing duties to keep land clear of litter and refuse to highways covered by a licence. They may also allow the litter enforcement functions to be exercised by or on behalf of a licence holder. In some cases, those functions may sit alongside another body's responsibilities. In other cases, there may be exercise instead of them, but that flexibility ensures that the responsibility can be allocated appropriately for the licensed highway. Regulations may also make appropriate changes to how existing litter legislation applies to a private licensing holder, so that it works effectively with licensing frameworks.

 This will ultimately help ensure that there are clear lines of accountability and no gaps in the management of licensed highways. So I therefore commend clause 22 to the committee.
16:36
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Liu. I will take clause 23 in schedule one. Stand part together as clause 23 simply introduces schedule one. I'll then turn to the amendments put forward by the government in this group. Some brief introductory words on clause and 23 in schedule one work. They basically set out how transfer schemes operate. Under this bill, the provisions are necessary to make sure that the assets, rights and liabilities necessary for performing the role of the licence holder can be transferred to them. It is vital to enable the seamless transition from a previous licence holder to a new one.

 The amendments to schedule one will ensure that the provisions cover the scenarios envisaged transverse schemes being needed. They enable the transfer schemes to be made from a strategic highways company to its wholly owned subsidiary, to permit the transfer of a licence under specified circumstances beyond those set out in clause 14, and allow for a transfer scheme to for provision. For compensation to be paid to a transfer right. Division for a third party, I will turn to clause 23 in schedule one stand part. Now. The detail of the clause 23, which introduces schedule one, makes detailed provision for transfer schemes.

 A licence holder may need property, contractual rights and other legal interests in order to construct, operate and maintain or improve the highway specified in its licence. Existing rights and liabilities may also need to move between a Secretary of state, a strategic highway company, a licence holder or another appropriate person. Transfer schemes provide an efficient statutory mechanism for making these changes. They can transfer existing property rights and liabilities and make the supplementary provision needed to ensure that a transfer operates effectively. The detailed powers, procedures and protections are set out in schedule one together, clause 23 and schedule support an orderly transition into the licensing regime, as well as when a license is revoked, expired or transferred to a new licence holder.

 This ensures that responsibility for a licensed highway is matched by the assets and legal arrangements needed to discharge it. I now turn to government amendments 22 and 23, my name on the order paper. They allow for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers of property rights and liabilities , from Strategic Highways Company to its subsidiary, amendment 23. Just wording to ensure that subsidiaries of strategic highways companies are referenced explicitly in the list of persons for whom the Secretary of State can make transfer scheme for. This is vital to ensure that the transfer of assets, including the Dartford Crossing and the Lower Thames Crossing project from National Highways to its subsidiary, can take place or before transition to the private sector.

 The current drafting of schedule one only allows the transfer scheme to be made transferring assets to a subsidiary if that entity already holds a licence or is intended to in the future. This would not allow for scenarios in which an intermediate vehicle is set up to hold the assets before a further transfer. This amendment makes that possible and is essential for the proper functioning of these provisions for scenarios that are likely to occur. Turning now to amendment 24. This amendment follows on from amendments 22 and 23, and enables transfer schemes to provide for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from subsidiaries of strategic highways companies to licence holders.

 This amendment ensures that where assets, rights and liabilities have been transferred to a subsidiary of a strategic company, they can then be transferred onto a licence holder or person due to hold a licence. This, in combination with amendments 22, 23 and 25, provides for a scenario in which the Strategic Highways Company sets up a wholly owned subsidiary to hold assets, rights and liabilities due to be the responsibility of a licence holder. It allows for the Secretary of State to then transfer those assets, rights and liabilities onto the licence holder or person due to hold a licence.

 I'll now turn to amendments 25 and 26. These amendments reflect the changes in amendments 22 to 24 to enable transfers to and from subsidiaries of strategic highways companies. They make consequential changes to ensure that the definition of subsidiary in paragraph one of schedule one and other references to subsidiaries in paragraphs accurately align with the new drafting and amendments 22 to 24. Turning now to amendment 27. This amendment makes clear that transfer schemes can include provisions that come into effect at different times. This does not specify that different dates must always be included in provisions. In many cases, it may be more appropriate for the whole transfer scheme to come into effect at once.

 However, there may be circumstances where it may be appropriate for particular parts of the transfer scheme to come online at the point when the relevant responsibilities in the licence due to, for instance, in the case of the Dartford Crossing, the existing Dbfo contract will run beyond when the transaction to the private sector is due to take place and the transfer scheme is made for the Dartford Crossing. The scheme will be able to set a later date for certain responsibilities under this contract to transfer, ensuring they can remain with the National Highways and its dbfo contractor until the end of that arrangement.

 Were this not possible, the licence holder would need to delegate their responsibilities to national highways, who would then delegate them to the contractor. While not infeasible, this is a complicated arrangement that can be avoided through this amendment, and I'll turn to amendment 28, which sets out the requirements for when transfer schemes. Transferring property rights and liabilities away from the licence holder can be made by the Secretary of State. It means that the Secretary of State cannot make a transfer scheme without the consent of the license holder and the transferee, where the transferee is not the Secretary of State herself or the Strategic Highways Company, except where the scheme is being made in connection with a license, revocation or expiry, setting out conditions that must be met before the Secretary of State makes a transfer scheme, will reassure investors that transfer schemes would not be made on an ad hoc basis in circumstances where the license is either not being revoked or has not expired.

It is right that the Secretary of State be required to obtain the transfer consent before making the transfer scheme. Turning now to amendment 29. This amendment allows for transfer schemes made under schedule one to provide for the transfer of licenses granted under clause three of the Bill. Transfer Scheme may transfer the whole or part of a license. Clause 14 of the Bill already sets out a process for the or to consent to license transfers and where a license is transferred under clause 14, the Secretary of State will have to make separate transfer schemes under schedule one to transfer the relevant assets, rights and liabilities alongside the license.

 In some cases, it will be more efficient to transfer the license alongside the relevant assets, rights and liabilities rather than run two separate processes and to clause 14 and schedule one. This will generally be where a license transfer is initiated by the owner rather than the license holder. For example, to split the license between two license holders, the amendment would allow for more efficient and streamlined license transfers in appropriate cases, where the owner initiates a transfer where only part of a license has been transferred. The amendment also allows for the apportionment of rights and liabilities under the license and incidental modifications to the license.

 Terms and conditions. I'll now turn to amendment 30, paragraph three of schedule one allows transfer schemes to provide for the payment of compensation. Currently, schemes can only provide for the Secretary of State to pay compensation to third parties who are adversely affected by the scheme. This amendment extends this provision to also allow schemes to provide for the transferee to pay compensation. This ensures that transfer schemes can require a transferee to pay compensation if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in any given case, for instance, in some circumstances it may be appropriate for a new license holder to pay compensation instead of or as well as the Secretary of State.

 Finally, turning to amendment 31. Yeah.
16:36
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

So.
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Yes.
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Douglas Lumsden.
16:36
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

Thanks, Chris.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Minister.
16:36
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Aye.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, Miss Lowell. As mentioned in Group 12, I wish to speak to amendments 50, 51, 53 and 54 standing in my name and that of my honourable friend. The crux of much of what we have spoken about today, and I'm sure we'll continue to speak about at length on this bill, is the way in which tolls are charged and the amendments that we have put down in this grouping seek to get the clarity that many of our constituents, I am sure, will want around that very question. So amendment 50 is about removing the power of the Secretary of State to specify circumstances in regulations about how tolls must be paid.

 51 is about removing the power from a licence holder to specify equipment to be carried in or fitted to a road vehicle, whilst it is on the licensed highway at 53, requiring consultation before tolls can be charged and 54 requiring parliamentary approval of road user charging. Under this bill, presuming it becomes an act on each occasion that it is implemented. The power to determine how a motorist pays should not be an open ended power to require equipment in vehicles. I simply don't get the necessity or the proportionality of that requirement in the bill, which is why we are seeking to remove it.

 It almost seems like the requirement for equipment in vehicles is taking ten steps backwards in order to use a tolled road. Certainly, tolls can have those little boxes in your windscreen that beep as you go through a barrier. But as has been now widely over multiple decades, proven it's just straightforwardly unnecessary. We are stood in our capital city where you cannot drive a vehicle in without paying the toll. That is the congestion charge that does not involve anyone to have a little box in their windscreen or to have any equipment in their car, because we all have these very straightforward things that have been on our cars for many, many years called number plates.

 And the cameras can very straightforwardly pick any vehicle up as it has gone. By law, you have to have a number plate. And if you haven't paid the tolls, the congestion charge or the Ulez or the Birmingham Clean Air Toll or whatever it might be. Against the registration of your vehicle, then you get a penalty charge notice in the post. It works. Some of us might not particularly like it, but it works. So why on earth should any toll operator or any motorist seeking to use any of these toll roads suddenly be required to be sticking things in their windscreen or putting chips in their car, or whatever it might be?

 I will certainly give way.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I thank.
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

The honourable gentleman's point that there is certainly a problem with ghost plates, but that is an enforcement problem for the authorities, for police forces, for the government to, to, to, to, to crack down on and to stop that criminal practice that he is right to say is going on on our streets. But I am not convinced. I am not convinced that we should legislate for a scheme that will involve the tolling of new infrastructure, like the Lower Thames Crossing, requiring the expense of technology to be going into cars and technology to read that technology in cars in order to pay the tolls.

 When we have the registration system on all of our vehicles in the first place, and those registration plates, we have agreements with many other countries that could conceivably have driven to the United Kingdom from abroad to be able to ensure those are recognisable as well. So indeed, any visitors, particularly to London, driving over from France or Belgium or the Netherlands or wherever it might be, equally then won't need to start strapping devices to their windscreens in order to visit our country, to spend their money here, to enjoy the wonderful things we have to offer in England.

 So I put it to the minister that this could be made a much simpler bill if we simply get rid of those particular provisions. I would also argue that before any toll level is set, and I don't want to relitigate the argument about exactly how much the toll is going to be, but we still don't know . Affected road users, businesses, residents, local authorities should be consulted. Surely that is a straightforward ask. We heard a lot of evidence in our oral evidence sessions from the haulage sector. They already operate on tiny, tiny margins. It is very common for a haulage operator, certainly one that I visit in my own constituency to be operating on as low as a 1% margin.

 It is absolutely vital that if they are going to be charged these tolls and bear in mind, these costs all get added to the ultimate cost of the goods that they are transporting around. So it is inflation fuelling as a measure. They should be able to have their say. To put it clearly on the record, we all know how consultations go. Sometimes they don't. You don't always get what you want, but there should be the ability to it to be clear on on the record the impact that any tolls could have so that that toll, when it is ultimately set, tries to take account of, if nothing else, the market conditions that will dictate whether people are willing to use that road or whether they will take any measure conceivable to avoid getting on it in the first place.

 And any new tolling scheme and any increase to an existing toll. I very much am of the view should require Parliament's approval. Why should that decision be left to operators or ministers or the Orer alone? We need safeguards to prevent unnecessary equipment requirements and parliamentary control to apply to the actual level of any charges.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Thank you, Mr. Loyal. As well. I think the Shadow Minister for his amendments. I'll address each. In turn. Amendment 50 would see the ability of the Secretary of State to reassign responsibility for payment of a toll fee regulation. Shadow Minister argues that this would remove the power to specify any circumstances and regulations about how tolls would be paid. The amendment would remove important flexibility from the tolling system, the ability to make someone other than the registered keeper responsible for paying a toll in specified circumstances. This does matter, as it's not always possible to trace the registered keeper of a vehicle, and there may be situations where it is appropriate for another party to be pursued for payment.

 This could include hire or lease vehicles, as I'm sure his witnesses from last week would attest to. It could also be important when vehicles are registered overseas or following a change of vehicle ownership. Ultimately, it will normally be right for the registered keeper to be held liable to liable for any charges. But this will not always be the case for the reasons I've set out, and it is important that we maintain flexibility on this. Of course, 24 to be allows regulations to address precisely those circumstances provided for someone other than the registered keeper to pay the toll or the keeper liability would be inappropriate.

The question is not if a toll should be paid, but who should be responsible for them. So we would retain the flexibility to make the distinction rather than impose keeper liability in every case. And I would ask the member to withdraw the amendment. Now, turning to amendment 51. This would see the ability for a licence holder to require equipment to be carried in or fitted to a vehicle to be removed. And I think it's worth just pointing out, just because something is in the legislation doesn't mean that there is some dastardly secret plan to implement it.

But I will give a practical example of why this is, is this power is in there because we know that the Dartford Crossing, before the toll barriers were removed, those who wish to do so were able to set up an account and place in their vehicle a smart tag. This smart tag would speak to the toll booth and open the barriers. Charge the account registered to the account. It meant that those who who had the tag did not need to open their window to drop a coin into the bucket of the booth. Their journey. Similar arrangement applied at the Mersey tunnels.

 Of course, there are no longer barriers at the Dartford Crossing, and the charges are based on the number plates of those who cross, and we've already heard from exchanges as to why that is not necessarily a foolproof process. But of course, and this is the point of having this clause in the bill, is we do not know what might happen in future in terms of technology and cars. It's possible we might not have number plates at all. Perhaps there might be chips attached to vehicles which have all the user's data on them. And actually, that would be something that would be very important to be able to second.

 That would be very important in terms of tracing the registered keeper. The fact that we do not know how vehicles will develop in the future is important to keep the bill technology neutral, which is what the purpose of this clause is, and I'll give way.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

He's right.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

Good point.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

Go ahead.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

Yes.
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Well, I'm grateful to the honourable lady's intervention. I would actually say that she's making my case for me, which is that we do need to keep keep up with important changes and risks in the cybersecurity world, which is why keeping this, this bill as technology neutral as possible is important because we simply don't know what will be coming next, and actually giving operators the flexibility to be able to determine what technology is used is a really important part of cybersecurity moving forward. I'll now turn to amendment 53, which would insert specific consultation requirements into the bill before a toll can be set.

 I agree that local communities and those who use tolls should have a voice. The question is not whether they should have a voice, but is how best to secure that engagement within the bill's framework of independent regulation. So, as it stands, the framework places responsibility for the regulator to set tolling requirements for its code and licence conditions and to enforce compliance. Consultation requirements should sit within those arrangements rather than be prescriptive within the Bill. In exercising its functions, they must have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality and and consistently , and keep the interests of users at the heart of its decision making.

 And that is an important safeguard in the bill, which I hope addresses some of the shadow ministers concerns. He will also know that the Bill establishes a stakeholder group which will directly advise the Or, which, again, I think will address the point that a number of voices of users will be heard in this process. So I don't believe that this amendment would improve engagement. It would actually constrain regulator's discretion to determine how best to take forward individual users voices.

And I therefore ask the member to withdraw. Yes.
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Can I thank.
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

The Minister.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I'm grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He's absolutely right. And actually, we believe that it wouldn't be in the interests of. Actually the licence holder to have a differential scheme. But he's he's he's right to raise the importance of that local voice. And we believe that the legislation as it stands, will enable that to happen. I'll finally turn Miss Leal to a moment 54, which would, if enacted, see a requirement inserted for Parliament to approve each new tolling scheme. Making pricing dependent on parliamentary approval, would introduce uncertainty for investors about the revenues on which a scheme depends.

 We need a framework that combines effective public controls with the predictability necessary to attract long term private investment. The Bill seeks to strike that balance through independent regulation. There is a strong independent regulator for the reputation for boosting investor confidence by fostering stable, predictable investment conditions, and it has responsibility for setting tolling requirements and enforcing them. That is the right approach, I believe robust regulatory oversight within a stable, predictable framework, rather than making prices subject to a separate parliamentary decision. My concern is therefore not with scrutiny itself, but with the uncertainty this amendment would create for financing schemes under the bill.

It would make those schemes, including the Lower Thames crossing, less attractive to investors and harder to finance. Therefore, ask the member to withdraw his amendment.
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you. Mr.. To the Minister's response to these amendments, I think on the equipment in vehicles point, as I said in my earlier remarks, we're at danger of taking several steps backwards, as he himself acknowledged that then there were schemes in the past where we used to wind our window down, literally wind it down, rather than press a button and throw a few coins into a basket that has gone, it's over. And so should that be gone and over and move to an Anpr system, albeit with the challenges we have around ghost plates to enforce against.

 And I just don't understand why we would have any interest. This isn't a party political point. This is just a practical point for all of our constituents. Any interest in trying to bring about a scheme that involves boxes and chips and all sorts of things being required to be put into vehicles, heavy goods, vehicles, private vehicles, rather than just using the number plate system that by law, we are all required to have on our vehicles. On the point of consultation, I actually thought the honourable member for Dartford made the point incredibly well , preventing those disincentives to use a new scheme if the toll turns out to be higher than the existing Dartford Crossing schemes, that is a sensible point.

The honourable gentleman knows his constituency far better than any of us, and if he is reporting that that is a live concern from his constituents, I would urge the Minister to listen to to that, so that the good people of Dartford do not find themselves potentially with that disincentive, to use a new scheme because it is priced higher than the existing one. But Mr. Little, I am content to withdraw amendments 50 and 53, both of which I suspect we will come back to at report stage. And I really do invite the Minister to think about how that consultation, in the interests of his colleague, as much as any future schemes, could be addressed before we get to that stage, but feel that amendments 51 and 54, particularly this point on parliamentary approval not for Parliament to set, but given the Minister declined, the rules that we suggested should be around tolling regimes earlier.

 If there won't be the guidance and there won't be the upper limits like there are on debt that any licensee may hold, then that only leaves the option for us as Parliament, as the House of Commons, to be able to take a vote on those tolling arrangements as they come along on each and every occasion.
16:36
16:36
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

50 yes.
16:36
16:36
16:36
16:36
16:36
16:36
16:36
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page