Potholes: Suffolk

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing the debate. He spoke with real passion about the condition of the roads in his constituency and around Suffolk more generally—and rightly so, because this is not an abstract issue. All Members, whether they are present for this debate or not, know that the issue matters to people every day. Getting to work, taking children to school, reaching essential services, supporting local businesses—none of that can happen if we do not have roads. As we have heard, for too many people across Suffolk, those everyday journeys are harder when roads simply are not good enough or safe enough.

The poor state of roads is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned, the product of over a decade of under-investment in our local road network. Potholes have been left unrepaired, surfaces have deteriorated and preventive maintenance has been deferred again and again. We are now dealing with the consequences of that, as we have heard, and we are determined to turn the situation around. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich complained about the short-term funding fixes of the past. It was fair to say that, and he was gracious enough to acknowledge that we are now on a different path.

We are providing a record £7.3 billion of funding for local highways maintenance over the next four years. We are giving not only record funding, but the long-term certainty that councils need to plan properly to resurface roads and tackle the pothole plague, which will hopefully become a thing of the past. It is worth saying that Suffolk county council will receive more than £219 million over those four years, including over £45 million this year alone. That is a significant increase on the £31 million that it received in 2024-25, and a further increase on the £43 million it received last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, the funding received from central Government was as low as £17.5 million in 2020. By 2029-30, that figure will rise to £64 million—almost a quadrupling. All Members would rightly acknowledge that as our giving the necessary resources.

My hon. Friend raised a number of other projects in his constituency and throughout the wider Suffolk area that he would like to see dealt with. It is important to bring all stakeholders together to present credible business cases to try to bid within what he rightly acknowledges is a competitive environment. Every constituency and local authority has lots of projects that they want to be funded.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), asked whether there has been an assessment of funding for rural councils. We have confirmed that we will review the formula ahead of the next highways maintenance funding cycle so that any potential changes can come into effect from 2030 onwards. We will engage with local highway authorities as we consider any changes to the formula, because if it is decided that one area and one type of road network is more deserving, another, by definition, has to lose out. We know that every area has its own challenges, whether geography, climate, traffic levels, or, indeed, as we have heard in the debate, the nature of the local network. That is why funding is currently allocated using established national datasets such as road lengths to provide a fair and, importantly, consistent basis for distribution across England.

Of course, funding is only one part of this; delivery is also important. We have done our part, and it is now up to councils to turn that record investment into visible improvement. That is why we have introduced a strengthened system of transparency reporting, updated ratings and incentive funding. That has a number of elements to it, the first of which is transparency. Local highway authorities published updated transparency reports in September, setting out how they will spend their funding and maintain their networks. That will allow residents to see what their council plans to deliver and it will enable them and hon. Members to hold councils to account. Secondly, ratings measuring road condition, capital spending and adherence to best practice will provide the public with an accessible assessment of how well each authority maintains its roads.

As we have heard, Suffolk county council received an overall red rating for 2025-26. In the light of that, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich asked what support would be provided to the local authority. I can confirm that all red-rated authorities have received support, including peer reviews by sector experts and practical advice tailored to their needs. Of course, we will publish updated ratings in early 2027, drawing on this year’s strengthened transparency reports. We are working with local highway authorities and sector bodies to refine the approach, and we have given councils the opportunity to check their submitted figures before ratings are finalised. We therefore hopefully will not have a repeat of the debate we had with Suffolk county council, whereby one set of figures was submitted to the Department and another was relied on by the council at a later date.

On incentives, to receive their full funding allocation, local highway authorities must meet certain requirements aimed at driving best practice and continual improvement in highways maintenance. This helps to ensure that our record investment is supported by sound planning, professional capability and a commitment to best practice.

Building on that, last month saw the publication of the updated “Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice”, which underpins highway asset management across the sector, with input from local authorities and, importantly, industry partners. This approach is already bearing fruit. This year’s transparency reports show that nationally we are starting to turn a corner. Councils report that they are spending almost £5 billion on highways maintenance this year, more than £800 million more than two years ago. They plan to resurface nearly 7,000 miles of road—the distance from London to Singapore, should anyone wish to drive that far, although I would not recommend it—which is a 10% increase on last year.

We also know that 94% of authorities are now planning preventive treatments, which is up from 76% previously, and the focus is increasingly on stopping potholes from forming in the first place and not simply on patching them up. It is so important that we are able to move to that preventive model, because improving maintenance is about not just smoothing rural journeys, but actually making them safer. The more preventive work that we can do, the safer the roads will be.

In 2024, rural roads accounted for 60% of road fatalities, despite carrying only 45% of traffic. Road users are six times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on rural roads than on others. That is one of the reasons why our road safety strategy sets out targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 65%, and by 70% for children under 16, by 2035. Good maintenance is not merely a question of convenience; it contributes to a safer and more reliable network.

I have already tried to deal with some of the points that hon. Members made, but I will now try to address any remaining ones. I must say that I am intrigued about what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) got up to with the Opposition spokesperson and this cheese business. No doubt when we re-engage with the Highways (Financing) Bill next week, she can tell the Public Bill Committee all about that particular—[Interruption.] Perhaps Hansard will just have to be left guessing as to what exactly went on there.

My hon. Friend made important points about the A143 and its issues over the summer. Decarbonisation is in the metrics, but this about not just decarbonisation, but taking action to ensure that roads are more resilient to climate change by using road surface materials that can withstand extreme heat. The new transport resilience strategy that was published on 2 November strengthens how the transport sector anticipates, prepares and responds to disruptions. Of course, it is fair to say that asset owners—in this case, Suffolk county council—are indeed responsible for ensuring that such matters are dealt with.

My hon. Friend cited an interesting phrase when he said that this is a war and the potholes are winning. I am sorry to hear that that is the case. However, with the record funding that we have delivered, the transparency that we are requiring and the support that we are offering, all local authorities should be winning that war.

The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich asked about skills in the road maintenance sector, which is obviously a very important issue. We want to ensure that we have continuity and succession planning in this vital sector, so the incentive framework is about improving the adoption of best practice. There is a training requirement on local authorities, and how organisations offer training is reflected in an increased interest in training since we introduced that requirement. Actually, 10% more preventive maintenance has resulted from increased training. As I have said, we will give support to those authorities that are red-rated.

The hon. Member asked whether we hold data on how long it takes to fill potholes. He is correct that we do not hold that data, but we do collect data in the transparency reports about whether residents can tell their council about potholes and whether the council then responds about the action it has taken. From a public-facing perspective, that is an important metric. He also asked whether councils could have more access to technology, particularly councils in rural settings; I suggest to him that, because we have set a long-term funding strategy in place and given certainty to local authorities, they will have greater capacity and ability to plan ahead and invest in some of that new technology. He may also want to refer his local authority to the Live Labs 2 innovation programme, which includes several trials of innovative practices in rural areas.

I think I have probably covered hon. Members’ main points. The record funding is all good, but it is incumbent on local authorities—particularly, in this case, Suffolk county council—to use that funding effectively to improve their performance and deliver what I think we in this House all expect: safer, smoother and more reliable journeys. I close by thanking the hon. Member for securing this debate.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reasserting my argument. I hope that the Minister can answer the question. Some speculation has been that the Government want to avoid a hybrid Bill on the lower Thames crossing, and believe you me, Mr Dowd, I see the pitfalls of hybrid Bills in my own constituency, with 35 km of a certain railway being built through the middle of it, but I do not see a real argument why a hybrid Bill would be necessary. Why can we not talk explicitly about the lower Thames crossing in this piece of legislation?

I know the Minister to be a reasonable man, with whom we share agreement on this particular point of the lower Thames crossing, and on a determination to get on with it, so I gently ask him why we cannot have this piece of legislation on something that all parties can get behind. Later, we can have the debate on the other matters, which will take more time to get right with parliamentary scrutiny, but meanwhile we can move forwards.

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank hon. Members in Committee for attending. I hope that we will all learn a little as we go along. I start by recognising the desire of the shadow Minister to reach consensus wherever possible. As the Committee goes on, I am sure that he will find that he is in agreement with me 90% of the time. If not, the Committee will ensure that we are in agreement with the Government position.

The hon. Member makes a lucid argument, which I am here to address. The amendment’s intention is very clear: it would restrict the Bill’s application to the lower Thames crossing. I understand the shadow Minister’s desire to seek clarity on what other projects this legislation might be used for, and it is the case that the Bill has very much been made with a single project in mind—the lower Thames crossing. However, I think that naming the project in the Bill would undermine our attempt here to set up a framework for potential future uses.

It is 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 lower Thames crossing, ensuring a consistent and reliable service. It is important to have both crossings covered, because that will ensure that they are operating in an integrated way. The amendment specifically refers to only the lower Thames crossing, but restricting the Bill in that way would undermine the Government’s intention. Were the legislation used only for the lower Thames crossing, that would undermine its purpose of building a framework for major road infrastructure, and we should not unnecessarily constrain future Governments where this financing approach may be appropriate.

The shadow Minister tempts me to come up with a shopping list of potential projects, but the truth of the matter is that, at the moment, the lower Thames crossing is the only suitable project. It is probably worth flagging that the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which was passed under a Conservative Government, created a power to create tolling roads and I think only one project has ever been built under that legislation. That is not to say that the same will happen here, but getting the lower Thames crossing right will give us confidence moving forward, if a suitable project arises in the future. We do not want to constrain future Governments in this way.

It is also worth bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the amendment having potential procedural consequences, such as the potential risk of hybridisation, which is of course a matter for the House. As the shadow Minister said, the amendment would risk hybridising the Bill, meaning that it would introduce additional parliamentary stages and considerable delay to the delivery of the lower Thames crossing. Hybrid Bills are often used for projects that do not have planning consent, and which need planning consent via Parliament, but that is not the case for the lower Thames crossing.

As we all know, the lower Thames crossing has finally got planning consent, and it already has a very long history. As we discussed on Second Reading, we know that the original work to address the capacity issues around the Thames goes back as far as 2009. Risking hybridisation of this framework Bill would put at risk the timetable for this legislation, and therefore the financing and, ultimately, the delivery of the new crossing.

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, but I am afraid that the amendment would risk the opposite happening. Of course, the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment on Second Reading recognised the urgency of this particular project, so I gently suggest that, were we to accept amendment 46, the progress that has been made would be put at risk of further delay. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

[Greg Smith]

I hear and understand the points that the Minister has made, but the key word he used in his response was “risk”. Although I accept that such risk can exist, I cannot and do not accept that it cannot be mitigated or worked through. The most powerful question all of us have to ask, particularly when Members find themselves in a ministerial position and wanting to make progress on manifesto commitments or on other things the country needs—and that the Government perceive the country needs—is not one about procedure. We must ask: how? How do we make this happen without a hybrid process? How do we make this happen in the fastest possible way?

From the research I have done, though the risk exists that some would argue that a hybrid process would be the only way forward, I can see that there are pathways to doing it as more straightforward legislation, with a usual Second Reading, Bill Committee, Report and Third Reading before we get to the other place. Therefore, we will press this amendment to a vote. We want to show our commitment to building the lower Thames crossing but not write a blank cheque for other schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

No, I do not think we should stall the project. I was very clear in my comments on group 1 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 anything that adds delay is something that we do have to think very seriously about. However, I do not believe it is beyond the wit of any of us to find a way to lower costs without having to relitigate and relegislate on absolutely everything. We should apply a bit of common sense, which is precisely what amendments 47 and 48, by removing that duty from both the ORR and the Secretary of State, would do in this instance.

I very much hope the Committee will consider those amendments in the spirit in which they are intended of delivering value and speed on this project. Indeed, while HVO 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.

Amendment 68 was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. It would prevent

“the Act from coming into force until the Secretary of State has published the guidance to the ORR on how”—

how is the critical word here—

“it must undertake its regulatory functions under the Act.”

I have noticed from having debated other Bills in Committee during this Parliament that there seems to be a bit of a theme of kicking many features of intended legislation into the long grass for future publication; it happened with the Employment Rights Bill, as was. Governments from time immemorial have done that, so it is not a point I make just to the current Government, but I invite the Committee to reflect on it more widely.

Our constituents send us here to do things in their best interests and in the best interests of our country, yet too often, including in the Bill, we are in a place where we straightforwardly say that we are going to pass a law but too much of it has to come later. Too much of the regulation that will actually shape the Bill will come far down the road so we cannot be confident as Members of this place, whether we sit on the Opposition Benches or the Government Benches, precisely what it will look like.

I ask the Minister to give examples of how duties will be applied and whether they could actually form an override of the main task of delivering and regulating roads built under this scheme, including the lower Thames crossing. I confirm that we will support amendment 37, and I hope that the Committee can back amendments 47, 48 and 68.

[Justin Madders]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I welcome the hon. Member for Guildford to the Committee and thank her for moving her amendment. The concern she raises through the amendment is that the impact of licensed roads on the surrounding network should be properly considered. However, that does not mean that we need to extend the Office of Road and Rail’s general duties in clause 1, nor does it mean that the licence holder would be free to disregard the impact of its activities on surrounding local roads, because clause 1 reflects the scope of the licensing regime concerning trunk roads. The Bill deals with the impact on local roads in other, more appropriate ways elsewhere, for example under clause 4.

Before a licence can be granted, the 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. The relationship does not end once the licence is granted; clause 8 also allows the ORR to require the licence holder to co-operate with other highways authorities as part of the licence. The framework for the Bill provides a route for local road impacts to be addressed, without extending the ORR’s overarching duty beyond the roads it is regulating. Local roads are considered as part of the Bill, which provides appropriate ways for their interests to be considered without extending the overarching statutory duties beyond the scope of the licensing regime. The existing provision provides the appropriate balance between ensuring that the wider impacts are considered and giving the ORR a clear and workable statutory duty.

In terms of the specifics of the lower Thames crossing, it is difficult to see what this other local road crossing the Thames would be and how it would be affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has explained so clearly, that is one of the reasons why this project is crucial. I would therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.

I turn to amendment 47 from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. It would remove the ORR’s duty to contribute to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Act. We have deliberately designed those duties as a balanced package. The ORR’s 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. Sustainable development is one of the wider considerations that the ORR must have regard to when carrying out those functions—it does not override the principle considerations.

This is not a novel duty; it is an approach consistent with established economic regulatory regimes in the energy and water sectors, where 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, therefore it is right that sustainable development, including the consideration of environmental impacts, is expressed in the duties in the Bill.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Dowd. Can the Minister give us any idea of how much the sustainable measures are actually costing on the project?

[Justin Madders]

I do not have any particular details on that, so I will write to the hon. Member. The requirements on sustainable development originate from the Environment Act 2021. I know he was not here at that time, but that was a piece of legislation brought in under the then Conservative Government. Under section 19 of that Act, Ministers are required to have due regard to the Government’s environmental principles policy statement when making policy. Those principles ensure that environmental considerations are built into policy making from the outset, as is the case in this Bill, so we are not breaking new ground or doing anything different from what has been done before on sustainable development.

There are real factors to bear in mind in delivering major infrastructure, and it is right that we consider them as part of our consideration of the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, whose constituents are affected by this Bill, would want the local environment to be considered.

I turn now to amendment 48. I think the general thrust of the arguments here will be the same, because the approach we are taking is consistent with established economic regulatory precedents, as seen in the energy and water sectors. The Secretary of State’s primary focus remains the interest of users of trunk roads in England, particularly the efficient and economic delivery of highways and the ability of the licence holder to finance its activities. As I have 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.

To respond to the questions that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked about diesel, as we have already heard, the evidence is clear that this is at best a marginal issue in terms of costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South suggested, reopening this question could lead to significant delay on the project.

Of course, the DCO has been settled for a considerable period. It has brought significant benefits already, in particular large landscape-scale environmental enhancements of semi-natural habitats, woodlands, species-rich grasslands, open mosaic habitats, and wetlands. This approach will support a greater, more diverse range of wildlife than areas such as agricultural land or amenity grasslands. By making LTC a tunnel and extending it, the project will avoid protected wetlands on the banks of the River Thames, helping to reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive habitats such as the marshes special protection area and Ramsar site. That will be of benefit to the wider community, and the suggestion that we withdraw that element of the Bill is regrettable.

Amendment 68 is in this group of amendments, but I do not think the shadow Minister spoke to it, so I seek your advice, Mr Dowd, as to whether we are dealing with it now.

[Greg Smith]

I spoke to amendment 68.

[Justin Madders]

Did you? I must have missed that.

In effect, amendment 68 would force the Secretary of State to publish guidance for the ORR under section 1(5) before the Act came into force and would simultaneously remove the Government’s ability to make regulations ahead of particular clauses coming into force.

Amendment 68 would mean that the vast majority of the Act cannot come into force until the guidance of section 1(5) is published, but there would be nothing meaningful to issue guidance about until the Act is in force, because the bidding would not have happened, we would not know who the investors would be, and therefore we would not know what the ORR would have to provide guidance on. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State could not meaningfully provide guidance.

I turn now to clause 1 stand part and the overall duty that will guide the ORR in carrying out its functions under the Bill, which we have probably already covered in some detail. The ORR must act in a way that it considers best supports the interests of users who use highways covered or potentially covered by the licensing regime. That includes future users, which is important because the ORR might make decisions about a road before construction works or improvement works have been completed.

When carrying out this duty, the ORR must consider the efficient and economical construction, improvement, operation and maintenance of those highways. It must also consider the need for licence holders to be able to finance their activities required under the licence. Of course, those are not the only considerations for the ORR. It must also have regard to safety, as I have said, as well as sustainable development, competition and the effects of its decisions on the wider strategic road network.

The clause also reflects the principles of good regulation. ORR’s regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and they should be targeted only when action is needed. ORR must also have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Clause 1 places road users at the heart of ORR’s role, while ensuring that it takes account of safety, efficient delivery, financial viability and the wider public interest. That is an important framework, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Jim Dickson]

It is clearly incredibly important to all users of this future infrastructure and the present Dartford crossing that the ORR is as capable and fully equipped as it can be to carry out its duties. Up to now, the ORR has been more equipped on rail than on road, even though it has considerable responsibilities for roads at the moment. A recent report commissioned by the Department for Business and Trade indicated that the ORR needed to increase its skills and capacity in order to do this work. Will the Minister reassure my constituents and all other future users of the infrastructure that the ORR will be fully equipped, have full capability and be able to discharge its duties under the Bill?

[Justin Madders]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is vital that the duties set out in clause 1 can be delivered to the best of the ORR’s ability. The whole purpose of the RAB model is that we have a functioning and effective regulator, so resourcing it is vital.

[Greg Smith]

The Minister is making an eminently sensible point about the ORR’s ability. Given that the Department for Transport, in relation to the Railways Bill, is playing down the ability and role of the ORR, will he assure the Committee that the framework being set out is deliverable by the ORR and that it is a capable organisation to take on this important work, when the other arm of the DFT is suggesting that it is not for railways?

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s question. The Bill’s purpose is to give the ORR the powers and ultimately the responsibility to regulate this model. It will be able to levy the licence holder to finance that particular work. A great deal of preparatory work is already going on to ensure that the ORR is capable of delivering the important functions set out under the Bill.

[Alison Griffiths]

The Minister just made the point that the ORR is not yet capable of delivering this. What is the plan from the Secretary of State and the Minister to deliver an ORR that has that capability? We also heard in evidence last week that the ORR does not believe that it is ready for it either.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. There is a plan in place, but it would be a bit ridiculous for us to have everyone ready now when the legislation has not been passed. I assure her that a number of considerations are already taking place about having the right skills. We heard evidence last week that there is confidence that the right skillsets and people will be in place to provide the important functions that the ORR will have to deliver under the legislation.

Clause 2 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 ORR in clause 1 and ensures that both key decision makers operate within a consistent statutory framework. As the Bill gives important functions to the Secretary of State and the ORR, it is therefore important that decisions made by each are guided by the same overarching objectives and principles.

The clause requires the Secretary of State, like the ORR, 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. These 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. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Zöe Franklin]

I thank the Minister for his comments. However, I remain unconvinced about local authorities not having that statutory duty, so I wish to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

The amendment would ensure that licences could only be granted for the construction of new roads. The key word is “only”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in detail why the Government think 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. This goes to the crux of what we are debating today and of what we are being asked to consent to, on behalf of all our constituents who are motorists and who use the strategic road network; I am sure they will enjoy the new lower Thames crossing once it is constructed, but they are concerned that some of the drafting of the Bill opens a back door and a pathway to enabling things that most people, looking through any lens of common sense, would consider to be minor to allow for increases in tolls or, indeed, new tolls.

I do not think that anyone who backed the lower Thames crossing would necessarily be willing to back something that did not itself support, say, a major new piece of road infrastructure, be that the lower Thames crossing or anything else. We explored that point a lot in last week’s oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading. I commend the Minister for his clarity at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading and in his oral evidence in the Boothroyd Room last Thursday about how the Government have—that favoured political phrase—“no intention” of delivering new tolls for other projects. That perhaps includes things as simple as new cameras, line painting that makes the road a bit clearer or smart motorway provisions—not that I believe there is anything smart about smart motorways.

The Government say they do not intend to use any of those mechanisms to introduce new tolls. We therefore have to ask ourselves a question, which is why the Opposition tabled amendment 82. If what the Minister has said is a clear signal and there genuinely is absolutely no intention—for the record, I believe the Minister—why not put it on the face of the Bill? Let us say clearly and unequivocally that the Bill is only about the construction of new roads in the United Kingdom—well, I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South that Scotland is not included in the Bill’s scope—

[Justin Madders]

Or Wales.

[Greg Smith]

Or Wales.

Can the Minister rise to the challenge? Can he make a legislative commitment in line with his words at the Dispatch Box and in oral evidence, and accept amendment 82? If the Government are reluctant, or straightforwardly do not want, to accept the amendment, I fear those questions are forever going to persist in the minds of British motorists and of all road users, be they driving a car themselves or reliant on a car’s passenger seat to be taken wherever they want to go. That is an important point of principle on which the Minister must surely accept the view out there in the country, and the view of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. He should put it on the face of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Lumsden]

Last week, we heard that the Bill is potentially a Trojan horse. We could have narrowed its scope earlier to just the lower Thames crossing with amendment 46, but that was ruled out. We also have issues with what constitutes an “improvement…increasing the capacity”. We have heard that that is not necessarily a new road, or even a new lane built along the whole length of the highway; it could just be smart cameras or other little improvements that increase capacity slightly.

We have had some assurance from the Minister that this will not be a Trojan horse Bill and that it will be used only for the lower Thames crossing, but as we know, Ministers change, Governments change. We are meant to put that all down to trust. The amendment therefore makes it quite clear that this has to be a new road, and the measure would only be able to be used on that new road.

As things stand, I think we are leaving too much down to interpretation—leaving too much to having faith in Governments that may come and go. This is probably the most important amendment that we will look at today, so I think it is vital that it is included in the Bill to make it as clear as possible that the Bill applies just to new roads. It even should apply just to the lower Thames crossing.

[Justin Madders]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this group. Without doubt, the scope of the licensing regime is an important subject, including which road schemes can be brought in and—as amendment 81 refers to—how local authorities should be consulted.

Turning to amendment 82, I thank the shadow Minister for raising the issue of the circumstances in which a licence can be granted for improvements to existing highways. He asked why the licence would extend beyond the construction period. The simple answer to that is that the model is deliberately designed around the whole life cycle of major infrastructure, not simply the point at which it is built. That is why the Bill provides not only for construction, but for qualifying capacity-enhancing improvements and the subsequent operation and maintenance of infrastructure within the regime.

In particular, things such as the lower Thames crossing, a very expensive project, will need consistent and persistent maintenance and repair. That matters because one of the benefits we seek from this model is strong long-term management of assets. The regulatory framework provides ongoing oversight, with incentives to manage operating costs and maintenance investment efficiently over the life of the infrastructure. Removing capacity-enhancing improvements would unnecessarily restrict the framework. It would mean that the model could not be used for major upgrades to existing road infrastructure, simply because the project involves improving an existing road rather than constructing an entirely new one. For example, a significant reconstruction of an existing bridge to add capacity, or a new tunnel that increases the capacity of an existing highway, could be excluded from the regime.

[Douglas Lumsden]

I asked this question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and I will ask the Minister the same. When this Bill comes into play, if an improvement were made on one small section of a road, could a toll be introduced for the whole length of that highway, or could it be introduced only for the small section where the improvement was made?

[Justin Madders]

That would be where clauses 1 and 2 come in, which should give the hon. Member sufficient reassurance. It is important to say—I will use scouse terminology, if you do not mind, Mr Dowd—that I think the arguments coming forward are a bit jarg. I do not know if that is a phrase the Committee is familiar with, but it is a bit of a scaring-the-horses moment—a bit of a ride on the ghost train. Unfortunately, that is what we have come to expect from the Opposition. They are trying to create a scare story where none exists. I have to be clear, as I was on Second Reading and in the evidence sessions, that improving an existing road does not mean that the road will automatically be brought into the regime or be subject to tolls.

[Alison Griffiths]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

I will just finish.

Establishing and structuring a RAB arrangement comes with significant costs, so for small-scale improvements such as the setting up of a speed camera, it is just not going to be financially viable for anyone to consider it. In practice, it simply would not be justified, or work, in any way. We are clear from the evidence that we heard last week that the model will make sense only for projects of sufficient scale, where the benefits of bringing in long-term private investment justify those costs.

Members should be clear that I know that what I say on the record is relevant to the intention of the Bill, and that that will be something that any future court will take into account.

[Greg Smith]

rose—

[Justin Madders]

I will now give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.

[Alison Griffiths]

I will pass to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand the arguments he is putting forward, and I reiterate that I believe his intent—but we are not being asked to put his intent on the statute book; we are being asked to put the words that are printed in the Bill on to the statute book. Therefore, to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, is it conceivable, under the Bill as currently written, that if, at some point down the path, a new road licensed under this Bill that carries a toll has another enhancement built into it under a new licence—a bridge, a crossing or whatever it might be—that enhancement could have a new and separate toll added just for that small section, compared with the entire length of the original road?

[Justin Madders]

We are very clear that the clause is about the specified highway. It is about the trunk road. It is about the protections in clauses 1 and 2. I will simply push back that, if there was some secret plan to expand road tolls, there is already legislation in place that would allow us to do that. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which was passed by the hon. Member’s party in Government, created the powers to introduce road tolling. If there was a secret plan to do that, we would not need to bring forward legislation. This is about setting up a new regulatory model to bring in investment for particular projects.

[Alison Griffiths]

I refer back to the intervention that I was going to make earlier, which was about clarity. The Minister said several times that he was being very clear, but I would gently suggest that the legislation is not very clear. That is the point that several of us are making: we are in danger of passing legislation that may not deliver what is perhaps intended by the Minister at this stage. It is at a point where a future Government, perhaps not as benign as others, might abuse the wording of the legislation. We are really just looking to ask the Minister to be clear in the Bill, not just in his words.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and her description of “benign”, which I will frame and put on my wall at home.

The Bill is clear. There are reasons why we have to look at the existing network, particularly when we consider what is happening in the lower Thames crossing. The simple economics of this would not be attractive to investors if we were going to broadly open up road charging across the country—as I say, there is already legislation that would enable us to do that. The clause is about setting up a specific financial model, which will have strong regulation and will enable capacity-enhancing improvements to be made to the road network. As I say, it is very clear that there are sufficient protections already within the legislation to avoid the situation that Opposition Members are concerned about.

Turning to amendment 44, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for raising the question of capacity-enhancing improvements. We will be clear that this framework is intended for major road infrastructure, not for minor changes to the road network. There are practical constraints on the use of this model. Again, as I have referred to, clauses 1 and 2 require the ORR to act in the “interests of users” of the highway specified in licences or proposed to be specified. Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to act in the

“interests of users of trunk roads in England.”

Both have regard to the principle that regulatory action should be proportionate and targeted only where it is needed. I am not entirely sure that the amendment would deliver the changes that the hon. Gentleman proposes. I am concerned that, while he is talking about an extra lane, he has not put any de minimis length on that, which might give a future non-benign Government encouragement to take it further than is our intention.

We have to be clear that establishing and structuring a RAB arrangement carries substantial costs. It must be sufficiently large and economically viable for that financing approach to make sense. We heard evidence that the geography of this country is such that simply adding lanes on here and there is not a viable option. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman not press his amendment to a Division.

The shadow Minister spoke to amendment 81. I hope I never have a call from him when he is feeling frustrated—I am not sure how that would go for either of us—but he made an important point about ensuring that local and mayoral authorities are notified where there may be a proposed scheme. It is of course the case that the Bill already ensures that the relevant authorities are consulted. As set out in clause 4, before any licence can be granted, the licensing authority must publish the proposal, which must also be shared with the relevant bodies, expressly including the strategic highways company and any other appropriate bodies exercising highway functions. At least 28 days must be allowed for representations from those bodies.

Different projects will affect different places and different authorities. Therefore, the right consultees will depend on the project. As we have seen in recent times, the structure of local government can change, so it would not make sense to hardwire into legislation that particular types of authority should be consulted, because that could become outdated.

[Greg Smith]

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that we might move on from either a local authority or mayoral model? Those are the two that we have at the moment, and no one is suggesting anything else, so it is hard to see how it could possibly be the case that we move on from the environment, which we are trying to lock into the Bill with amendment 81, of local authorities and/or mayors.

[Justin Madders]

Of course the answer to that is that we cannot predict the future. In 2010, the idea of a mayoral combined authority was nothing more than a glint in George Osborne’s eye. It is about future-proofing the legislation: it does not make sense for us to come back at a later stage to add in extra consultees, because the Bill already has the correct powers to ensure that the licensing authority must consult appropriate bodies. That makes the framework flexible enough to respond both to the circumstances of individual projects and to changes in local government structures over the life of the legislation, which will be significant, because of the LTC project.

Clause 3 is at the heart of a lot of the debate today. The clause establishes what a licence is, what it can authorise and the circumstances in which one can be granted. The purpose of the licensing regime is to provide the framework through which private investment can support the delivery of strategic road infrastructure. In simple terms, clause 3 allows a licensing authority to grant a person a licence giving them the right to charge tolls on a highway specified in that licence. But that right is not freestanding; it is granted in return for the licence holder securing specified works to the highway.

The works fall into three main categories. A licence may support the construction of a highway; it may support the improvement of an existing highway, where the purpose is to increase its capacity; and, where a highway has already been constructed or improved under this licensing regime, it may provide for its maintenance, operation or further improvement. If another highway is specified in the licence, the licence may also authorise the licence holder to charge tolls in respect of that highway. That is an important point about the structure of the regime. Clause 3 is not simply a general power to allow private companies to charge motorists; the authority to charge tolls is tied directly to the licence holder securing the highway works specified in the licence. In addition, clause 3 does not allow the model to be applied indiscriminately across the road network.

We have heard the concern about the measure meaning a change to existing roads. A small improvement to an existing road, such as a smart motorway camera, does not automatically mean that that road will be brought into the regime or become subject to tolls. A highway can be included in a licence only if it is, or is to be, a trunk road in England, or part of one. The licensing regime created by this part is therefore deliberately confined to that network.

Clause 3 also sets out who may grant the licences. When the regime first begins, both the Secretary of State and the ORR will be licensing authorities. This is known as the “initial period”. Put simply, it is the period for dealing with the first licence under the Bill. Once the first licence has been issued, the initial period will end and the ORR will become the licensing authority. The end of the initial period will be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.

It is important to say that there is an additional safeguard during that initial period. The ORR cannot itself grant a licence without the Secretary of State’s consent. Where the Secretary of State gives that consent, the decision must be published in a way that the Secretary of State considers appropriate to bring it to the attention of people likely to be affected. Where the Secretary of State grants the licence directly, a copy must be provided to the ORR as soon as reasonably practicable.

Clause 3 should also be read alongside the safeguards in the rest of the licensing framework. In particular, clause 4 requires consultation before a licence can be granted. The proposal must identify both the works to be secured and the highway on which tolls would be authorised, and there must be at least 28 days for representations. A licence cannot be granted unless that consultation requirement has been met.

That is an important safeguard because bringing a road into this regime is of course a significant decision. Before a licence is granted, those likely to be affected have an opportunity to understand what is proposed and make representations. The licensing authority must go through that process before deciding whether the licence should be granted.

It is also important to be clear that, whether we are talking about a new road or a capacity enhancing improvement, the regime is confined to the trunk road network. A highway can only be included in a licence if it is, or is to become, a trunk road in England.

We will come later to clause 81, which makes the necessary changes to the existing trunking provisions in section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 so that a new highway built under this licensing regime can become a trunk road. It does not create a blanket new power to designate any road as a trunk road; rather, it enables the existing process to work for the new type of highway.

[Alison Griffiths]

I thank the Minister for giving way. This should be the easiest intervention to reply to—I only wish to ask him to speak more slowly so that I can understand what he is saying.

[Justin Madders]

Apologies to the hon. Member.

Taken together, these provisions mean that the Bill can support both new strategic roads and significant capacity enhancing improvements, while remaining firmly focused on the trunk road network. The licensing authorities will also exercise their functions within the overarching statutory duties we have just debated. Those duties put the interests of road users at the centre of decision making, while requiring consideration of matters including efficiency and economy, safety, the wider strategic road network, sustainable development and competition.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response, particularly on amendment 82. However, as the debate has moved on, the official Opposition are actually no further forward on the clarity we seek. The Minister likes to paint a picture of us looking for a scare story or something that would be more befitting of trick-or-treating last Saturday night; that is not what the Opposition are seeking to do. We are seeking clarity. We are seeking, through the usual procedures of this House, to check that the Bill in front of us does what it says it is going to do, without having an unintended negative consequence.

In the answers the Minister has given about whether we should restrict the measure to the construction of a new road in its entirety, we still do not know the answer to whether it is feasible, to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South made, that a licence could be granted for a subsection of a road that already has a master licence for the entirely of its run.

In his response, the Minister made reference to the installation of smart motorway cameras. I accept the point on a simple set of cameras. What is still unclear is whether a motorway that is part of the strategic road network, and is not currently designated as a smart motorway—the M40, which runs in part through my own constituency, is an example—could suddenly find itself with a licence, and therefore a toll, if it is permanently changed to an all-lane running motorway by turning what we currently know as the hard shoulder into a permanent running lane. I categorically do not want that scenario, but as this Bill is drafted it is unclear at best whether that would be permitted.

Therefore, without repeating it, I come back to the core argument that, for the Bill to work as I think the Minister intends it to, it should restrict the operation of a new licence to the construction of new roads, as amendment 82 makes clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am not sure the private motorcar has been promoted over everything else. I accept the challenge the hon. Member lays down about the issues young people have securing a driving test in a timely manner, but the statistics out there absolutely show that—whether it is people commuting to work, travelling for leisure or a holiday, getting kids to school or whatever—the majority of miles travelled across the totality of the country are by private car. That is why the Bill seeks to ensure that the lower Thames crossing is built and there are potential future capacity increases elsewhere: so that the vast majority of our constituents—outside of the country’s major cities, like London, which have tube networks and more frequent bus services—can use their cars. We take issue with amendment 45. I will reflect, when we break for lunch, on whether to report to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that the Liberal Democrats have called the junction to Staines on the M25 a “road to hell.”

Amendment 87, which would provide for a comprehensive assessment of the impact on local roads, has more to be said for it. I will not repeat the arguments I made earlier about the importance of the local road network supporting any new infrastructure. There is some merit in the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. This is something we should all reflect on. We must try not to look at the road network as if it can be compartmentalised into the strategic road network and local roads, but to see the two as part of a single ecosystem that cannot be separated.

[Justin Madders]

I turn first to amendment 45. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for raising whether alternative transport investment should be considered before a licence is granted. I have to say that I have never been entirely clear whether the Liberal Democrats support the lower Thames crossing. The hon. Gentleman’s comments push him more into the “no” territory, but as the Bill progresses we will no doubt see whether they can support it.

[Olly Glover]

Given that the Minister was putting words in my mouth, let me clarify my view. We do support the lower Thames crossing, because the Dartford crossing is under pressure and there is no resilience when it closes, but that does not mean that we support only the lower Thames crossing. The problem with policy over decades—I disagree with the shadow Minister on this—is that it has been roads, roads, roads, and motorways, motorways, motorways. It should be not either/or, but both.

[Justin Madders]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s clarity. I understand his argument, but it is probably a bit late now. The assessment on alternative transport options belongs in the scheme appraisal and the business case process, not in this Bill, which is about whether to grant a licence in the first place.

The Association for Consultancy and Engineering was clear in its written evidence that schemes must be

“sufficiently developed before financing and procurement decisions are taken.”

As the hon. Gentleman knows, for the lower Thames crossing, the development consent order has already been issued, and all the issues that he talked about were considered. It has been approved, and construction is under way.

The Bill is not about which road should be built; it is about creating an additional financing and regulatory framework, which can be used where there is a need for a road scheme. It is not about putting roads ahead of rail or bus transport. That will be considered through the earlier business case process. Requiring that to be assessed again once the licence has been granted would duplicate the work and add delay. As hon. Members have said, there is an urgent need for this scheme to proceed, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

On Opposition amendment 78, we debated a similar point when we discussed amendment 81. The shadow Minister did not press that amendment to a vote, but given the gusto with which he advanced his argument today, he may press amendment 78. I will not repeat the point that have been made, but clause 4(1)(b)(iv) requires that consultation includes

“such other persons (including persons exercising functions in relation to highways) as the licensing authority considers appropriate.”

So the assurances that Opposition Members seek are there in black and white.

If we are too prescriptive, we may not cover every type of authority. At the moment, we know exactly what the local authority structures are but, as we have seen in recent years, that can change, so it would not be prudent to hardwire that into primary legislation. The Bill rightly allows the licensing authority to identify and consult the appropriate bodies exercising high-risk functions for the scheme. That makes the framework flexible enough to respond to the circumstances of individual projects and changes to local government structures over the lifetime of the legislation.

On amendment 87, I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. We absolutely recognise that major road schemes can have impacts on surrounding local roads, and they need to be properly considered—indeed, the lower Thames crossing is proceeding because we want to improve the conditions on the local roads—but I do not believe that the amendment puts the consideration in the right place.

Licences granted under the Bill are about bringing qualifying trunk road projects within the new financing and regulatory framework. It is not the process through which the underlying impacts of a road scheme are first identified and addressed. Those impacts, including changes to traffic and congestion, should be considered through the development and planning of the road scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, for the lower Thames crossing, traffic forecasts were assessed and considered as part of the development consent order, which is the appropriate stage for such considerations. Carrying out that work again would delay the project and duplicate work that has already been completed.

Clause 4 sets out the requirements that must be met for consultation before a licence can be granted under the Bill. It ensures that the grant of a licence is subject to a clear, transparent and accessible consultation process, giving those likely to be affected a proper opportunity to make representations before the licence is granted. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Lewell. You missed some exciting debates this morning; I hope we can maintain the standard this afternoon.

The clauses in this group relate primarily to the licensing regime. They are about making sure that the regime works, not just when the licence is granted but throughout its life. The Bill provides a clear process for applications, the duration of licences and continuing regulatory oversight to ensure that licence holders are properly held to account.

Clause 5 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 an application, the information and documents that must accompany it, and any application fee. The Secretary of State must consult the Office of Rail and Road 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. That will help to 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 is 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. That 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 the reconsideration period, the applicant may appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Clause 5 establishes a clear and transparent application process, while providing flexibility to specify detailed requirements in regulations and appropriate safeguards where an application is refused. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 6 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. That allows the duration of a licence to reflect the circumstances and requirements of the particular project.Where a licence has been granted for a specified period, the ORR 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 ORR to give the licence holder appropriate notice of its intentions. At least one year before the end of a specified licence period, the ORR 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 expiration of the licence and the future operation of the highway.Clause 6 therefore establishes a clear and flexible framework for the duration and extension of licences, while ensuring that licence holders receive suitable notice before a time-limited licence is due to expire.I commend it to the Committee.

I will turn briefly to amendment 49 once we have heard from the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend makes some interesting suggestions. I challenge the Government to reflect upon—[Interruption.] One Government Back Bencher is leaving already, it seems.

[Justin Madders]

Don’t worry about that.

[Greg Smith]

It’s getting closer! [Laughter.]

Maybe the Government can go back and reflect on that, and before Report, when the Bill returns to the whole House, they will have a sensible suggestion or counter-proposal on the table for how we properly monitor and review the operation of these licences.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his contribution. I enjoy when he and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton riff off of each other—it is like a remake of “Dempsey and Makepeace”; I hope they put themselves forward for the leading roles. To be fair to the shadow Minister, I think that he is coming from the right place on this. It is important that we have assurances that the licences work and deliver the appropriate standard of service, and I agree that we need to hold licence holders to account, but I will explain why I do not believe that amendment 49 is the right vehicle for doing that, if Members will pardon the pun.

First, I do not think that we should fix a five-year review cycle in primary legislation. The appropriate level and frequency of any regulatory scrutiny could change over the life of a licence. A newly established licence may require a different approach from a mature licence, and different projects may present different issues. If this amendment was accepted, we may not actually have the lower Thames crossing operational five years into the licence. When we looked at how best to frame this, because the shadow Minister raised an important matter—

[Greg Smith]

The amendment is very clear in saying, “review each licence”. That is not to say, “treat each licence as if they are identical,” because of course as time passes there might be different regulatory set-ups or safety standards that a new licence is granted under. We are very clear that each licence must be reviewed every five years, as opposed to—as I think the Minister is trying to argue—treating them all the same.

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman may unwittingly be making my point for me, which is that we want to have regular consideration and an ongoing process from the regulator. We looked at how existing licencing regimes work, including, for example, the Civil Aviation Act 2012. As I am sure he realises, there is no review period specified in that Act, because in practice the Civil Aviation Authority regularly reviews and updates the licences that it has issued. The fact that there is no specified review period has not hindered it in carrying out that role. It is apparent from how the Civil Aviation Authority operates that it takes a proactive approach; that is what we are trying to do here. It does not wait five years to spot a problem and deal with it, but deals with problems as they arise. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see that as a preferable approach to waiting five years between reviews.

Secondly, a number of the issues listed in the amendment are already reflected in the ORR’s statutory duties. Clause 1 puts the interests of road users at the heart of the ORR’s role. It also requires the ORR to have particular regard to efficiency and economy, and the ability of the licence holder to finance its activities, as well as to have regard to matters including safety and impacts on the strategic road network. Under clause 1(5), the Secretary of State can provide guidance to the ORR about how they would like it to interpret or carry out its duties, and the Secretary of State can update that if they are not satisfied with that interpretation. Those duties are continuing duties under clause 1; they do not suddenly trigger after five years or at any other arbitrary point.

Compliance with the licence is also already covered by the Bill’s regulatory regime. Part 4 gives the ORR powers for monitoring and information gathering, and provides for enforcement when licence conditions are not met. Clause 7(5) requires the ORR to keep tolling conditions imposed on the licence in clause 7 under review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, clause 11 gives powers to amend licences. The shadow Minister talked about the absolute disaster scenario, which we hopefully will not see, but clause 12 gives powers to revoke licences. Therefore, there would be no need to wait five years, and I think it is clear that the flexibility and ongoing review that the Bill sets out is the correct approach.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The amendment is asking for a couple of specific things to be in the review:

“the financial performance and resilience of the licence holder, including the returns generated from toll revenues, and…the impact of the operation of the highway and the tolls charged on traffic volumes and congestion on surrounding roads.”

In the interest of transparency, does the Minister not think that it would be good for the general public to see the main criteria in the amendment?

[Justin Madders]

I was about to sit down, but there are publication requirements in clause 78, which will deal with a number of the issues that the hon. Member referred to, so I request that the Committee reject the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Tolling and other mandatory conditions

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 7, page 6, line 11, at end insert—

“(c) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to compensate affected local highway authorities for extraordinary maintenance costs, traffic management or congestion mitigation arising from any increased traffic as a result of vehicles avoiding tolls on the chargeable highway.”

This amendment ensures that local authorities are compensated for the knock-on costs of increased traffic on local roads as a result of drivers aiming to avoid the toll road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I am sure that the Italian model works well to make the number of minutes delayed commensurate to the compensation paid, but he himself acknowledges that he does not know the manner in which it is determined. I would be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to look at options—

[Justin Madders]

The coalition is coming back.

[Greg Smith]

There are no coalitions here. There is only one audition going for the next general election, and it will not be looking toward our side of the House.

If there is a sensible solution that does not involve state snooping on our motorists as they use this new infrastructure, the principle that someone has paid their money and should expect a quick journey time is a fundamentally good one, and it should apply.

Amendment 72 would prevent the Bill from coming into force until after the Secretary of State has published a report that sets out the proposed licence conditions, including—this is the $64,000 question, though I hope not literally—tolling arrangements. Throughout the debates so far, a number of questions have been asked about that. I understand the technical nature of the answers, but bluntly, that does not cut it with our constituents. No one can answer how much it will actually cost motorists to use the lower Thames crossing or how the tolling mechanism will be regulated to give clear, unambiguous rules about how a toll must be set and if there will be any caps on it, so that drivers, motorists, private cars and hauliers alike can have confidence in what is coming.

That is simply what amendment 72 seeks to do. The public should know how tolls will be set and how any increases—an equally important point—will be approved before the regime starts operating. It is not good enough for the road to be built and for people to then find out that they cannot afford to use it. Why should Parliament commence the Act before those conditions are published? If the Minister can come back with some clear guidance and rules around that, we will be much closer to full-throttled support for what he is trying to do. We want the lower Thames crossing, but we do not want it at a rate that nobody can afford to use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shivani Raja]

We are generally in agreement that it is essential that both transparency and cost control sit at the heart of this framework. Drivers and local businesses deserve to know exactly what they are being asked to pay before any tolling arrangements are introduced. We cannot expect motorists to accept potentially significant and unexpected costs without first having a clear understanding of what those charges will be, and how they will be determined.

Amendment 72 is about ensuring proper scrutiny before decisions are made and effectively locked in. By requiring licence conditions and proposed toll levels to be published before the Act comes into effect, Parliament has the opportunity to examine the arrangements and understand the potential impact on roads users and motorists.

Ultimately, people deserve transparency, accountability and certainty. We must ensure that the interests of drivers and local businesses in all our constituencies are properly protected, and that no one is left facing unexpected costs without having had the opportunity to understand them.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Members for Mid Buckinghamshire and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for their amendment.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage tried to make a noble case for something that this Government are already dealing with through the record funding for highways maintenance that we have announced and are already delivering on. I understand the thrust of his argument about compensation to local highway authorities for displaced traffic. The right approach is to undertake an assessment of the whole strategic road network, to understand what improvements and likely increases to overall capacity could achieve more widely. Then, we should assess the impact if we do not proceed.

Of course, the whole thrust of the Bill is to reduce congestion, not increase it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has said on many occasions, we know that his 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. There are already local problems as people try to find alternatives to avoid the congestion it has caused. That is clearly not because people are trying to avoid the toll, which has been in place for many years; it is actually about the lack of reliability at that vital pinch point. The answer is not to compensate people for delays caused by trying to avoid that unreliability; the answer is to make the Dartford crossing more reliable so that people actively choose that road.

[Olly Glover]

The Minister, as he has in a few of his speeches, is talking as if the Bill is only about the lower Thames crossing, but it is not. It is much broader than that, as he has acknowledged, although it is focused on the lower Thames crossing. If the Bill was just about the lower Thames crossing, I might well agree with his argument, as there are no alternatives in that particular case. But as drafted, it is not just about the lower Thames crossing, is it?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that the Bill is scheme-agnostic, but as the lower Thames crossing is the only scheme we currently have in mind, it is helpful to draw examples from that for why the amendment is not acceptable.

It is probably also worth pointing out that I am not aware of any other such toll schemes operating in this country at the moment. Is it his position that this compensation measure should be extended to the Mersey tunnels or the Mersey Gateway crossing, for example? My local transport authorities might be interested to hear that, and they might wonder where the funding would come from.

As I have said, the whole purpose of the Bill is to create the regulated asset base model that will fund the crossing. It will be a separate income stream from the general roads budget, and those who benefit directly from the new infrastructure will pay for it. It will improve the reliability of the whole network, which is the correct approach and is far more effective than trying to compensate people for an already overstretched and failing network.

[Greg Smith]

I genuinely do not think the Minister and I are that far apart, because I do not disagree with anything he has just said about getting the new infrastructure to work in the interests of motorists. Where I think he has perhaps missed the point that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and I have made is that, in order to get traffic flows on to that new infrastructure, in many cases it is conceivable that local roads will see a much higher level of use than they do today. Therefore does the Minister acknowledge that getting new infrastructure up and running well, in the interests of motorists at a price they can afford, will have an impact on the rest of the road ecosystem, mainly falling on those local authority-owned and financed roads?

[Justin Madders]

I understand the hon. Member’s point, but I cannot say I agree with it because the traffic is already on the local road network. The whole purpose of the Bill is to take that traffic away. It is worth reiterating that we do not intend to do a deal at any cost. We need to do the right deal for road users and make sure this legislation has the necessary protections in place for them. Heaping more costs on to the project by bringing in a wide and broad compensation package would have unintended consequences.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage mentioned the perceived unfairness of the road maintenance formula, which the Department is committed to reviewing, but I cannot accept his amendment and I say the same about amendment 40. That would insert a mandatory licence condition requiring an automated refund system to be provided by a licensee. As I have already stated, the amendment would be contrary to what we are trying to achieve. The shadow Minister talked amusingly about people driving deliberately slowly to try to get a repayment. I am not sure people would be that Machiavellian, but maybe those are the circles he mixes in.

It is fair to say that road users rightly expect well-maintained roads, and they expect operators to minimise disruption in line with their network management duties. However, safe roads require maintenance, and maintenance sometimes requires roadworks. An automatic refund requirement would disincentivise operators from undertaking necessary maintenance and roadworks. It would give them a financial incentive to postpone what might be necessary maintenance. The better approach 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.

--- Later in debate ---

Other provision about conditions of licences

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 7, line 23, leave out paragraph (l).

This amendment removes paragraph (l) from clause 8(2) because the provision is considered unnecessary.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 8 to 10 stand part.

[Justin Madders]

Amendment 1 is a small amendment to remove an unnecessary paragraph from clause 8(2). Paragraph (l) currently specifies that a licence may have a condition prohibiting transfer of the licence unless it is done under the provisions set out in clause 14. That is not necessary, as compliance with the provisions is already required by clause 14 itself. This is therefore a minor tidying-up amendment to remove an unnecessary provision, which I hope the shadow Minister will be able to support.

Clause 8 allows a licensing authority to include additional project-specific conditions in a licence, which will sit alongside the conditions that must be included under clause 7. That flexibility is important because each project will be different, and 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 holder’s 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 the ORR 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 the ORR 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 clause 8 is not exhaustive, and it is not designed to be. That ensures that a licence can include any other appropriate conditions needed for the project. I think the overarching principle is pretty clear from the list in subsections (2)(a) to (2)(k), but I will give the Committee a bit more detail.

Paragraph (a) is about making sure the licence holder is financially stable and resilient. It gives the ORR the option to lay out things such as the level of debt the licence holder can have.

Paragraph (b) is about making sure that all the things a licence holder must or may do in respect of the road are spelled out in the licence, such as that it must construct the road, for example.

Paragraph (c) is about how the licence holder does the things that are spelled out in the licence. For example, that might be abiding by the planning conditions laid out in the planning permission for a scheme.

Paragraph (d) is about detailing the consents that the licence holder will or will not need for certain actions.

Paragraph (e) makes it clear that the licence holder must abide by directions from the Secretary of State or the ORR.

Paragraph (f) makes sure the licence holder refers appropriate matters to the ORR.

Paragraph (g) makes sure the licence holder is clear that it has to pay the Secretary of State for any costs incurred by the Secretary of State on its behalf.

Paragraph (h) makes sure the licence holder co-operates with National Highways or a local highway authority, for example, when fulfilling its duties under the Highways Act 1980, to give one example.

Paragraph (i) is about the information that a licence holder may be required to share with the ORR or others.

Paragraph (j) is about making sure that land acquired for the building of any scheme under the RAB model—for example, land acquired for environmental mitigation of the lower Thames crossing—is used for its intended purpose and not for some other purpose. For example, if the land was designated for environmental mitigation but the licence holder tried to build a housing estate on it instead, that would be a breach of the licence.

Lastly, paragraph (k) is probably the easiest to explain, because it is there to ensure that the licence holder abides by the licence, particularly in making sure that the correct standards of road construction and operation are used.

Clause 8 therefore provides the flexibility to tailor each licence, while ensuring that the licence holder’s responsibilities are clear. Because the licence will change over time, depending on the stage of the project, the clause needs to reflect that. For example, the road that the licence holder is required to construct will be complete at some point, so a construction condition will then no longer be needed. As I have said, the clause is not an exhaustive list but is designed to ensure that a licence can include any appropriate conditions needed for an individual project. I commend the clause and amendment 1 to the Committee.

Clause 9 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 to give licence holders, investors, the ORR and road users certainty about the core obligations that apply while avoiding unnecessary repetition in individual licences. These standard conditions must be published and provided to the ORR, and 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 the licence automatically.

Clause 9 also preserves appropriate flexibility. The licensing authority may exclude or modify standard conditions when granting a licence, where that is justified for the project. Clause 10 requires publication, consultation and protections against undue competitive disadvantage before the licensing authority may do so. Clause 9, therefore, provides a combination of regulatory consistency and proportionate project-specific flexibility.

Clause 10 sets out the safeguards that apply where a licensing authority proposes to exclude or modify a standard condition when granting a licence. Before excluding or modifying the condition, the authority must publish a notice setting out the proposed change, its effect and the reasons for it. The notice must be sent to the other licensing authorities, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons, and 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 in competing with others. If it proceeds, it must publish the final change, explain its effect and 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 commend these clauses to the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of these clauses and Government amendment 1. He will be pleased to know that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not object to Government amendment 1. We might ask why such an obvious duplication in the Bill was not picked up before it was published, but we will perhaps leave that for another day.

Speaking more widely to clauses 8 to 10, though probably more in the realm of clause 8, I would be grateful if the Minister could visualise some of the scheme-specific variations that he spoke of. With only the lower Thames crossing really in anyone’s eye under the provisions of this Bill, can he give us some practical, concrete examples of where such scheme-specific variations may come about, to help the House, the Committee and our constituents to fully understand the scope?

Clause 8(2)(a) talks about conditions

“relating to the financial resilience of the holder of the licence or otherwise relating to the holder’s financial arrangements”.

The Minister directly referred to how much debt a licensee might be allowed to have, under the scheme of a licence. I do not object to that as a core principle, but if it is to be the case that something can be laid down as clearly as how much debt-gearing an operator or licensee is permitted to have, surely it can also be written into any licence not necessarily the exact pounds and pence of what any toll can 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. Maybe, as we are talking about debt-gearing to build infrastructure such as the lower Thames crossing, a licence could say that the toll must not be any more than the total debt divided over how many years the Secretary of State or the ORR deems the licence to cover.

That is the most important question flowing through all the amendments and all the debates on this Bill: how much are the tolls actually going to cost people to use these roads? I fully accept that a pounds and pence figure is very difficult to conjure up, but surely clause 8(2)(a) would give us the ability to set the parameters of a toll. If we can set the debt limit, we can surely set limits for the tolls.

[Justin Madders]

I think the shadow Minister supports the amendment, which is good to hear. On his question about other potential variations, conditions could cover the use of land, the design or operation of the highway, information sharing and co-operation with other bodies. Because the Bill is scheme-agnostic and creates a framework designed for the long term, it really is not possible to be any more specific than that; indeed, I think it is prudent for us to keep a broad thrust in the Bill.

On the shadow Minister’s other point, the Bill already contains safeguards for tolling levels; he need only look at clause 7 on tolling conditions, which sets out some of the safeguards through the ORR. I hope that gives him some reassurance. I acknowledge that he recognises—I think—that we are not going to be able to set a precise toll in legislation. I say there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that it will be set at a proportionate level; I suspect he does not agree, but I believe that those safeguards are clear in the Bill.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Modification of licence conditions after grant

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 11, page 10, line 13, at end insert—

“(9) Nothing in this section prevents the modification of a licence by a scheme—

(a) under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 (transfer schemes) in reliance on paragraph 2A(3)(b) of that Schedule, or

(b) under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 (highways administration transfer schemes) in reliance on paragraph 5(6)(b) of that Schedule.”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 29 and 35.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 11 to 13 stand part.

Government amendments 3 and 4.

Clauses 14 and 15 stand part.

[Justin Madders]

I will start by addressing the clauses in general; if I dive straight into the amendments, it may overcomplicate the debate on what is already a fairly complicated Bill. The clauses set out how a licence can end or be transferred, where the licence holder has requested it. Further to amendments 2 to 4 and 22 to 25, licences can also be transferred under the provisions set out in schedule 1.

For the regulated asset base model to function properly, it is important that transfers of licences can take place and that the process is set out clearly. For some schemes under the RAB 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. The clauses will allow for that to happen, and set out clearly the conditions that the regulator may deem it appropriate to apply in granting its consent.

Government amendment 2 allows for licences to be transferred under the transfer schemes in schedule 1 as well as under clause 14, and ensures that Government amendments 29 and 35 achieve their objectives. Those amendments allow for the transfer of a licence through a transfer scheme, as well as under clause 14. Amendment 2 makes it clear that 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 under schedule 1 or schedule 3, once amendments 29 and 35 are made. When only part of a licence is transferred under those schedules, incidental modifications to the terms and conditions of the licence may be necessary to ensure that the licence can be split and continue to operate effectively.

Once it has hopefully been amended, clause 11 will enable a licensing authority to modify licence conditions after a licence has been granted. That power is necessary, because the licences may govern major infrastructure over long periods. The conditions may need to respond to changing operational, financial or regulatory circumstances, and the clause provides a controlled process for doing so. Before making a modification, the authority must publish the proposed change, the effect of it and the reasons for it, and must allow at least 28 days for representations.

If the authority 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 ORR not to make a proposed modification. Clause 11 balances the necessary flexibility with transparency, accountability and effective rights of challenge. I therefore commend amendment 2 and clause 11 to the Committee.

Clause 12 provides a clear process by which the ORR can revoke a licence with the agreement of the licence holder or in accordance with the terms of the licence. That is necessary because a long-term licence may need to end before its stated expiry date, which the clause ensures can happen through an orderly and—importantly—transparent statutory process.

Before revoking a licence, the ORR must publish its proposal, explain its reasons and specify the proposed revocation date. It must allow at least 28 days for representations. If it 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, and copies must 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 ORR not to revoke the licence. The clause therefore provides necessary flexibility, and contains transparency, oversight and an orderly transition.

Clause 13 provides for the revocation of a licence where necessary in the interests of national security. Strategic road infrastructure may be of national importance; therefore, the statutory framework must contain a clear mechanism to act where continued operation under a particular licence would present a national security concern. The power is deliberately narrow. The Secretary of State may direct the ORR to revoke a licence only if satisfied that revocation is necessary in the interests of national security.

The ORR must then publish a notice of the direction in a manner appropriate to bring it to the attention of any persons likely to be affected, and must send that notice to the licence holder, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons. The notice must specify the date on which the licence is revoked. Clause 13 provides a focused national security safeguard, while the wider provisions in the Bill ensure that responsibility for the highway can continue after revocation. I therefore commend clauses 12 and 13 to the Committee.

Government amendment 3 ensures that clause 14 refers to both the conditions and terms of a licence in relation to transfers—[Interruption.] I hope that wasn’t a comment on my amendment.

[Greg Smith]

Not at all.

[Justin Madders]

Amendment 3 makes it clear that 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 8 and 9, as the Committee discussed previously. The conditions may affect how and when licence transfers are made, and thus it is important that licence transfers under clause 14 are subject to them.

Government amendment 4 ensures alignment between clause 14 and schedule 1, once the schedule has been amended by Government amendment 29. This amendment is therefore interlinked with amendment 29 and is consequential on it. The Committee will come on to discuss amendment 29 later in its consideration, but by way of brief explanation, it allows for transfer of all or part of a licence through a transfer scheme. Without amendment 4, clause 14(1) would prevent transfer of the licence under schedule 1. The amendment fixes that and ensures that clause 14 aligns with schedule 1, which permits transfer of the licence through a transfer scheme, once the schedule is amended.

Clause 14, alongside the processes set out in schedule 1, establishes the statutory basis for transferring the whole or part of a licence. The 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 licensed responsibilities, where appropriate. However, a transfer cannot take place without regulatory control.

The licence holder must obtain the ORR’s consent and comply with the procedure under clause 15, and with any relevant terms or conditions of the licence. The Secretary of State may direct the ORR not to consent where that is necessary in the interests of national security. Subject to that safeguard, the ORR may refuse consent only if it considers that the proposed transferee is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence or the part that is being transferred. The ORR may also impose appropriate conditions, which may ensure that the necessary property, rights and liabilities are transferred or created between the parties. Clause 14 therefore provides commercial and operational flexibility without allowing licence obligations to be transferred free from regulatory scrutiny. I commend it to the Committee.

Finally, clause 15 sets out the procedure that the ORR must follow before consenting to the transfer of a licence or part of a licence under clause 14. Before giving consent, the ORR 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 ORR decides to proceed, it must publish a 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. The ORR must also send copies to the Secretary of State, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons. When sending the proposal to the Secretary of State, the ORR must identify any conditions it proposes to impose on the transfer under clause 14. Clause 15 therefore ensures that transfers are considered openly and on an informed basis, while providing a clear route for an approved transfer to take effect.

I hope that I have been clear for Committee members. Clauses 11 to 15, as amended, will provide the certainty that licence holders need with regard to how their licence may come to an end, or be transferred or revoked. They also provide assurance to the ORR and to the public of the clear processes for how the end of a licence should be managed. I therefore commend the clauses and Government amendments in the group to the Committee.

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Minister, assuming that his notes have survived.

[Greg Smith]

I have never been considered a Tory wet, Ms Lewell, but my notes now are, after my acrobatics with them. I particularly apologise to the Hansard reporters when my notes eventually make it to the Official Report at the end of the sitting.

[Justin Madders]

They might be an improvement.

[Greg Smith]

The Minister suggests an improvement to my notes—I certainly cannot read them any more.

I do not think that there is particular disagreement between the official Opposition and the Government on this part of the Bill, so I just want to pose a couple of questions to the Minister on clauses 12 and 13 on the revocation of any licences. Clearly, a licence may well need to be revoked if things are going horribly wrong, or indeed—as the Minister highlighted in his remarks—if there is a national security concern. The first duty of any Government is to keep citizens safe, and given a national security concern, it is absolutely right that there should be the power to revoke a licence.

What is missing from clauses 12 and 13 is what happens if a licence is revoked, but there is no one out there willing to take it on so that clauses 14 and 15 would come into effect. Who becomes the licensee by default? Is it the Department for Transport? Is it the ORR? Is it someone else? That is not a disagreement with the clauses—they seem relatively comprehensive, and certainly the power given any national security concerns is absolutely right—but who takes over?

What if no company wishes to take on that liability—that licence—and the cost of operating the lower Thames crossing or anything else that is granted a licence? We need clarity on that. Although the procedure set out in the clauses is unobjectionable, the net result in some circumstances is not. I hope those circumstances never come to pass, but we must plan for the worst. We need an answer on that point.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for that important question. The simple answer is that National Highways would become the operator of last resort. As it already operates the adjoining parts of the network, that would be an entirely sensible move. Let us be honest, we do not want to be in that position. At this stage, it is difficult to foresee the circumstances in which that would apply, because the whole purpose of the RAB model is to provide certainty over the long term—although it is of course right that we have safeguards in the Bill. I hope that response has addressed the shadow Minister’s question.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Transfer of licences

Amendments made: 3, in clause 14, page 11, line 21, after “terms” insert “or conditions”.

This amendment clarifies that a transfer of a licence must be in accordance with any conditions of a licence relating to its transfer (as well as any terms).

Amendment 4, in clause 14, page 11, line 38, after first “under” insert

“a transfer scheme made under Schedule 1 or”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 29.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Holder of licence to be highway authority and traffic authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 17 to 21 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Clauses 16 to 21 engage the fundamental legislative scaffolding required to operate licensed highways by plugging it into the existing legislative framework. The clauses establish clear responsibility for operating and maintaining licensed highways. They give licence holders the legal status and functions they need while retaining specified statutory powers with a public body.

The clauses allow a licensee to delegate, without removing its responsibility or the ORR’s oversight, and protect continuity by allowing a strategic highways company to intervene when a licence holder cannot properly perform its functions. The clauses allow relevant responsibility to pass automatically to the relevant strategic highways company when a licence ends without a replacement. I trust the clauses are uncontroversial but I will go into a little 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. That gives the licence holder the legal status to carry out the day-to-day highway and traffic authority functions required to operate and maintain the licensed road. The clause is concerned only with trunk roads covered by the licence, not with the wider responsibilities of highway or traffic authorities. A licensed highway is treated as a highway maintainable at the public expense for the purposes of the Highways Act 1980. That keeps the legal status of the licensed highway clear, even though the works and operation of it are to be privately financed. These arrangements take effect from the date stated in the licence or, if no date is stated, from when the licence is granted. That 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. That avoids the automatic transfer of project-specific consents in a 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 of the DCO itself. That also gives much needed flexibility when establishing a new scheme.

Subsequent clauses retain certain functions to the relevant strategic highways company, which is of course National Highways, and provide safeguards for delegation and operational continuity. Clause 16 therefore places responsibility for the licensed highway with the body that will operate it, while preserving the wider statutory framework for trunk roads and other highways.

Clause 17 sets limits on the functions that a licence holder may exercise as the highway authority and traffic authority for a licensed highway. Although clause 16 gives the licence holder that status, certain functions should remain with a 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 that 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 it is important to have proper public scrutiny of their use.

For those unfamiliar with the details of those pieces of legislation, order-making powers include matters such as 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, which 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. Those regulations may provide for a specified person other than the licence holder to exercise one of the functions retained by the 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 17, when read together with clause 16, therefore ensures that the licence holder has the functions needed to operate the highway, while keeping specified statutory powers with an appropriate public body and allowing responsibilities to be allocated clearly.

Clause 18 allows the licence holder to authorise another person to exercise functions conferred on it under this chapter of the Bill, which includes clauses 16 to 22. That provides practical flexibility in how the licence holder carries out its highway and traffic authority functions. It allows another person with suitable operational capability to exercise a function on the licence holder’s behalf. Where the licence holder authorises a strategic highways company to exercise a function, the clause also allows that company to delegate the function further under the Infrastructure Act 2015, subject to the modifications set out in the Bill.

Of course, the ORR must be able to oversee all of these arrangements. The licence holder must therefore provide any information or documents that the ORR reasonably requests to review how a delegated function is being exercised. Importantly, delegation of the function does not transfer responsibility for it. The licence holder remains responsible for the exercise of the function even when another person carries it out. Clause 18 therefore provides operational flexibility while preserving clear responsibility and regulatory oversight.

Clause 19 provides an important safeguard to ensure that essential highway functions continue if a licence holder cannot properly perform them. It allows the relevant strategic highways company to exercise a licence holder’s function instead of the licence holder in two circumstances. The first is an emergency that the ORR considers has seriously affected the licence holder’s ability to carry out the function. 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 ORR has issued a contravention notice. In those circumstances, the ORR must notify both the licence holder and the strategic highways company when the function transfers. If the circumstances justifying the intervention come to an end, the ORR must notify both parties and the function will then return to the licence holder.

The strategic highways company may recover from the licence holder any expenditure reasonably incurred in carrying out the function. Clause 19 therefore protects road users and supports operational continuity while ensuring that the responsibility returns to the licence holder when intervention is no longer required.

Clause 20 deals with the acquisition of land needed to carry out works under a licence. I must emphasise that this does not circumvent the normal planning process. For major works, the development consent order will invariably set out the land to be acquired for the scheme in question. It is possible, however, that in the course of a licence for the construction, operation and maintenance of a licensed road, additional land will at some point 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.

The power will not be given to the licence holder. It remains with the strategic highways company as the accountable public body. The power may be used only 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 that there is a compelling case in the public interest.

Before acquiring land compulsorily, the strategic highways company must consult the ORR. 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 it incurs in exercising the power. Clause 20 therefore ensures that essential land can be acquired where necessary, while keeping compulsory purchase powers with a public body and making their use subject to clear safeguards, as I am sure the Committee would expect.

Clause 21 deals with what happens to responsibility for a licensed highway when a licence expires or is revoked. It is important that the ending of a licence does not create uncertainty about who is responsible for the highway. The clause applies where the highway was covered by the licence immediately before it ended and is not covered by another licence. On the day the licence expires or is revoked, the relevant strategic highways company automatically becomes the 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. That 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 highway authority responsibility when a licence comes to an end. I hope that answers the shadow Minister in more detail.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not trying to be difficult, but clarity on this point really does matter, as we have discussed under previous amendments. Can the Minister be really specific about the definition of “emergency”, so that we do not find ourselves in future operating with licensees asking for force majeure rules for things that they argue are an emergency, but that actually affect everyone, whether they are a licensee under this Bill or any other highways authority out there. They could all put their hands up and legitimately say that it is not their fault, and that it has happened to them and not because of them, which could be argued to be an emergency position. Where is an “emergency” in the scope of this Bill defined?

[Justin Madders]

Those were some interesting questions from the shadow Minister. On the first point about the operation of clause 17 and what we have loosely described as “capacity-enhancing improvements”, it is of course the case that the gateway to the licensing regime is through capacity-enhancing improvements in any event. The eligibility for a licence would already have been established under the Act, so I am not sure why additional capacity would create anything different, because the licence would already have been issued by that point. Unless I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman—

[Greg Smith]

I am happy to explain further. My point is that, with speed limits being set, rightly and properly, by other authorities—there is no disagreement on that point—speed limits could then be used to essentially create new conditions on that road, which could then be used as a springboard to a higher toll or a different set of conditions. The ORR and the licensee could find themselves in a vicious doom loop of disagreement on that point. What I am trying to get across to the Minister is how something that is fundamentally and, I double underline, rightly set by a different authority could become a point of disagreement in the set of licence conditions for any licensee.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s explanation; I think I now understand what he is trying to say. We are entering the realms of speculation at this point—

[Greg Smith]

That is what we are here to do.

[Justin Madders]

And the hon. Gentleman is doing it well. He is speculating that any improvements of that nature would probably improve traffic flow and increase the number of vehicles going through the network. I would say that that was probably more of an argument to reduce returns than to increase them, but the prospect is probably rather too remote for us to say anything more concrete at this stage.

Similarly, in response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions about when an emergency under clause 19(2) might be called, it would be rather risky for me to set out every circumstance in which that might happen here. It is important to remember that the clause is about the ORR’s view of the licence holder’s ability to undertake its obligations under the licence. There are obviously already a number of provisions in the legislation about the kind of things that the ORR would be able to consider. Trying to pin us down on the specific instances where an emergency might be called would unnecessarily tie the ORR’s hands.

[Greg Smith]

I understand why the Minister does not want to give an exhaustive list of examples, but if I may slightly confine the question, will he look at the wording in the clause and make it clear, either now or on Report, that when the ORR “must have regard”, the definition of an emergency is specific to that licensee, as opposed to something affecting everyone, such as extreme heat on the road surfaces?

[Justin Madders]

I will take that away. The test under the clause is the license holder’s ability to undertake the licence. It is probably inappropriate for me to speculate om whether that would apply to the rest of the network or specifically to the licence holder. My instinct is to say that that would not be the question. It is about the ability of the licence holder to undertake its functions, and if they are significantly impaired in the ORR’s view, the source of that impairment is probably not relevant. If it is an emergency that has created the impairment, clause 19(2) would come into effect. However, if, having consulted with officials, I have more to say on that, I will of course write to him.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

Sorry, I have just finished.

[The Chair]

Maybe next time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Litter functions

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Amendment 79, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, tries, like most of our amendment today, to give more clarity about what happens in the event of the scourge that is littering. I cannot imagine that there is any Member of this House who has not been out litter picking along the roads and highways in their own constituencies—not the motorway, but on certain parts of the strategic road network and A roads. I certainly see groups in my constituency doing that on a regular basis. All our constituents are rightly upset when they see litter on the verges and sides of the roads. It gets me incrediblyangry too.

The point that the amendment makes is that a motorist or local resident should not be left guessing who is responsible for litter on a licensed road. Will the Government accept a named and published accountable body and a direct route for complaints under each licence that is issued? If work is outsourced, who remains legally responsible for ensuring that the highway is kept clear? The public-facing accountable body should, in my opinion, at least be clearly defined in the regulations when they come to pass and provision to ensure that is the case—as amendment 79 would—should be written into the Bill.

It would be a disaster if we get this wrong and an accident happens because of severe fly-tipping or litter on any one of these roads. We have all seen severe fly-tipping in our own constituencies and the impact it has, particularly on safety. During debate on the previous group we discussed the extreme heat. There were significant fires in that extreme heat, and glass dumped on the side of the road only exacerbates that particular problem. While I do not 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.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for moving this amendment as it gives me an opportunity to promote an upcoming litter pick in my constituency, alongside the father of the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles, on Saturday morning. We will be doing our bit, as we always do. I pay tribute to all the volunteers up and down the country who do a fantastic job in showing great community spirit. However, I make it clear that the trunk road network is not a place for such activities. Instead, it should be handled by an appropriate body, which is indeed what clause 22 seeks to do.

Regarding amendment 79, the shadow Minister is right to raise the issue of clear lines of responsibility for litter clearance on licensed highways. He is right that there should be a clear responsibility. 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. Clause 22 therefore allows the Secretary of State to make regulations so that existing litter duties can operate properly for licensed highways. That does not mean that responsibility could be handed out arbitrarily. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that litter functions sit with the appropriate body for the licensed highway and with a clear responsibility for them to carry them out. My objection is not to providing clear information as the hon. Member wants; it is about prescribing detailed requirements about contact details for complaint handling on the face of primary legislation. Clause 22 already provides a regulation-making power to establish how these functions will operate.

Clause 22 ensures that the existing framework for litter under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can be applied appropriately to the highways specified in relevant licences. The clause therefore allows the Secretary of State to make regulations so that litter responsibilities can operate effectively on licensed highways. The 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 others they may be exercised instead of them. That flexibility ensures that the responsibility can be allocated appropriately for the licensed highway.

The regulations may also make appropriate changes to how existing litter legislation applies to a private licence 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. I therefore commend clause 22 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 22 to 31.

Schedule 1.

[Justin Madders]

I will take clause 23 and schedule 1 stand part together as clause 23 simply introduces schedule 1. I will then turn to the Government amendments.

Clause 23 and schedule 1 set out how transfer schemes operate under the 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 1 will ensure that the provisions cover the scenarios that we envisage transfer schemes will need. They enable the transfer schemes to be made from a strategic highways company to its wholly owned subsidiary, permit the transfer of a licence under specified circumstances beyond those set out in clause 14, and allow for a transfer scheme to provide for compensation to be paid to a transferor or third party.

Clause 23 introduces schedule 1, which makes detailed provision for transfer schemes. A licence holder may need property, contractual rights and other legal interests in order to construct, operate, maintain or improve the highway specified in its licence. Existing rights and liabilities may also need to move between the Secretary of State, a strategic highways company, a licence holder or another appropriate person.

Transfer schemes provide an efficient statutory mechanism for making those 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 1. Together, clause 23 and the schedule support an orderly transition into the licensing regime, as well as when a licence 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.

Government amendments 22 and 23 allow for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers of property, rights and liabilities from a strategic highways company to its subsidiary. Amendment 23 adjusts 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 a transfer scheme. 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 before the transition to the private sector.

The current drafting of schedule 1 only allows a transfer scheme to be made transferring assets to a subsidiary if that entity already holds a licence or is intended to in the future. That 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.

Amendment 24 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/or liabilities have been transferred to a subsidiary of a strategic highways company, they can then be transferred on to a licence holder or person due to hold a licence. That, 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 on to the licence holder or person due to hold a licence.

Government amendments 25 and 26 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 1 of schedule 1 and other references to subsidiaries in the paragraph accurately align with the new drafting in amendments 22 to 24.

Government amendment 27 makes it clear that transfer schemes can include provisions that come into effect at different times. It 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 do too.

For instance, in the case of the Dartford crossing, the existing design, build, finance and operate contract will run beyond when the transaction to the private sector is due to take place. When the transfer scheme is made for the Dartford crossing, the scheme will be able to set a later date for certain responsibilities under that contract to transfer, ensuring they can remain with 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, that complicated arrangement can be avoided through the amendment.

Government amendment 28 sets out requirements for when transfer schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities away from a 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 licence holder and the transferee, where that transferee is not the Secretary of State herself or a strategic highways company, except where the scheme is being made in connection with a licence 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 licence is either not being revoked or has not expired it is right that the Secretary of State be required to obtain the transferor’s consent before making the transfer scheme.

Government amendment 29 allows for transfer schemes made under schedule 1 to provide for the transfer of licences granted under clause 3. A transfer scheme may transfer the whole or part of the licence. Clause 14 already sets out a process for the ORR to consent to licence transfers. Where a licence is transferred under clause 14, the Secretary of State will have to make a separate transfer scheme under schedule 1 to transfer the relevant assets, rights and liabilities alongside the licence.

In some cases, it will be more efficient to transfer the licence alongside the relevant assets, rights and liabilities, rather than running two separate processes under clause 14 and schedule 1. That will generally be where a licence transfer is initiated by the ORR rather than the licence holder, for example to split the licence between two licence holders. The amendment will allow for more efficient and streamlined licence transfers in appropriate cases where the ORR initiates a transfer.

Where only part of a licence is being transferred, the amendment also allows for the apportionment of rights and liabilities under the licence and incidental modifications to the licence’s terms and conditions.

I turn to Government amendment 30. Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 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. The amendment extends that provision to also allow schemes to provide for the transferee to pay compensation. That ensures that transfer schemes can require the 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 licence holder to pay compensation instead of, or as well as, the Secretary of State.

[Douglas Lumsden]

I am trying to think of possible compensation schemes. If, for example, a person’s property has been blighted by a new road that has been constructed, who would be liable for that? Would it be the licensee? Would that transfer to a new owner as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

The clauses are about the transfer of assets, rights and liabilities. That is why the amendment is in there—to ensure that if there is an outstanding compensation claim, there is a power for the transferee to pay that. We do not want to be in a situation where a party who is trying to exit the arrangements is refusing to meet its obligations. This is a complicated set of amendments, but they are effectively trying to cover all bases in terms of whether there is compensation. It is also about whether a party leaving the agreement is seeking some compensation for costs that they have occurred.

This is a fairly broad amendment, but it is necessary. We obviously hope not to have many situations where licences are transferred in whole or part, but it is prudent to have provisions in the Bill to ensure that those circumstances are catered for.

[Douglas Lumsden]

I am trying to work out who is responsible for property blight. Would it be the licence holder? Would it be the Highways Agency? Who would it be?

[Justin Madders]

Property blight would probably be dealt with by development consent orders and the planning process rather than this Bill, which is about the financial and regulatory framework for operating highways. It would probably come before we got to the issuing of licences. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Government amendment 31 further extends the existing compensation provision in schedule 1 to allow transfer schemes to provide for compensation to be paid to transferors as well as third parties. In some cases, it may be appropriate for compensation to be paid to a transferor—for example, where a licence has been revoked on a non-consensual ground set out in the licence. Under amendment 30, the scheme could provide for the compensation to be paid by the Secretary of State or the transferee, as appropriate. The drafting is not prescriptive. Compensation will not always be needed for either the transferor or a third party, but the provision is drafted to make it possible for all relevant scenarios to be covered.

[Greg Smith]

I will not speak at length; I merely ask some questions of the Minister about the taxation provisions at the end of schedule 1. I think many of our constituents would be surprised to find in the Bill the following provision:

“The Treasury may by regulations make provision for varying the way in which a relevant tax has effect”

in relation to a transfer. The Bill even says that income tax could be varied.

I can conceive of a situation where the ORR finds itself in a sticky spot trying to transfer a licence— perhaps there are not many willing participants—and tries to create an incentive for it to be taken on. Surely, however, to be as explicit as providing for the varying of taxes from income tax to corporation tax and beyond is highly unusual within legislation. Our constituents would normally expect a tax to be a tax. Although there may be, in Budgets from time to time, provisions that allow reliefs, to nakedly change corporation tax or income tax—as my reading of schedule 7(1) suggests—seems an extreme measure. I would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister.

[Justin Madders]

I will have to disappoint the shadow Minister. I will not be able to give him a detailed explanation today. All I would say is that the schedule does require such proposals to be approved in a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, but I will seek counsel from Treasury colleagues about what possible circumstances this may apply in and write to the shadow Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendments made: 22, in schedule 1, page 68, line 7, after “company” insert

“, a subsidiary of a strategic highways company,”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 23, which allows for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers from a strategic highways company to a subsidiary of a strategic highways company.

Amendment 23, in schedule 1, page 68, line 9, after first “to” insert “—

(i) a subsidiary of a strategic highways company, or”.

This amendment allows for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers from a strategic highways company to a subsidiary of a strategic highways company.

Amendment 24, in schedule 1, page 68, line 10, at end insert—

“(ba) from a subsidiary of a strategic highways company to a person who holds, or is to hold, a licence;”.

This amendment allows for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers from a subsidiary of a strategic highways company to a licence holder or prospective licence holder.

Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 68, line 13, after “company” insert

“or a subsidiary of a strategic highways company”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 26 (which leaves out provision that a reference to a strategic highways company includes a reference to its subsidiary).

Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 68, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—

“(2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘subsidiary’ has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 2006 (see section 1159 of that Act).”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 23 and 24.

Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 68, line 36, after “date” insert “or dates”.

This amendment clarifies that different parts of a transfer scheme may come into effect at different times.

Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 69, line 10, at end insert—

1A “(1) The power to make a transfer scheme within paragraph 1(1)(c) is exercisable only if the Secretary of State obtains the consent of—

(a) in the case of a transfer within paragraph 1(1)(c)(i) or (ii), the proposed transferor;

(b) in the case of a transfer within paragraph 1(1)(c)(iii) or (iv), the proposed transferor and the proposed transferee.

(2) The consent of the proposed transferor to the making of a transfer scheme is not required where the scheme is made in connection with or in pursuance of the revocation or expiry of a licence.

(3) In this paragraph ‘proposed transferor’, in relation to a transfer scheme proposed to be made, means the person who is proposed to be the transferor; and ‘proposed transferee’ is to be read accordingly.”

This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which a transfer scheme may be made under paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1.

Amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 70, line 20, at end insert—

2A “(1) A transfer scheme may include provision for the transfer of a licence held by the transferor to the transferee.

(2) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) may relate to the whole or any part of the licence.

(3) Where a transfer scheme provides for the transfer of a part of a licence, the scheme may include provision—

(a) apportioning rights or liabilities under the licence;

(b) making incidental modifications to the terms and conditions of the licence.”

This amendment provides that a transfer scheme may include provision for the transfer of the whole or part of a licence.

Amendment 30, in schedule 1, page 70, line 23, after “State” insert “or the transferee”.

This amendment provides that a transfer scheme may provide for compensation to be payable by the transferee, in relation to the scheme, as well as by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 31, in schedule 1, page 70, line 23, leave out

“any person, other than the transferor or transferee,”

and insert

“the transferor or any person”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment provides that a transfer scheme may provide for compensation to be payable to the transferor as well as any third party whose interests are adversely affected by the scheme.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24

Charging of tolls

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 24, page 17, line 14, leave out lines 14 and 15.

This amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to specify any circumstances in regulations about how tolls must be paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point—there is certainly a problem with ghost plates, but that is an enforcement problem for the authorities, for police forces, for the Government to crack down on to stop a criminal practice that he is right to say is happening on our streets. I am not convinced, however, that we should legislate for a scheme that will involve the tolling of new infrastructure, such as the lower Thames crossing, and require the expense of technology not only going into cars, but to read that technology in cars in order to pay the tolls, when we have a registration system on all our vehicles in the first place.

On those registration plates, we have agreements with many other countries whose citizens could conceivably drive to the United Kingdom from abroad, to ensure that their plates are recognisable as well. In particular in London, therefore, any visitors driving over from France, Belgium, the Netherlands or wherever will, equally, not need to start strapping devices to their windscreens in order to visit our country, to spend their money here and to enjoy the wonderful things we have to offer in England.

I put it to the Minister that this could be a much simpler Bill if we simply get rid of those provisions. I do not want to relitigate the argument about exactly how much the toll is going to be—we still do not know—but before any toll level is set, affected road users, businesses, residents and local authorities should be consulted. Surely that is a straightforward ask.

We heard a lot of evidence from the haulage sector in our oral evidence sessions. The sector already operates on tiny margins; it is very common for a haulage operator, certainly those that I visit in my own constituency, to be operating on as low as a 1% margin. If haulage operators are to be charged these tolls, it is vital that they should have their say, and for that to be put clearly on the record. We should also bear in mind that ultimately all the costs get added to the cost of the goods being transported, so this is an inflation-fuelling measure.

We all know how consultations go sometimes—we do not always get what we want—but the impact that any tolls could have should be clear and on the record, so that when that toll rate is set, it takes into account, if nothing else, the market conditions that will dictate whether people are willing to use that road or will take any measure conceivable to avoid getting on it in the first place.

Any new tolling scheme or any increase to an existing toll should require Parliament’s approval. Why should that decision be left to operators, Ministers or the ORR alone? We need safeguards to prevent unnecessary equipment requirements, and parliamentary control to apply to the level of any charges.

[Justin Madders]

Amendment 50 would amend the ability of the Secretary of State to reassign responsibility for payment of a toll through regulation. The shadow Minister argues that the amendment would remove the power to specify any circumstances in regulations about how tolls would be paid. The amendment would remove important flexibility from the tolling system and the ability to make someone other than the registered keeper responsible for paying a toll in specified circumstances.

This provision matters, as it is 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. That could include hired or leased vehicles, as I am sure the witnesses from last week would attest to. It could also be important where 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 for any charges, but that will not always be the case, for the reasons I have set out. It is important that we maintain flexibility.

Clause 24(2)(b) allows regulations to address precisely those circumstances, providing for someone other than the registered keeper to pay the toll where keeper liability would be inappropriate. The question is not whether tolls should be paid, but who should be responsible for them. We would retain the flexibility to make that distinction, rather than impose keeper liability in every case. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 51 would amend the ability for a licence holder to require equipment to be carried in or fitted to a vehicle. It is worth pointing out that just because something is in the legislation, that does not mean there is some dastardly, secret plan to implement it. I will give a practical example of why this power is in the Bill. At the Dartford crossing, before the toll barriers were removed, those who wished to do so were able to set up an account and place a smart tag in their vehicle. The smart tag would speak to the toll booth and open the barriers, charging the registered account. It meant that those who had the tag did not need to open their windows to drop a coin into the bucket at the booth, and it sped up their journey. A similar arrangement applied at the Mersey tunnels.

There are, of course, no longer barriers at the Dartford crossing and the charges are based on the number plates of those who cross. We have already heard why that is not necessarily a foolproof process. But—this is the point of having the clause in the Bill—we do not know what might happen in the future in terms of technology in cars. It is possible that we might not even have number plates at all. Perhaps there will be chips attached to vehicles that have all the user’s data on them, which will be important in tracing the registered keeper. The fact that we do not know how vehicles will develop in the future means that it is important to keep the Bill technology-neutral. That is the purpose of this clause.

[Douglas Lumsden]

The Minister is right that we do not know what the vehicles of the future will look like, but it should not be up to the holder of the licence to dictate what should be in people’s cars. If we think about the Bill, this is not about just the lower Thames crossing; it could be used for schemes right across the country. Surely the Minister is not suggesting that we would have a different piece of equipment in our car for every scheme that we may be passing through, from one end of the country to the other?

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the intervention, but I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that it is important that we keep the Bill technology-neutral because we do not know what might happen further down the line.

[Alison Griffiths]

I think it is quite interesting that, in an age of acute cyber-security risks, the Minister considers this a technology-neutral position. We have an analogue system that works very effectively and systems that could be controlled by the Government rather than the licensee, which would ensure appropriate cyber-security. The position that the Minister is suggesting is technology-neutral is actually the reverse: it exposes us to acute cyber-risk over which we will have very little control.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I would say that she is making my case for me: we need to keep up with important changes and risk in the cyber-security world. That is why keeping the Bill as technology-neutral as possible is important, because we simply do not know what will be coming next. Giving operators the flexibility to be able to determine what technology is used is an important part of cyber-security moving forward.

Amendment 53 would insert specific consultation requirements into the Bill before a toll can be set. I agree that local communities and those who use the tolls should have a voice. The question is not whether they should have a voice, but how best to secure that engagement within the Bill’s framework of independent regulation. As it stands, the framework places responsibility with the regulator to set tolling requirements through its code and licence conditions, and to enforce compliance. Consultation requirements should sit within those arrangements, rather than be prescriptive in the Bill.

In exercising its functions, the ORR must have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency, and keep the interests of users at the heart of its decision making. That is an important safeguard in the Bill, and I hope that it addresses some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. He will know that the Bill establishes a stakeholder group that will directly advise the ORR. Again, I hope that will address the point about the voices of users being heard in this process. I do not believe that the amendment would improve engagement. Instead, it would constrain the regulator’s discretion to determine how best to take forward individual users’ voices, so I ask the Member not to press it.

[Jim Dickson]

Without wishing to prolong proceedings, it is very important that the exact level and differential of tolls between the Dartford crossing and the lower Thames crossing—this legislation is being used to construct the lower Thames crossing—is properly considered. My constituents are particularly keen that there should not be a differential between the two crossings so that a financial incentive is created to use one rather than the other, somewhat negating the fact that we have the new infrastructure in place. We need to try to balance the traffic between the two crossings, and tolling will obviously be an important part of that. Would the Minister note that? Perhaps we can ensure collectively that that is in the thinking of the licence holder going forward.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We believe that it would not be in the interests of the licence holder to have a differential scheme, but he is right to raise the importance of that local voice and we believe the legislation as it stands will enable that to happen.

Amendment 54 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. The ORR is a strong independent regulator with a 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, with 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 the 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. I therefore ask the Member not to press the amendment.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments. On the equipment in vehicles point, as I said in my earlier remarks, we are in danger of taking several steps backwards, as he himself acknowledged that there were schemes in the past where we used to wind our window down—literally wind it down, rather than press a button—and then throw a few coins into a basket. That has gone—it is over—and so should that be gone and over and moved to an ANPR system, albeit with the challenges we have around ghost plates to enforce against.

I just do not understand why we would have any interest—this is not a party political point; this is just a practical point for all our constituents—in trying to bring about a scheme that involves boxes and chips and all sorts of things being required to be put into heavy goods vehicles and 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 about consultation, the hon. Member for Dartford made the point incredibly well. Preventing the disincentives to use a new scheme if the toll turns out to be higher than the existing Dartford crossing scheme is a sensible point. The hon. Gentleman knows his constituency far better than any of us. If he reports that that is a live concern among his constituents, I would urge the Minister to listen so that the good people of Dartford do not find themselves with that disincentive to use a new scheme because it is priced higher than the existing one.

I am content to withdraw amendments 50 and 53, both of which I suspect we will come back to on Report. I really do invite the Minister to think about how that consultation, in the interests of his colleague the hon. Member for Dartford as much as any future schemes, could be addressed before we get to that stage. On amendments 51 and 54, particularly the point on parliamentary approval—not for Parliament to set tolls—given the Minister declined the rules that we suggested around tolling regimes earlier, if there will not be guidance and upper limits as there are on the debt that any licensee may hold, that only leaves the option for us in Parliament to vote on those tolling arrangements as they come along on each and every occasion.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 51, in clause 24, page 17, line 20, leave out lines 20 and 21—(Greg Smith.)

This amendment would remove the power from a licence holder to specify equipment to be carried in or fitted to a road vehicle while it is on the highway.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

18. What steps she is taking to promote active travel.

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

On behalf of the Government, I add our good wishes to Tom on his final day at the Table.

The Government recognise the importance of promoting active travel. On 12 June, we published the third cycling and walking investment strategy, which sets out our ambitious targets for active travel in England. The strategy is supported by more than £4.5 billion of projected investment through to 2030, helping to make walking, wheeling and cycling a safe and attractive choice for everyday trips.

[Mr Speaker]

It will be coming through Chorley as well.

[Justin Madders]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Tour de France is an amazing opportunity to inspire more people to walk and cycle, and what a wonderful constituency for it to appear in. Active travel is a devolved matter, but officials from the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland meet regularly to discuss active travel, most recently in September. I pay tribute to the work of Portobello high sch ool.

Cycling is a fantastic way to get around while cutting emissions and keeping fit. In England, we are investing £135 million in schemes such as Bikeability cycle training, with over half a million children receiving training each year. Alongside that, we are supporting the delivery of safer networks, enabling more children to walk, wheel and cycle to school. I will look into whether we can visit to enjoy some of the benefits of these schemes, along with my hon. Friend.

[Ms Minns]

To continue the theme of the Tour de France, after it leaves the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), it will finish its first leg in Carlisle. We can all agree that cycling and e-bikes play an important role in active travel. However, many Labour Members have become very concerned about illegal e-bikes that do not meet the definition of an electrically assisted pedal cycle, which are doing great damage to the reputation of cycling. Will the Minister meet me and other Labour Members to discuss a ban on the sale of illegal e-bikes, so that we can focus on the positives of cycling in this Tour de France year?

[Justin Madders]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the news that the opening stage of the Tour de France will be finishing in Carlisle next year. I hope that she will be claiming the yellow jersey at that point. She makes the important point that hon. Members from across the House are concerned about illegal e-bikes. To be clear, those bikes have no place on our roads. At the moment, it is far too easy for retailers to put in the fine print that these vehicles are for use only on private land, and for consumers to then buy them and use them on public roads, without even realising that what they are doing is illegal. I am keen to explore how we tackle this issue as a Government, including through the newly established cross-Government ministerial group. In the meantime, I will be writing to retailers and online market places to remind them about their responsibility to market these products responsibly. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and other interested Members to discuss this subject.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich)(Con)]

May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, relating to the sad loss of Sue Holt? During my time as the leader of our delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I found Sue to be always there, always cheerful and always helpful, as did the whole of the delegation that I was privileged to lead. We shall miss her dreadfully.

Let me also support your other remarks, Mr Speaker. During my time as an acting Deputy Speaker, I leaned very heavily on the wise advice of Tom Goldsmith. I wish him every happiness in whatever he chooses to do next.

I am sure the whole House will associate itself with the support for active travel in general and for cycling in particular, but there is a downside. The growth in the number of cyclists has led to a clear growth in the number of cycling offences, with cyclists on pavements, crashing through red traffic lights and cycling at night without any lights at all. Does the Minister have any information about prosecutions relating to those offences?

[Justin Madders]

The right hon. Member raises very important points. We have all seen irresponsible cycling, but let us be clear that cycling on pavements is an offence, except where it is permitted. Police can and do take action against careless or dangerous cycling. As he will know, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced new offences covering death or serious injury caused by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. We have recently written to food delivery companies emphasising the need for them to ensure that their riders are acting legally and responsibly when undertaking their duties. I understand what he says, and I will certainly look further at that issue.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, regarding the outgoing Clerk of the House, Tom Goldsmith. We have spent many an hour sitting in various meetings together, and I very much appreciate his wise words.

E-bikes and e-scooters are an incredibly important part of active travel. My constituency has a trial of e-scooters that has been going on for several years. That is fabulous, but unfortunately it has led to a rise in illegal e-scooters. When I met Essex police recently, it told me that illegal e-scooters are difficult to intercept, but when it does confiscate them, they are difficult to store because of concerns about battery fires. The problem is that so many people, when they buy e-bikes or e-scooters, do not realise that it is illegal to ride them, and we really need to do something about that. It is the people who buy them who end up paying the price if they do not understand that they cannot use them, and Essex police has to pick up the pieces.

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member makes a very fair point. One of the purposes of the cross-departmental working group is to work with Home Office officials and Ministers to understand the limitations on police actions and to see whether we can find novel methods of tackling this issue. We would be very grateful to receive any information that she has from her local constabulary.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I associate the official Opposition with your comments, Mr Speaker, regarding the sad loss of Sue Holt. We send our condolences to her family and friends. Likewise, as many of the “Carry On” films were made in Buckinghamshire, at Pinewood Studios, I wish the Clerk of the House a very happy retirement.

The Government have been warned by more than 290 organisations that their guidance on dangerous floating bus stops puts visually impaired people, deaf people and people with mobility issues at risk. Will the Minister acknowledge that cycling and active travel infrastructure must not come at the expense of disabled people’s safety? Some proponents of active travel, including those in the Department for Transport, must stop compromising the safety of disabled people who simply want to use public transport.

[Justin Madders]

Let me be absolutely clear that this Department does not compromise the safety of anyone when they are crossing the road. The Department published statutory guidance on the provision and design of floating bus stops with Active Travel England in January, and all traffic authorities must have regard to that guidance. It provides very clear advice on floating bus stops and the need to design them with passengers, cyclists and pedestrians in mind. The most concerning and troublesome floating bus stops are no longer being built, but we continue to work on this issue. We understand the concerns, and we are absolutely determined to deal with the matter.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I join you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to both Sue Holt and Mr Goldsmith.

There is growing interest in the issue of illegally modified e-bikes and their use, as is shown by comments in this House and in a Westminster Hall debate last week and by our new policy passed at last month’s Liberal Democrat conference. We need to ensure that e-bikes support, rather than hinder, the growth of active travel. The Minister has talked about the cross-Government working group, but will he commit to creating an action plan based on that work to tackle the issue, with clear timescales and owners? If he did, he would have our support.

[Justin Madders]

I can assure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that there is already an action plan. We have identified a number of issues, building on some of the work and recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, and those will be fed into the cross-departmental working group. The Government hear what the hon. Member and, indeed, all hon. Members are saying about this issue: we need to make our roads safe. We need to get this plague of illegal e-bikes sorted out once and for all, and this Government are determined to do that.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

2. What recent steps she has taken to help tackle nuisance behaviour on public transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

9. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the DVLA’s performance levels.

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

In 2025-26, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency issued 12.3 million driving licences, processed over 100 million individual customer transactions and issued 18.5 million vehicle registration certificates. We recognise that improvement is needed on the time taken to process medical driving licence applications, and plans are in place to address this.

[Dr Evans]

An increasing number of constituents are coming to me with problems getting their licence. One example was a lady who had dementia; she passed all the tests but had months of delays trying to get her licence, eventually having to take her complaint to the chief executive to get an answer, only for the licence to be backdated, meaning she will have to go through the whole rigmarole again in a few months’ time. That is not an isolated case. I have constituents with diabetes and epilepsy, who are all suffering. What is the Minister doing to ensure we can speed the process up so that people can get back on the road as soon as they are medically fit?

[Justin Madders]

I recognise the hon. Member’s concerns, and I have asked for further information on some the matters he has raised. We are taking steps to tackle the issue. We have introduced a new digital casework system, we are recruiting additional staff, and the automation of routine processes is happening. Things are moving in the right direction. In 2022-23, the average number of working days to complete a medical licensing application was 89; this time last year it was 76; it is now down to 66; and we want to get it down to 45 by March next year. I can assure the hon. Member that we will do everything in our power to ensure that happens.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I am not certain that the Minister is right when he says that the DVLA is getting better. Its operating surplus is forecast to collapse by 54%. The DVLA is spending £96 million a year on postage and printing, despite a plan to move 85% of transactions online. The DVLA has committed to delivering £5 million in efficiency savings, yet expenditure is forecast to increase by £59 million in the same year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, the position on medical licensing is out of control. The answer to a written parliamentary question from August revealed that the average time for a bus and lorry driver to get a decision is still an unacceptably high 64.8 days. Can the Minister come back with a detailed plan on how his Department is going to get a grip on what can only be described as a failing Government agency?

[Justin Madders]

Well, if the agency was failing, then that was the condition we found it in when the hon. Member’s party left office. I am not entirely sure what he is complaining about. He is saying that we are spending more money on the agency, but that is to increase the number of staff, to improve automation and digital services take-up, and to make the service more efficient. There is a plan and it is working—the hon. Member should support it.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

11. What plans she has to work with regional airports to increase the number of short-haul destinations available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

T5. The Department is aware of my increasing frustration at balaclava-clad yobs tearing up and down on dirtbikes in Darlington. Indeed, the rest of the House is increasingly frustrated and we need action. Will the Minister and the Department commit to licensing or registration at the point of sale to aid the valiant effort of our police forces in the north-east?

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

I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this area. She is right that these yobbos are causing misery for many communities. We are determined to see retailers cleaning up their act, and I am keen to explore how we tackle the issue. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, through my cross-departmental ministerial group, to see how we can take the matter further.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

T3. Harpenden Thameslink services are facing Luton airport expansion, the Bedford Universal studios development and 9,000 more houses coming down the line from this Government, following a local plan. All the while, passengers such as Emma are facing expensive, cramped and unreliable services. What are the Government doing to improve capacity, services and pricing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

The village of Isham in my constituency is sandwiched between Wellingborough and Kettering, and for 40 years it has been battling to get a bypass. The situation has now got worse because of a huge development of warehousing, yet the bypass has been refused funding. May I invite the Minister to Isham, where I would give him a warm welcome? It is only when people see it for themselves that they can understand how desperately we need this bypass.

[Justin Madders]

I am happy to do that; I think it would probably be on my way home one weekend. We have invested a record amount of money in our networks, and there is only a finite amount, but I am happy to discuss the issue further with the right hon. Member.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

This month, there has been a series of serious road accidents in Bracknell, Warfield and Crowthorne in my constituency. In one incident, a young man, Shayan, very tragically lost his life at the scene. Will the roads Minister meet me to discuss these incidents, and listen to Shayan’s family’s plea for more action on road safety?

[Justin Madders]

First, can I extend my sympathies to Shayan’s family? I am happy to meet them. I commend my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), on the excellent work she did on the road safety strategy, on which I am privileged to be able to build. Part of that will be engaging with bereaved families.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Greedy corporate interests have stripped out more than £200 million from our Isle of Wight ferry services in the past 10 years. I am grateful to the Minister for setting up local roundtable meetings, but they are at risk of becoming a talking shop, and the ferry companies do not appear to be taking them seriously. Can he give us an assurance locally that if the ferry companies do not take this opportunity to improve services and reduce prices, the Government will consider taking steps to force their hand?

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Cowbar Lane in my constituency is at serious risk of collapse into the sea. We have a plan in place for relocating it and making it safe. Will Ministers meet me to discuss it?

[Justin Madders]

We recognise the impact of coastal erosion on Cowbar Lane, and we aware of the plans set out by Redcar and Cleveland council to move the road further inland. The Government have already provided more than £300 million of city region sustainable transport settlement funding to the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen to deliver on that, but we are clearly not seeing anything happening on the ground. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to see what more we can do to encourage the mayor to deliver on this issue.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Residents of Holton Heath and Sandford are being blighted every weekend by racing vehicles, motorcycles and modified small cars causing nuisance and loud noises. What progress is being made on the acoustic devices that enable police to act on these illegal vehicles?

[Justin Madders]

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady’s constituents are having to endure these issues. There have been a number of trials, which have found that it is not that straightforward to isolate the noise. Police forces have powers to tackle this issue, and I am happy to write to her with further information about what they can do.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

The A259 coast road runs the entire southern length of my constituency, but daily delays on it are a huge frustration, particularly for constituents in Rottingdean, Telscombe and Saltdean. What more can the Minister do to unlock long-promised upgrades to this road, and to finally get Reform-led East Sussex county council to put in the funding and focus needed to get those upgrades over the line?

[Justin Madders]

The Department recognises the importance of that particular road, and we are ready to crack on with this. I join my hon. Friend in encouraging the Reform-led county council to release the funding necessary and get on with the job.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My constituents are not demanding a multibillion-pound, high-speed answer to the five-and-a-half-hour journey time from Penzance to London, for example; they want just a fraction of that amount, to improve the comfort, reliability and punctuality of the service. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) mentioned that £57 million has been allocated for wi-fi on trains. That is a fraction of the money spent on high speed policies. We understand that the money is being held by the Treasury at the moment; when will it be rolled out? It is desperately needed now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Aura Mobility is a company in Falkirk that designs assistive mobility products for disabled people. It and its customers need certainty that any reforms to light zero emission vehicles regulation will protect access to pavements and roads, not reduce it. Six months after the consultation on powered mobility devices closed, when will the Government provide that certainty and publish their response?

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to Aura Mobility for engaging with the Department’s consultation, which we will respond to very shortly.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am aware that the Secretary of State has already answered two questions about Peninsula Transport’s fantastic wi-fi pilot on GWR trains, but if we are to go ahead with rolling it out for nationalisation on 13 December, I gently ask whether there is a way to nudge the Treasury to make that money available.

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

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

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

“construction of a highway specified in the licence”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

[Olly Glover]

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

With its wheels.

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

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

Ben Garratt: We would concur with all of that.

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

[Olly Glover]

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

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

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

Q That is helpful. Clearly, the Bill is predicated on tolls being charged upon completion, for use to create that payback. You have clearly looked at France. Having driven to the Alps at Easter, I know from bitter personal experience just how much you pay at every toll booth there: they are beautiful roads, but it costs hundreds of euros to travel a single trip of that sort of distance. Where is the British tipping point? How many more toll roads—those could be built, but there is also concern that road charging could be expanded to other roads under the Bill, because of some of its wording—would the economy bear, without major changes to fuel duty, road fund licence rates, et cetera?

Sam Dumitriu: One thing is that a lot of major road projects have been cancelled recently. The first road investment strategy was much more ambitious than the ones that followed. That was partly due to covid, but now we are out the other end, we see reduced ambition on road building. Road maintenance has gone up a bit, which is positive, but at the same time, we are not building the projects.

It is important to look at which projects are appropriate for tolling; bridges and tunnels make perfect sense. In America, lots of additional lanes that have their own toll are built. Based on our geography and the amount of road infrastructure we have, you probably could not do that—when you are adding a super-fast lane on a seven-lane motorway, that works; it does not really work here—but clearly there are lots of bottlenecks and opportunities to finance things via tolls.

The question we have to ask is, as fuel duty revenue declines, because people are switching to electric vehicles, will there be the same impetus to put money into the roads? Currently, motorists do not get a very fair deal: they pay a lot in tax, but they do not see the same return in road building, as the money tends to go into the general pot. You might want to, say, hypothecate that revenue—that is one thing—but road user charging gets around the question of politicians attempting to use infrastructure money generally to put it towards your primary, day-to-day spending, whether that is on the NHS or £100 to deal with the cost of living, et cetera.

There needs to be some way of insulating long-term infrastructure funding from those, and that is the advantage of tolling. The problem is that motorists will only bear or accept it if they are confident that they are not being hit by all these other taxes and are getting something genuinely new in return. I do not see many motorists complaining about the Silvertown and Blackwall tunnels being tolled, because they have new infrastructure and congestion has fallen. It would be different if an existing road were tolled without a noticeable improvement.

Ben Hopkinson: There is nothing inherently wrong with road user charging. It is quite sensible that the people who use and get the benefits of an infrastructure asset pay towards its construction and maintenance. The challenge is that we already have quite high fuel duty, and it is more than solely the combination of carbon output and what we spend on roads and maintenance. If fuel duty were solely for mitigating the externalities of carbon emissions, combined with the upkeep, maintenance and addition of roads, it would be around 35p, rather than the about 52p it is now, so fuel duty is already higher than the economic impacts of roads and emissions.

If you kept fuel duty where it is, or cancelled out the 5p cut—the scrapping of which is perennially promised—and added road user charging on top, that would be quite a significant burden for motorists to bear. But ideally, new infrastructure would be funded through some form of road user charging. The people who drive get the benefits, so that is only fair.

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

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. Mr Hopkinson, you have expressed concerns about the limited incentives for cost control—presumably that is mainly in the construction part of the scheme; obviously, we are talking about the lower Thames crossing here. The Bill gives the ORR the ability to set licence conditions on economic allowances and expenditure controls, and provides for the investors to make a reasonable return. Those safeguards are set out. Do you not consider those sufficient and would you like to see something in addition?

Ben Hopkinson: I am well aware that there are safeguards and that the regulator is tasked with ensuring that there are not runaway costs. However, the ORR has never done this before. No regulator has ever done a RAB for a road before. There is a real risk that if it sets the return too high, motorists will pay significantly more, but if it sets the return too low, then no one will want to invest.

While in theory the model makes a lot of sense, I am a little worried about the practicalities of the ORR accidentally setting a rate too high or too low. In other sectors where rates are set by regulators, there are often risks, especially when there are macroeconomic shifts—higher interest rates, for example. Regulators are sometimes slow to update to that. There are concerns there. With a concession model, as used in France and around the world, there are much better incentives for contractors to keep costs down because they are the ones bearing them, not the potential motorists.

[Justin Madders]

Q But you would accept that in that model there is no control from the regulator?

Ben Hopkinson: Well, there is a bit of control. There is also the market pushback; if tolls are set too high, people simply will not use the new asset. In that circumstance, the private constructor bears the revenue risk of it being set too high. There is also the overall agreement that the concessionaire strikes with the state initially.

One other concern that I have about the RAB is that there is not necessarily a sunset clause. In France, it is very common for roads to return to public ownership after about 60 or 70 years. There is a chance here, under the RAB, that there is no sunset and so they are permanently away from state ownership. I know that the Bill does provide for some sunset clauses if they impose them, but that is not the default here. That is another concern that I have about the RAB model.

[Justin Madders]

Q As you rightly point out, there are a number of opportunities for licences to be terminated. I would suggest that risks on revenue for too high a toll charge would apply equally in this model as they would in concession models.

Sam, you spoke about the planning delays and have set out the significant costs and delays because of that. In terms of the lower Thames crossing, is it your understanding that those risks are now past?

Sam Dumitriu: In general, it appears so. However, we have seen some cases for example, in energy infrastructure, where you can have a development consent order passed and construction under way, but then encounter further planning-related delays.

For example, the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is potentially the most expensive nuclear power station that the world will ever see. One of the issues is that, after spending around £700 million on fish mitigations, it is still in the process of trying to get the permit that unlocks the final phase of construction. If it does not get that permit, it then has to apply for a DCO variation, so there can still be planning risk even if you address the up-front challenges. Hopefully some of the changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 around environmental delivery plans—if they start being rolled out much further than the initial pilot—and potentially also changes to judicial review, which can delay some of these things as well, will address those.

In terms of the point about safeguards, there is one reason to be slightly less pessimistic than Ben. One advantage with the ORR that you do not have with Ofgem or Ofwat is that in National Highways you have a state-owned body with access to cost information. What you tend to see with these other sectors is more opaque, because it is fundamentally people in industry paying very expensive economic consultancies to produce lengthy PowerPoints to tell you how much something should cost. If you have National Highways building toll projects funded via RAB, you have that information, which should allow you to see through some of the perhaps excessive claims on cost that you can see in other sectors. That is a positive, but you still have the fundamental problem of the RAB, which is slightly less incentive to keep costs down unless you have very good information and a regulator that is very on it.

[Justin Madders]

We hope the Bill will address those concerns.

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

Q Both of your organisations and many others have highlighted how the UK is not great at delivering infrastructure quickly and efficiently. Do you believe that the Bill in its current form has the potential to accelerate the delivery of major road projects?

Ben Hopkinson: I completely agree that the UK has a long historical challenge with delivering infrastructure cheaply and quickly. HS2 is the most expensive railway ever built, and the Bakerloo line extension will be one of the most expensive underground lines ever built. Tramlines are double the cost here compared to other European countries. We have the most expensive nuclear power plant ever built. There is a real long-term failure to build infrastructure quickly and cheaply.

On the Bill, it is good that we are getting private financing in, and that will help ease some of the burden on the state, when we are already pushed up against our fiscal limits. As I have mentioned, I have a little concern about the incentive structure, especially insofar as the private constructor has incentives to escalate costs as much as they can get away with under the ORR. A concession model might work a little better.

Sam Dumitriu: One of the important things when it comes to infrastructure delivery is ensuring you have a pipeline of projects, you know what you will build next and you can plan appropriately. We have many reasons why, in the UK, those pipelines get knocked about. Sometimes you have a road that you want to build, and everyone wants it built, but someone has brought a lawsuit against the road and it is delayed by a year. That makes planning for that really challenging.

One of the other problems is that sometimes those delays mean that you get pushed into different funding windows—the Treasury can reopen conversations about value for money, especially when in every Budget someone is trying to squeeze things into the fiscal rules and moving things from one period into another period, and cost-saving measures that are really delays. Those things tend to happen, and have happened for ever.

One thing that was really impressive under the last Government was the road investment strategy approach, which essentially said “We will set out a strategic case for all the big roads we want to build, we will give a pot of money and then we will give a delivery body the freedom to execute that.” The freedom to execute was slightly constrained by the planning system and all those delays, but fundamentally that is a very good approach. The challenge comes when the money is not quite there from the public purse, in part because the fiscal situation is tighter, but also because different choices are being made. In that case, private finance can fill the gap and ensure that you have a much more stable pipeline. I am in favour of that aspect and I think that will speed up delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Q I will ask my last question. Clearly, your organisation, sitting across your members who supply the vehicles, would be in trouble if the number of vehicles on the road started going down. Have you done any modelling on where the breaking point or tipping point—call it what you will—would be on top of existing fuel duties, the new 3p a mile for battery cars, road fund licences and so on in terms of the overall volume of additional toll roads that this Bill could enable?

Thomas McLennan: That is a very good question. I am afraid we have not done that modelling, but we can look into it. The more pernicious point for us is that the more points of friction you have in your usership, the less likely you are to be able to make the usership work for you. We have unfortunately seen that even in great measures, and in London the level of friction has meant that some car club companies had to fold. It is challenging to operate where you have a split, with every borough having its own rules—all of those interactions have been deeply challenging. With more consistency, we can have a strategic vision on how to deliver within that framework. That is a much stronger approach to enable the investment from ourselves and the customers to be able to keep mobility moving in this country.

[Justin Madders]

Q You said a little about how consistency across the country would be helpful for your members. I just want to take you one step back: is the principle of barrierless charging one that your organisation would support?

Thomas McLennan: We have had very mixed experiences with barrierless charging, so I do not think we can give a pure vision on that right now. We have had some use cases where currently there is not even the ability to transfer liability to someone who has hired a vehicle—the operator does not allow it. Then there are other instances where you can do bulk uploads, the system works really well and it is effectively smooth sailing.

What we always see is that the removal of barriers means a lot more penalty charge notices. That obviously makes sense, because previously you had to pay to get across, and then the barrier is removed and lots of people do not pay, so there is a sharp increase in penalty charge notices. All of our members have reported that to us.

The question is what happens after that. The inconsistencies mean that you can then have a duplicative effect of enormous administrative burdens on everyone involved, which have to be paid to make that work. We would say that if we are going towards barrierless charging from the get-go, which we understand has congestion benefits and so on, it needs to be done so that you do not shift the burden of someone paying at the barrier downstream to someone then having to figure out how to transfer liability or chase up on that, removing people’s ability to challenge the fines because they have just been paid, and so on. We need to look at all those things in the Bill from the start and structure them there.

[Justin Madders]

Q The regulation-making powers in the Bill will hopefully address those concerns if there is adequate consultation as we move forward.

Thomas McLennan: I have a concern that there is too much emphasis on downstream consultation in the Bill. We want to see a requirement to enable things such as the transfer of liability in the Bill because that has not been consistent in the market to date. We need to see that embedded from the start.

[The Chair]

I call Olly Glover.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Yes.

Will Godfrey: In terms of the construction of this particular project, as I say, the way you hold the company to account relates to what is in the licence, and it is important to draw a distinction between what is in the development consent order and what is in the licence. The regulator’s role is not to hold the company to account on the DCO—that remains subject to the separate process for the scrutiny and delivery of that.

What the ORR would be doing under these arrangements is holding the company to account on the licence itself. The first price control settlement, if you like, would be set by the Department as part of a competition toward the first licence. Those would set the commercial terms—the expectation around allowed revenue and so forth—and then the ORR would come in as the regulator at the start of the price control and hold the company to account against that, by monitoring and scrutinising the delivery against the relevant milestones on the construction.

[Justin Madders]

Q Good afternoon. You probably heard witnesses earlier express a little scepticism about your ability to deal with the potential cost inflation or exaggeration—whatever word you want to use. You have obviously both been involved in this project from its inception, particularly in terms of construction, and you are running the existing crossing, so you know what the running costs and maintenance costs are. Would you say that, because of that, the scope for being blinded by PowerPoint, for want of a better description, is probably more limited than it could be?

Matt Palmer: The lower Thames crossing has been developed in detail over the last six years. Our development consent order fixes that scope very tightly; we cannot build any more or any less, so the scope is very well known. We are now running at 90% designed, so we literally are fully designed, and it has been competitively bid for. It is operating—we are currently on site with 3,300 people—and operating well against that very defined scope.

It is, I am afraid, just a simple road. My colleagues back at base will kick me for that, but as a project it is a simple thing to build. We are not building a complex signalling system or a control system for a nuclear power station; we are just building a simple dumb asset. As for our ability to control that, control on road construction is historically very good. If you take a similar project, which would be something like Thames Tideway, a similar RAB-based model, it is another simple dumb asset—that is no disrespect to my colleagues who built that. These are simple projects to build. They are large, but they are simple, and we know how to build them in the UK. The cost control on it is predominantly driven by the fact that we know what we are building and what it costs.

[Justin Madders]

Do have anything to add, Mr Godfrey?

Will Godfrey: I would reiterate the point that the development consent order tightly defines the scope of what is being delivered. As Matt said, the project is already well advanced.

There are a few other points to bring up. Getting the cost forecast right, which underpins the allowed revenue for the first control period, is really important. That is the baseline against which you are holding the company to account. The instruments thereafter are what you specify in the licence, and that is really important to get right. That is not stuff you put in the Bill, but it is really important that you get it right in the licence and that you have the right incentives for the privately financed entity to deliver against that schedule. You need to make sure that the balance in the allocation of risk is right and that end users are ultimately protected from the risks of cost overruns.

As I say, this project is fairly well advanced already; it is not like we are talking about starting one from scratch.

[Olly Glover]

Q Over the decades, we have often heard the wisdom that private finance is better than the Treasury, because it helps to keep things off the Treasury books and avoids constraints from public sector financing. But with some of those private finance initiatives, the whole-life costs can end up being quite a lot higher and being a burden on the taxpayer in a different way. What metrics do you feel that the Government should use to determine whether alternative finance arrangements, rather than direct Treasury funding, deliver better value for money for individual road schemes? What criteria should there be for deciding that?

Will Godfrey: I think the ORR’s role, as envisaged in the Bill, would not be to advise on those questions. That would be more of a question to address to Government. It is perhaps relevant here that it is important to take account of the risk-adjusted cost of financing. You have already made the point about whether things are on the balance sheet or not. Another point to bring in is the certainty around the funding and delivery arrangements. RAB-based price controls are a commitment to a certain cycle of, typically, five-year reviews in which you set the funding requirements, the price control limits and what is delivered in that period. You reset each time but the point is that it is not potentially subject to Government reopening the arrangements for the funding, which is sometimes encountered in other publicly funded arrangements. I think that is as much as I am able to say. That is more of a question for Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Minister?

[Justin Madders]

No questions.

[The Chair]

Olly Glover?

Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on opening the debate and setting out the various issues that have led to us considering the petition.

We have heard a great many contributions. We heard from the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon); from my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge), for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); from the right hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale); and from the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). That indicates the widespread interest in this matter across the nation.

I welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), to her place. We have worked together on a Select Committee, and I hope that, in her new role, we can continue the constructive relationship we enjoyed on the Committee.

The strength of feeling is clear. As we have heard, 189,000 people signed the petition, many because they know at first hand the distress caused when a cat is struck on the road and the family is not given any answers. A number of Members spoke with great personal knowledge and sincerity about their own situations. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about his sad experiences and about the sense of unfairness that people feel about the different treatment, which I will come to. He also rightly pointed out that the RSPCA questions whether the resources are in place to deal with what the petitioners ask for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth had a cat who lived for 20 years, which is an incredible achievement; he obviously looked after it very well. Both he and the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich spoke clearly and passionately about the question of decency. It really is a question of decency: any decent person who hit an animal on the road would not just leave it there in pain, and would try to do something about it.

It is fair to say that there are practical considerations about how easy it would be to put on a statutory footing what I think everyone in this Chamber would instinctively feel is the right thing to do. The right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings talked about his time in office and the statutory guidance issued then. He is no longer here, but I am sure he will read Hansard in the morning. That guidance remains active across the strategic road network, and there is a requirement on National Highways operators to collect, log and scan deceased domestic pets, including cats, and to make a proactive attempt to contact the owners. The microchip registration system that we now have in place will hopefully mean that, in most cases, owners are contacted when one of those sad incidents occurs.

We heard a number of other excellent contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood gave us a long list of the cats in her family. It sounds like Fanny is a local celebrity in the constituency—I am sure she will appear on some leaflets in the not-too-distant future. My hon. Friend spoke movingly about the depth of the bond between cats and their owners, which all Members have spoken about with a great deal of sincerity, and made an important point about needing clarity on who a driver should report a collision to. I understand that officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be meeting representatives from CatsMatter to discuss that issue further, because although we may not be able to change the law in this Chamber, we can certainly pick up some of the practical measures that can be taken to make this difficult situation easier.

We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, who is clearly an active campaigner in this area. She made it clear that she is a cat lover as well, and she is, of course, the most appropriately named Member of us all. She recognised that there is a difference between cats and dogs and talked about some of the alternative measures and solutions we can consider, which I will come to. She also asked about other jurisdictions, which a couple of other Members mentioned. Most of those countries were self-contained and small, but I will ask officials to look at how the laws have operated in different countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West gave an excellent speech, giving us a little insight into his cat issues. I join him in his praise of the PDSA, which does excellent work. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage spoke with great sincerity about his constituents Fern, Anthony and Leo and their sad experience of trying to find Buddy for almost a year. His comment that cats are never just pets is a statement that all Members who have spoken would recognise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has made it clear to me on many occasions that she is very much a cat lover. She also declared her work on the APPG, which I commend. She acknowledges that there are concerns with the proposals, particularly from Cats Protection. She also made a point, which I will come to, about how it is quite problematic to have an equivalence, for the reasons she outlined. I agree that that does not mean nothing can be done. We will certainly look at what can be done.

[Dr Arthur]

I am pleased to hear that a DEFRA Minister is going to meet CatsMatter to talk about this issue. I also welcome the Minister’s talk of reviewing what other jurisdictions do; will he commit to publishing that work in some shape or form, so that we can get sight of it?

[Justin Madders]

I am sure we can find a way of publishing it. I have sprung that on my officials this evening, so I do not know exactly what form it will take, but at the very least I can commit to writing to Members who have taken part in the debate to advise on what we find from that review. As I say, I am not familiar with the other jurisdictions, and it may be that the laws and requirements are different—we know that the demography and topography of those countries is different—but it is fair for us to consider that.

As Members have pointed out, the current position is that although drivers are not required to report every animal death on the road, they should, where it is safe and practicable, try to identify the owner of a domestic animal and let them know what has happened. A number of Members spoke about wanting to make that mandatory, and I understand why, but we have to have legislation that is both workable and safe. As several Members acknowledged, cats are mostly smaller than dogs, and a driver may not actually realise that a collision has occurred—that is probably more relevant given the propensity for larger vehicles nowadays. When the nights are drawing in, if it is a rural road with high-speed traffic, it is actually quite dangerous to ask people to leave their vehicle to search for a cat. That could create more danger and injury. There are also practical difficulties—we must consider locating the animal, arranging identification and ensuring that any reporting system can be enforced consistently.

I recognise the concern that owners should have the best possible chance of knowing what has happened to their pet when cats are found by the roadside. As Members have said, any decent human being would want that to happen and would try to do their best. One of my family’s cats, Ruby, was returned to us by a good-natured neighbour who had discovered her on the roadside after she was run over. It was a very sad time but, thinking of my children’s perspective, I would rather things happened in that way than for them to discover Ruby on the roadside on the walk to school the next morning. I applaud the public spiritedness of the individual who returned Ruby to us that night.

That shows that such gestures, difficult though they are, really do go a long way to providing some comfort to people who in a distressed situation, and that is the purpose behind the public campaign known as Gizmo’s Legacy, which calls for local authorities to scan microchips so that owners can be identified and informed. We support the principle that local authorities should have effective processes in place in such circumstances, and we want to encourage councils to be as helpful as they can be in those situations. As Members have acknowledged, that is why DEFRA has commissioned research into how its processes affect the reunification of owners with cats and dogs that are found dead by the roadside, with the aim of identifying both best practice and barriers. When the findings are published, they will support the development of best practice guidance for local authorities, so that more owners can be notified, where possible.

The hon. Member for Yeovil asked when the research would be published. It is fair to say that the research project is still being reviewed, but it will be published as soon as the process has concluded. I doubt very much that he was told to go away, but I assure him that both his comments and those of other Members about their desire to see that report will be transmitted to DEFRA after the debate.

Microchipping it is clearly one of the things that makes the research much more valuable than it might have been a few years ago. As the Opposition spokesperson pointed out, since June 2024 it has been compulsory for all cats over the age of 20 weeks to be microchipped and registered on a compliant database, unless they are exempt or free-living. Microchipping supports responsible pet ownership and gives owners a better chance of being reunited with their pets if they are lost or have strayed.

I have personal experience of lost cats. A few years ago, one of our cats, Trixie, went on a six-week holiday to Chester. We were very grateful to the public-spirited individual who brought her back. Trixie has never told us what she was up to for those six weeks, or how she managed to get to Chester in the first place. I think most Members recognise that cats have quite a secretive nature.

DEFRA is working with the pet-microchipping sector to make the regime more effective, including by improving the accuracy and accessibility of records, and by strengthening the oversight of microchip databases. I am pleased to report that, from the end of last month and following close work with DEFRA, the Association of Microchip Database Operators has launched a single point of search for microchip databases. This was introduced to make it faster and easier for vets and local authorities to access microchip records. We will continue to support the roll-out of cat microchipping as part of the wider work to help owners to identify and recover their pets.

As Members recognised, and as Cats Protection has acknowledged, there could be numerous unintended consequences if we were to make stopping and reporting compulsory. Instead, our priority is to prevent collisions in the first place by making roads safer for everyone. That broader approach should reduce the number of cats that are killed or injured.

A number of reasons have been put forward as to why cats and dogs are classified differently. Clearly, the origins of the distinction are historic, but there are still pertinent differences today, and the effective right to roam is something that makes it very difficult for us to put dogs and cats on an equivalent legislative footing. Making reporting mandatory would create a new criminal offence that would be difficult to enforce. On balance, then, we believe that the existing distinction should remain.

We will continue to engage with advocates in this area. We will look at the emerging research and do what we can to encourage responsible actions from the wider public. On that note, Mr Vickers, I will give the hon. Member for Newton Abbot an opportunity to respond to the debate.

E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate, and the many Members who made contributions.

Although this was billed as a transport debate, a number of other Departments clearly have some influence and interest in the matter, not least the Home Office. A lot of the debate has been about the impact of the reckless and illegal use of e-scooters and e-bikes—ranging from nuisance and antisocial behaviour to downright criminality—in all our constituencies. We heard a number of tragic stories about the serious harm that misuse can cause, including life-changing injuries and, indeed, fatalities, so I want to start by reassuring Members that I and the Government understand the importance of the issues raised.

It is correct to say, as a number of Members did, that e-bikes and e-scooters have a role to play in our communities—they provide another transport option and have the potential to improve individuals’ health and reduce emissions—but, as we have heard clearly today, an inconsistent approach to regulation and sales over years has left loopholes that at best confuse people and at worst leave this area open to criminal abuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said, the illegal activity is undermining the positive story we want to talk about in respect of the use of these vehicles.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Like other Members across this Chamber, I am facing huge problems in my constituency with bike gangs and those who are causing real harm to my community. I thank the Minister and the Government for all the work they have done—more police, more powers, more local work, the banning of balaclavas and careless bike riding, and getting TikTok accounts taken down. That is a win for us all, and we are building safer communities, but can the Minister assure me that it is not the end and that the Government will keep going further to stop the bike gangs and keep my community safe?

[Justin Madders]

As my hon. Friend will hear in the rest of my speech, we will be going further in a number of areas. I absolutely recognise his concerns.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

This will be the last intervention; we have a lot to fit in.

[Jim Shannon]

While we all look for legislative change, there has to be something within the system for the purchase of e-bikes to ensure that young people do not injure themselves. The Belfast health trust has had more than 100 people who have been injured, and it is young people driving them. Is it not important to have some sort of regulation and guidance for those people who perhaps do not want to break the law but end up doing so and injuring themselves?

[Justin Madders]

There is an awful lot we need to be looking at in terms of the retail element, which I will come to shortly.

We have heard contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds); from my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), for Carlisle, for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), for Rushcliffe (James Naish), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Shipley (Anna Dixon); and from the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). This is clearly a nationwide issue that Members throughout the House are particularly interested in. I will not be able to address every single comment, but I will pick out a few that I can address now. We will respond in writing—either me or the relevant Minister—to issues that we are not able to pick up.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has campaigned on this issue for a long time. She mentioned e-bike fires, which I am well aware of as I was the Minister responsible for the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025. I have met Sofia Duarte’s mother and I absolutely agree that it is important that we introduce regulations. I will address that in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark probably shared a little too much information about his body shape, but he asked an important question about the national licensing framework. I can confirm that the consultation on that will begin imminently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned the tragic circumstances of her constituent Gloria. I absolutely hear what her daughter Julie has said, and reassure her that we will act on that. My hon. Friend mentioned a review of the dirt bike licensing regime; I will come back to her on that in writing. She was right, as were my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife and the hon. Member for Witney, along with several others, about the responsibility of retailers. It is not good enough to put in small print that these vehicles are for use only on private land. That is not the action of a responsible retailer. Let me be clear: we expect retailers to clean up their act, and if they are not able to do that, more levers are available for us to deal with that.

It might help if I briefly set out the current legislative framework. The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 set out the parameters for what is legal and what is not. The power of the electric motor on a legal e-bike cannot exceed 250 watts, and the maximum assisted speed cannot exceed 15.5 mph. Anything faster or more powerful is an electric motorbike and should therefore be approved and registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, taxed and insured. In addition, the rider must wear a safety helmet and hold a driving licence. A vehicle that is too fast or too powerful and not properly registered as an electric motorbike is illegal for use on public roads. We absolutely need to restate that.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned concerns that the police do not have enough powers. I think it is fair to say, as a number of Members recognised, that the Government have made it easier for the police to act thanks to measures in the Crime and Policing Act 2026—I am afraid the shadow Minister forgot to mention that his party voted against it on Third Reading. The police can now seize vehicles without first having to issue a warrant.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central said, police forces use a range of different tactics; we are keen to learn from experiences up and down the country. I am pleased to report that there is a lot of cracking down in different forces, tackling the issue from London to Liverpool. Merseyside police’s Operation Gears seized 500 illegal electric motorbikes and e-scooters in 2025. Only last week, the local constabulary in my Ellesmere Port constituency seized around 13 illegal vehicles, supported by one of my local councillors, Katie Kendrick. The issue really matters to people, because we all see it on the streets. If people are wearing balaclavas on bikes, it is criminality hiding in plain sight. It is equivalent to the dodgy vape shop. It is important that we support the police to use the powers they have, and look at whether more powers are needed to deal with the issue.

Of course, that is only one side of the problem. As we have discussed, it is far too easy to get hold of these vehicles, which means we must look at doing more at the point of sale. This is about not just the bikes but the e-bike conversion kits which, as we have heard, have the potential to pose real harm to cyclists and others. E-bike batteries can be dangerous if they are not properly installed, and they must be properly regulated to keep people safe.

As Members will be aware, over the summer the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade consulted on a range of updates to the product safety framework, including clear duties for online marketplaces to take due care to identify, prevent and remove from their sites unsafe products such as unsafe or non-compliant batteries and their use in e-bikes and conversion kits. That consultation has now closed. BIST officials are considering the responses as part of drafting the Government’s response. As the Minister who introduced the enabling legislation, I am keener than most to ensure that we make the best use of it. I remind the shadow Minister yet again that his party voted against that particular set of laws.

Let me turn briefly to e-scooters. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell told us about the tragic death of Jacob Calland, and my sympathies are with his family; I understand that they met my predecessor, and I am keen to continue that dialogue. As Members have pointed out, private e-scooters are illegal for use on public roads. They can be legally used only through the Government’s trials, which have been extended to May 2028. The trial system was implemented back in 2020 but has never been placed on a statutory footing. We are making a firm commitment that we will legislate to define e-scooters in law, which will provide the certainty that we currently do not have. People will know what is legal and what is not, and what can be enforced against.

[Helen Maguire]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member will have an opportunity to respond at the end.

It is fair to say that there is no international consensus on the right package of regulations for e-scooters, which is why our trial extension is important. We recognise that there will be trade-offs when regulating e-scooters, which is why we will consult next year on detailed proposals.

I will conclude, because the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will want an opportunity to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East asked whether I will use my convening power in the Department to get action across Government. I am pleased to confirm that I am working with colleagues across the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, and we are setting up a cross-departmental working group to look at this issue, because we consider it an important matter to be tackled across Government. I will shortly meet colleagues across the House who have raised these issues, and I hope to be able to provide regular updates, because this is an important matter to Members and we are determined to tackle it.

East West Rail: Bedford to Cambridge

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for securing the debate. I have taken a note of his questions. He will be aware that I am not the Rail Minister. As he gracefully pointed out, I did not get advance notice of his questions —certainly, some of them were of a more rhetorical nature than others—but I will endeavour to ensure that the Rail Minister provides him with a response. I will speak more generally to start with.

East West Rail is a priority transport project for the Government. It will significantly improve connectivity for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. It will help to unlock good growth, jobs, new homes and opportunities across the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor. As we know, the corridor boasts a number of strengths. It is home to world-leading employers and universities. It has one of the highest concentrations of high-tech firms in Europe. It is attracting inward investment, as we have heard, from the likes of Universal, for its new theme park at Stewartby, and in science and innovation at sites such as the biomedical campus in Cambridge.

However, the corridor’s growth has been constrained with high house prices, pressure on existing infrastructure, including the road network, and a long-standing lack of east-to-west connectivity. Those issues are summed up perfectly for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents by the fact that there are no direct rail routes to Oxford or Cambridge, and that it is easier to travel to London by rail than it is to get across the region. That leaves people reliant on cars, infrequent bus or coach services, or not making journeys across the region at all.

The Government are committed to addressing those constraints to growth, and East West Rail is central to our ambition to realise the full potential of that corridor. The remaining stages of the railway involve upgrading the existing Marston Vale line between Bletchley and Bedford and constructing the new section of railway between Bedford and Cambridge, which the hon. Member focused his comments on. Those stages will be delivered from 2030 onwards, and East West Rail completed its final route-wide consultation on them in the spring. It is currently finalising its proposals for a development consent order application, which I understand will be some time next year.

The plans for the railway include eight new stations, including at Tempsford in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and up to five passenger services per hour. It is not just local journeys that will be improved; the new line will have interchanges with major rail lines, expanding connectivity with the rest of the country. At Tempsford, the new station will also be served by the east coast main line. The East West Rail line will also be partly electrified to support net zero operations using hybrid battery-electric trains, providing greener and faster journeys for passengers. I hope that in part answers one of the hon. Member’s questions.

All those new changes will mean a step change in connectivity across the region and will offer benefits to the hon. Member’s constituents. He has diligently raised—not for the first time—the business case for East West Rail. The BCR is an important measure of value for money, but it is only one part of the overall assessment. Together with the strategic case for East West Rail, that wider evidence informs Government decision making.

For East West Rail there is a clear and compelling strategic case for the project in overcoming the constraints in the region, and in particular, providing opportunities for new jobs, and for new sustainable communities to grow. The line will serve potential new town sites that have been identified by the Government in Tempsford and Milton Keynes, as well as supporting the Government’s aims to unlock development in both Oxford and Cambridge.

We are already seeing investment being brought forward along the planned route, whether that is in new housing developments or the new Universal theme park at Stewartby. Because of that, the project has backing from major employers and institutions across the region, as evidenced by the support of the Oxford to Cambridge supercluster group. Details on the case for the project were set out in the consultation earlier this year, and the economic and technical report on the project published in 2023 provided a significant amount of detail on the different options that had been considered to improve connectivity, as well as the case for the railway.

The hon. Member identified that that was some time ago, and that there have been a number of changes, possibly further strengthening or weakening the case. Further information on the case will be provided as part of the development consent order application and a full business case will be prepared once planning consent has been secured.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not think that the Minister has taken up my offer of releasing the business case tomorrow. If we go with the process that the Government are hiding behind, will the decision to go ahead by the Government, as well as the DCO from a planning point, have been approved by the time that case has been presented to the public?

[Justin Madders]

The exact sequencing of those things is something that I would defer to the Rail Minister on, and I will get him to write to the hon. Member. It is the case that the economic benefits and the business cases are considered in tandem with those issues. Publication will be issued once the planning consent has been secured, which is typical for those types of projects, as the hon. Member will know. I hear what the hon. Member says about transparency. He is right that it will not be released tomorrow, but it will become a public document, and I can assure him that he will have his opportunity to make further comment on it.

It is important to state that the benefits that the line will unlock will come from the railway as a whole, in particular the new section of railway between Bedford and Cambridge. It is also important to say that unlocking the opportunity here is a key part of the strategic and economic cases for the scheme and, in accordance with departmental guidance, additional benefits that are dependent on the scheme will be included in the overall value for money assessment. The latest estimates suggest that the East West Rail line will increase the regional economy by some £6.7 billion GVA per year by 2050 and, obviously, those figures will be updated as we go forward.

There will be significant benefits from the development of the East West Rail line. It is important to state that the latest plans will mean delivering services between Oxford and Stewartby, and then between Oxford and Bedford, ahead of the completion of the line in full, which will allow services to run to the new Universal theme park at the earliest opportunity. I heard the hon. Member’s question about the location of the theme park, and I will take that back to the Rail Minister, too.

While is important to recognise the benefits that East West Rail will deliver, we also recognise that the construction will have some impact on the communities that the hon. Member represents, and significant work has been done to assess alternative routes through public consultation. That work has concluded that serving Bedford directly and enabling fast, direct journeys from stations on the Marston Vale line to Cambridge are a key part of realising the full benefits of the project, which may be the answer to one of his questions—I will ask the Rail Minister to confirm that in writing.

As the hon. Member will be aware, the East West Rail company has worked to reduce the impact of the line on local communities whenever possible, which includes impacts on homes, local businesses and farmland. In its spring consultation, the company set out a range of ways in which it has responded to feedback in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, including moving and lowering the alignment of the railway to reduce visual impacts between Clapham Green and Colesden and working to reduce construction vehicle movements and potential impacts on properties.

I recognise that the hon. Member raised an awful lot of other, more detailed matters. As I have already committed to doing, I will ensure that the Rail Minister provides a full written response.

Question put and agreed to.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: 2026-27 Business Plan

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s 2026-27 business plan was published yesterday.

The business plan sets out the key business priorities that the DVLA will deliver and any significant changes it plans to make to its services as well as the key performance indicators by which the DVLA’s performance will be assessed.

The business plan allows users of the DVLA’s services to understand the agency’s plans for delivering its vital services to motorists and managing its finances.

The business plan is available electronically on www.gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS392]