Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you; that is noted.

Clause 1

General duty of ORR

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out lines 15 to 18, and insert—

“it is the Lower Thames Crossing.”

This amendment would restrict the application of the Bill to the Lower Thames Crossing.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, on the first day of line-by-line consideration of this important Bill. Whenever I sit on a Bill Committee, I seem to be opposite this Minister. We spent many happy weeks together on the Employment Rights Bill earlier in the Parliament. I look forward to the next few weeks.

I genuinely believe that a lot of the Bill has cross-party consensus, certainly between the Government and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. However, as we explored in some of the evidence sessions the other day and on Second Reading, there are some question marks over many aspects of the Bill. We will no doubt explore those in future debates in Committee and later in the passage of the Bill in our House and the other place. For now, however, my proposition through this amendment is that we should seize on where we have agreement in order to get progress on a project that I think all parts of the House wish to see built, namely the lower Thames crossing. The amendment therefore seeks to restrict the Bill to just the lower Thames crossing.

In other parts of the Bill, we have genuine consensus, such as on the provisions for barrier-free tolling on roads such as the M6 and the Mersey tunnel, but that could easily be brought forward in separate legislation. The real purpose of the amendment is so that the Government can get on with the lower Thames crossing, which we very much want to see happen, particularly Labour Members in the direct locality of the crossing, as well as a number of Conservative Members from Kent and Essex.

If we can do that, I think we will see speed that we do not often see in infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom. Last week, we heard evidence about the differentials between us in the United Kingdom and our nearest neighbours in France and how they get stuff built faster and cheaper. For once in this Parliament, why do we not grasp the nettle, take what we agree on and move forward with it, having the debate on the other aspects further down the line?

One of the arguments I make is something I have seen throughout my political career in this place, in local government and as an activist: the importance to trial a new model to prove that it works. This is innovation for the lower Thames crossing, so let us test it, try it and work out the gremlins before the Government, whoever that might be at that point, come forward with other projects that could be financed and secured through the RAB—regulated asset base—model and the innovations in the Bill. I will ask the Minister a few questions on that.

Given that so much of the media and debate narrative has been about the lower Thames crossing, what other projects do the Government think might come forward or could be financed through the model proposed in the Bill, other than the lower Thames crossing? If literally nothing else is on the table, why are we legislating in this place for something that no one has the first clue about what it might be for? We can all gather around the point on the lower Thames crossing, but we may have divergence on other projects, in particular if no one can name a single one of them.

The framework brought forward by the Bill is open ended. The public we serve in all our respective constituencies would expect us to have far greater clarity on precisely what any law that we pass in this place is for. My constituents and those in the constituency of every other right hon. and hon. Member can understand and get behind the lower Thames crossing; it is far more difficult to get behind an abstract, which they cannot see, touch, breathe or smell, and so on. I put it to the Minister, therefore: accept the amendment and let us get an Act on the statute book that can move forward at pace—that favourite political phrase, at the moment—to get the lower Thames crossing built.

[Alison Griffiths]

My hon. Friend makes such an important point. During the evidence sessions, the Minister was categorical that his intention was not for any other road to be covered by this, so I join my hon. Friend in asking the Minister why he would not agree to the amendment, since he is so adamant about no other need for the clause.

[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.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I certainly will. I am always happy to give way and have a discussion on these matters—that is fundamentally what we are here to do in line-by-line scrutiny.

[Jim Dickson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The Minister has made it clear that it is incredibly important that the mechanism we are setting up today not only works to get the lower Thames crossing constructed but integrates the work at the Dartford crossing, so that tolling is equalised and traffic is hopefully distributed properly across both crossings. The lower Thames crossing is there to take the pressure off the Dartford crossing, which is a single point of failure that leads to costs not only for the economy but for my residents in delays, air quality and all sorts of adverse life consequences. Does the hon. Member not understand that, if we limit the Bill to the lower Thames crossing, there is a possibility that we will not be able to undertake the integration between the two entities, and that the point of what we are doing in this Bill Committee will therefore be lost?

[Greg Smith]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. In theory, it is in exchanges like this that we—the four of us from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the crowds from the Government side, as fits our current Parliament—can work to improve the Bill, if there is a willingness to do so. I understand his point, and I would be very open to something that connects things by limiting the scope to the lower Thames crossing and the existing Dartford crossing, which affects his constituents so considerably. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman in other debates on that point.

The wider point still stands. The Bill is writing an open-ended, unpredictable future under this model, beyond the projects that all of us can get behind and support and that our constituents will understand. No matter where they are in the country, many people wish to get down to Kent, perhaps to Dover to get on a ferry and go to France, and they will find themselves behind the wheel—worse still, with the kids in the back screaming—because of the delays getting to the Dartford crossing. Therefore, everyone can get behind the need to get this project done, but let us restrict it to this project, albeit with—I state this for the record very clearly—integration with the existing infrastructure for the Dartford crossing. The very worst thing we could create with any new project, of which the lower Thames crossing is a good example, is an unintended impact on existing road networks, crossings, tunnels and so on.

The integration has to be there, and I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point on that. However, the core principle of this amendment—it will be no surprise that we fully expect to lose the vote given the current parliamentary maths—is to put down a marker of our support for the lower Thames crossing but also our scepticism about the way this model could be applied to other unnamed schemes in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clause 1 obliges the Office of Rail and Road only to

“have regard to…avoiding adverse impacts for the strategic road network”.

That creates severe statutory asymmetry that will potentially leave council-maintained local roads completely unprotected. The amendment would correct that omission by elevating local road protection to an equal statutory footing, requiring the regulator to actively evaluate and mitigate traffic displacement, road surface wear, and congestion on local surrounding roads caused by potential toll avoidance. Surrounding A roads and B roads managed by local highways authorities face accelerated asphalt degradation when heavy commuter and freight traffic diverts from tolled highways and creates potentially massive uncompensated repair backlogs for local council tax payers. We all know the challenges that our local roads face under our local highways authorities.

Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, cautioned the Committee that drivers faced with a toll will naturally choose local, free alternatives, creating negative traffic impacts across adjacent networks. That must be taken into account. The evidence of Ralph Smyth, from the Transport Action Network, highlighted that creating private toll infrastructure without a statutory duty to protect adjacent road networks breaks the integrated transport planning and leaves local highways authorities without recourse.

Why does clause 1(3)(b) explicitly protect National Highways’ strategic network from adverse impacts while leaving local council roads to absorb the traffic gridlock and financial fallout of toll evasion and avoidance? Will the Minister accept amendment 37 to ensure that the regulator has an explicit statutory duty to protect local communities and local highways authorities from toll diversion impacts? I intend to push the amendment to a Division.

[Greg Smith]

In this group I wish to speak to amendments 47, 48 and 68, tabled in my name. I will also speak to amendment 37, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.

His Majesty’s official Opposition have considerable sympathy with amendment 37. The unintended consequences that we sometimes see from infrastructure projects must not be brushed to one side; they must be taken seriously. I was in a small hamlet in my constituency at the weekend. The unintended consequence of something as simple as a road diversion in Oxfordshire—I have to say it, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, is an Oxfordshire MP—forced a considerable volume of traffic through that small hamlet, causing considerable distress in narrow rural lanes. The same could happen from any major infrastructure scheme.

We have heard in the oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading about the concerns that traffic displacement immediately surrounding the lower Thames crossing can be a serious problem for communities and for people trying to get their kids to school, get to work and go about their daily lives. Those local roads are the very veins that flow the traffic to the newer infrastructure projects as they are built. They are the roads off which people predominantly live—nobody lives on a motorway, on a bridge or in a tunnel. Therefore, without due regard for how we ensure vehicle movement through those roads from people’s houses, businesses, schools, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries to those new major infrastructure projects, such as the lower Thames crossing, nothing will work. This is almost the very definition of needing joined-up Government, joined-up planning and joined-up approaches to anything that we build in this country, including the lower Thames crossing and the other potential future unnamed projects that the Bill would allow for. The official Opposition have considerable sympathy with amendment 37. If the Liberal Democrats push it to a Division, the Conservatives will vote for it.

Moving on to the other amendments in group 2, amendment 47 would remove the Office of Rail and Road’s duty to have regard to contributing to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Bill. The amendment is not an attack on the environment or anything like that; it is about getting the balance right between getting infrastructure built and doing it at the lowest possible cost. We saw in the oral evidence sessions, and I have certainly seen in my research, that one of the things wrapped up in sustainability is—through separate order but fundamentally coming back to the wording in clause 1—the banning of the use of diesel plant in construction. White diesel runs between 20p and 25p a litre cheaper than hydrotreated vegetable oil, which is the current primary alternative that can be used instead of diesel plant—although, it has to be said, it is not a drop-in fuel; it requires mechanical changes to fuel filters and other parts of the vehicle to be operational. Banning the use of diesel plant will just drive up the cost, which ultimately be borne by payers of tolls.

[Jim Dickson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will in one second; I will finish my point. The hon. Gentleman knows I will always give way where I can. The cost will ultimately be borne by toll payers on the lower Thames crossing and in any other scheme that could be built under the Bill. That is a position that I do not think any of us really want to see. We know from other debates that there seems to be either an unwillingness or an inability to name what the toll on the lower Thames crossing will cost, but we can be sure that the clauses on sustainable development and the duty for sustainable development that the Opposition are seeking to remove, such as clause 1, can only possibly drive the cost up.

[Jim Dickson]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and it is absolutely in the interests of my constituents for tolls to be as low as possible, and therefore for cost to be controlled through the project. However, is he mindful of the evidence that the National Highways executive director for the project, Mr Palmer, gave when the Committee spoke to him on Thursday? He said that the cost of HVO and electric plant together was comparable with that of continuing with diesel, and that in any event, that element of the project cost is extremely marginal to the overall cost of delivering the lower Thames crossing. Attempts to prevent measures that will make the project sustainable and

“the greenest road ever built”,

which my constituents care about, are therefore pretty futile, given the overall size of the project.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to hear that we will not find consensus on that point. I accept that Mr Palmer gave us his view of the world, which was that there was no differential in price. However, any simple look at the market prices of white diesel and HVO shows that the differential very much exists. That is not even a point of debate; it is in the market price. Also, later in the Committee’s oral evidence session, we heard evidence that the building of the road pales into slight insignificance compared with everything that will use the road. Operational vehicles powered by either petroleum or diesel will still be the vast majority of vehicles using the lower Thames crossing, which clearly has not been taken into account.

[Alison Griffiths]

In the evidence session, we heard from Mr Palmer that he had not taken different quotes from organisations looking at the differential cost between HVO and white diesel; all the quotations were based only on HVO. Therefore, his assertion that they were comparable in price was based on his view alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It struck me that in his answer, that witness did not necessarily say that there is no differential in cost, but that his duty was simply to get a quote for HVO, so he would not take a quote on any other fuel source. That goes contrary to my view of the world, and my belief that we would all be better served if we as Members of Parliament, and politicians at large, did not just accept what we were told, and instead properly challenged and looked at the consequences of everything. There is a failure to challenge and say, “Hang on—isn’t white diesel 20p or 25p a litre cheaper?” If I were in the Minister’s place, I would push back on National Highways over that to ensure value for the toll payers of the future.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Does the hon. Member understand how construction procurement works? National Highways would not have specified a particular fuel type; it would have specified an outcome, and the contractors appointed would have chosen how to meet that. That outcome was set out in the development consent order signed under his Government. Is he suggesting that the Government should interfere in the activities of contractors working on the lower Thames crossing? Given that fuel cost is less than 1% of the Bill cost, does he really think this is an issue we should be focusing on?

[Greg Smith]

I know the hon. Gentleman has a background in this field, and I respect his point of view. I accept that fuel is a small part of the Bill cost, but small parts, if allowed to persist unchallenged, eventually become large costs for the toll payers.

On the point the hon. Gentleman made about the DCO, as I put my hands up to in the Committee’s oral evidence sessions, the previous Government got things wrong. We Conservatives paid a heavy price for that in July 2024, just as the Labour party paid a price for getting things wrong in government in previous general elections. Under our new leadership, we are putting our hands up to some of those mistakes and challenging some of those parts of the past that we think should be put right. The DCO that he referred to was signed under the last Conservative Government, but I would put it to any incoming Government—the Government in which the hon. Gentleman serves as a Back Bencher in particular—not just to accept that and say to the contractors, “Just follow everything that went before. Don’t question it. Don’t look at it again”, but to ask questions and say, “Will this deliver ultimate value for future toll payers on the lower Thames crossing?”. That is not interfering with contractors; it is actually setting contractors free to be able to come to market without the restrictions that clause 1 places on them in this instance and that the DCO placed on them in other instances. It would enable them to offer better value to future toll payers in this scheme and to the taxpayers of this country in 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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Grant of licence

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 19 to 26.

This amendment would ensure that licences could only be granted for the construction of new roads.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 44, in clause 3, page 3, line 20, at end insert

“, provided that such improvement creates at least one additional continuous traffic lane along the entirety of the specified highway section.”.

This amendment sets a strict physical threshold for what legally constitutes "increasing capacity", preventing minor roadworks, junction tweaks, or smart motorway conversions on existing roads from being used as a pretext for introducing tolls.

Amendment 81, in clause 3, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

“(3A) Where a highway specified in a proposed licence is to become a trunk road, the licensing authority must consult any relevant local highway authority, mayoral combined authority or combined county authority before granting the licence.”.

This amendment would require consultation with relevant local and mayoral authorities before granting a licence for a road that is to become a trunk road.

Clause stand part.

[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.

[Douglas Lumsden]

I am struggling to understand something about the Bill. If an improvement is made on a small section of a 100-mile road, is it clear whether tolls could be introduced for the whole road or just for the section that was improved?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which is really one for the Minister. He highlights one of the key points that the public out there—all our constituents—will be asking about what this really means. As best, the current scope of the Bill allows for a bit of a lawyer’s paradise and for the issue to be argued over for many years and decades to come; at worst, it straightforwardly allows precisely the fear that my hon. Friend outlined.

Let us just have clarity. It is a simple amendment. We are not asking for the world. We are saying we are broadly with the Government on introducing this model for the lower Thames crossing, but there has to be that legislative certainty that does not allow for mission creep from where the current Minister sees the world, under this legislation, compared with where any future Government might wish to try to take it. The Opposition do not believe that tolls should apply beyond the construction of wholly new roads. There should not be the mission creep that is currently allowed, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I tabled amendment 82.

Also in this group is Opposition amendment 81, which would

“require consultation with relevant local and mayoral authorities before granting a licence for a road that is to become a trunk road.”

There is considerable concern in the country about this issue, particularly from councils and a number of mayors. There is certainly concern from the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, who is arguably the best mayor in the country at the moment—he is a very old and dear friend of mine, if I need to declare an interest. Whenever I try to do the journey from Buckinghamshire to Suffolk, where my in-laws are, I am frustrated by the fact that, the minute I hit Cambridgeshire, the traffic stops and everything seems completely dug up. I will immediately phone him to have a go, but he will continually push back and say, “But the Government haven’t given me any highways powers or authority!”, whereas we know that other mayoralties in the country have them.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

[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 ---

[Olly Glover]

I want to be clear at the beginning that we are keen to press amendment 87 to a vote.

Amendment 45 would mandate an independent modal shift and alternative transport assessment before any new highway tolling licence could be granted. It would prevent multibillion-pound road schemes from proceeding in isolation without evaluating whether rail passenger, rail freight or bus upgrades could deliver better value and lower carbon emissions. There is a clear need to reduce pressure on the Dartford crossing and improve connectivity in the south-east of England via the lower Thames crossing. But so far, the Labour Government appear to be looking only at roads-based means to do so.

I grew up in Staines, which is very close to junction 13 of the M25 and which road nerds will know is the busiest segment of motorway in Europe. When I was growing up and the M25 was new, it had three lanes, which then increased to four and eventually to five. Seeing the M25 permanently under upgrade was the accompaniment to my youth and adolescence. Do people who use that section of the M25 now find it a joyous driving experience, one that is entirely bereft of stress and complaint, or do they still consider it to be what Chris Rea once called a “road to hell”? They still consider it a road to hell, because while the M25 is of course a useful asset, one of the challenges of increased road investment is that very often that capacity gets absorbed and it does not address some of the wider transport challenges.

There is a clear need to improve rail connectivity in the region alongside the lower Thames crossing project. There is currently no Kent to Essex rail connection and very limited provision for channel port freight to move by rail—only by road. There are developed proposals on the table to upgrade the Kent railway network and the Barking freight terminal via High Speed 1 as part of the plan to significantly increase rail freight through the channel tunnel.

As Ralph Smyth from the Transport Action Network argued in front of the Committee last week, granting certainty to a major private road scheme can make it significantly harder for regional mayors or local authorities to promote sustainable alternatives like rail, tram or bus upgrades. Ben Garratt of Logistics UK noted that while road capacity is needed at Dartford, rail freight connectivity to ports plays a vital role in national supply chain resilience and must be integrated into transport planning.

Why should Ministers grant a potentially century-long highway licence without first publishing an independent evaluation of whether rail or public transport investment could solve the bottleneck? If we are to move towards achieving our environmental goals and providing good transport for those who cannot, will not or cannot afford to drive, serious investment in other infrastructure and public transport is needed alongside improving the road network.

Amendment 87 would make it mandatory to publish a local road impact and mitigation report. Toll-avoiding traffic that diverts into surrounding residential streets and local A roads could cause severe congestion, noise, air pollution and safety hazards for nearby communities. The amendment would force the licensing authority to assess the exact financial cost of extraordinary road wear imposed on “adjacent local highway authorities” such as Kent, Essex or Surrey—or whatever they are called now as part of local government reorganisation. As Declan Pang, the director of policy at the Road Haulage Association, warned us last week, traffic displacement and unmitigated local congestion can drive significant indirect costs across local economies and businesses.

I will turn briefly to Opposition amendment 78, which we support. It would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities. That would go some way towards addressing some of the deficiencies of clause 4, which leaves it quite open as to which organisations need to be consulted. Clause 4 does not explicitly list local highway authorities, local planning authorities or emergency services—among others—as mandatory statutory consultees. In his comments, I hope the Minister will address why clause 4 is so open and why it does not explicitly name local highway authorities and emergency services as mandatory statutory consultees.

[Greg Smith]

I will start with amendment 78, which was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage hit the nail on the head regarding why we tabled this amendment. We have come back to what I fear will be a familiar theme as we go through the clauses of this Bill in Committee: the openness, at times fuzziness, of the drafting, which leaves too much open to the imagination.

Ill-defined legislation that then gets caught up in the courts forever, with lawyers forever arguing over what was really meant, gives none of us, certainly none of our constituents, our local authorities or those areas of the country that have mayors—mine does not—the clarity that they need and want from this Bill. So amendment 78 really is a very clear and straightforward amendment. It was not tabled with any intent to undermine or derail the Bill, or push it off course, but to give the Government an opportunity to lock in something that gives clarity to the important institutions out there that we and our constituents rely on to deliver local services.

Local authorities and councils—in my case Buckinghamshire, which is also the highways authority covering my constituency—and in other parts of the country, mayors like the Mayor of London, where we are right now, and as per my earlier reference, the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, should be locked into the process. I cannot see a single argument why the Government would not want that clarity in the Bill. If they have an in-principle opposition to that, there needs to be a very clear and compelling reason not to simply include the status quo of local authorities, mayors, mayoral combined authorities and the emergency services, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage said, in the Bill. I cannot see us moving away from a local authority and mayoral model, but in any future Government—we cannot predict changes—I am sure it will not be difficult to update the legislation to bring those authorities and institutions into effect.

[Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if a proposed highway scheme touches an area or impacts local traffic nearby, the local authorities covering that ground need to be kept in the loop? The amendment simply ensures that local highway authorities, combined authorities and mayoral authorities get a copy of the notice right at the start. It ensures that local councils responsible for the surrounding roads are not left out of the loop so that they can plan for traffic and protect local roads for the local people.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which goes to the heart of what we are talking about here: projects not on the strategic road network but that are important to local people—roads or indeed other forms of transport, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman spoke of—will be integral to getting traffic flows and people on to the new schemes that the Bill would enable. Not shutting out and turning our back on the other authorities that are part of the all-important jigsaw puzzle of our road network in its entirety, which feeds into and feeds off the lower Thames crossing or other schemes that the Bill would enable, surely has to be all important.

[Alison Griffiths]

I listened to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in the Chamber yesterday espouse the future of her devolution programme, which of course encompasses many strategic authorities and regional mayors and is at the heart of the Government’s programme. It seems inconceivable that this Bill specifically excludes them. I urge the Minister to join us in a spirit of cohesion and future clarity. Let us show our constituents what we can do when we work together. We can improve legislation, and the Minister would be working hand in glove with the Secretary of State to deliver that, so I encourage him to support us.

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend adds to the argument for amendment 78. For the sake of the record, I should say that those mayoral combined authorities are not excluded; they are just not explicitly included and named in the Bill as important stakeholders in our road system that will ensure that any new scheme functions properly and well, and does not lead to the unintended consequences I spoke of earlier. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I did not seek to say that we should not have more cars or support private road users, merely that the reason a lot of people choose to drive is that it has been the relentless direction of policy going back decades. The rail network has significantly contracted, and a lot of investment has gone into motorways. Does the hon. Member accept the clear statistics showing that far fewer young people are learning to drive and they need alternatives? We cannot rely on continuing to promote the private motorcar over everything else.

[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.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Lewell. Let us see if we can rise to the Minister’s challenge of maintaining this morning’s quality of debate.

Amendment 49, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, essentially requires the ORR to review each licence at least every five years and to publish that review. The review would include compliance, user satisfaction, value for money, financial performance and resilience, toll returns and—continuing a theme of some of the amendments we discussed this morning and that flows through the entire Bill—the effects on surrounding roads off the trunk road network and the strategic road network that are the feeders to the new infrastructure: the lower Thames crossing and potentially others that the Bill enables.

I put it to the Committee and particularly to the Minister: why should a long-term licence not be subject to a mandatory review period published at least every five years, although I am open to other suggestions on the period? This is something that will impact motorists from across the whole country, particularly in the case of the lower Thames crossing. The hon. Member for Dartford has already expressed concerns about the impact on local roads. If a licence is granted for much longer than that—and I cannot see how it would not be, in order to bring realistic commercial payback under the tolling arrangements—what if it is a complete disaster? What if things do not pan out as everyone expects them to?

We do not want things to go wrong, but let us face it: sometimes they do. Often they do not go wrong due to any eventuality that has been foreseen. We would not have done it in the first place if there was a plan that saw things going wrong. But when things do go wrong, we need clear answers from those accountable to those paying the tolls on these roads, and indeed to the Government who will have set up the scheme in the first place. That goes in many respects to the conditions that the Minister spoke to in clause 6 around timely notice.

I gently say to the Minister: yes, it is important for an operator to get timely notice of any change, whether that is termination of a licence as it comes up to its expiration or an extension, but what is missing in clause 6 is anything that addresses the point about things going wrong. What if the Government need to step in and salvage a pretty horrendous situation that we might conceive of in future?

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a good case; clearly, things need to run well in the interests of road users, the infrastructure provider and local residents. However, clause 11 already provides for the modification of the licence after the grant, which surely includes most of the things he is calling for—that is, an ability to issue a notice and to say that the licence needs to be modified for some reason to do with the operation of the infrastructure.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right that there are measures in clause 11 that would address that issue, but we are currently discussing clauses 5 and 6, and the Minister’s comments reflected the fact that clause 6 only refers to extensions of a licence as opposed to reviews of a licence.

I cannot imagine that any of us, whatever walk of political life we find ourselves in at any one moment, would not want to have a statutory review period, so that all of us can question whether a contract is working as well as we want it to. Frankly, there are many projects I can think of that I wish we had had review periods for in the past, because we might have been able to pick up things that were going the wrong way.

If the Minister and the Government do not wish to have a five-year review period, I would welcome suggestions about what sort of review period would be acceptable to them. If they do not want a review period at all, there needs to be a pretty good case for that.

[Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. Once a company gets a road licence, it should not just be left to run it indefinitely, without any checks. A review every five years would force the regulator to consider the facts, including whether drivers are getting value for money and whether tolls are pushing extra traffic on to surrounding local streets. Publishing those findings would keep the operators accountable to the public.

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend makes the case incredibly well. This discussion is about transparency; it is about openness. It is about saying to those who in the future might receive a licence to run the lower Thames crossing or any other piece of road infrastructure that might be financed through this model that they are still accountable to the public and to the Government, be that the current Government or any future Government.

Such reviews will give us transparency and a clear light on what is going on, so that—to go back to the earlier debate today—any future schemes, which no one can name yet, that might be financed under the scheme created by the Bill could be improved upon by reviews of the operation of the lower Thames crossing in the future. Let us not put a date on when it will actually get built; every state project ends up being built more slowly than originally intended. But five years into the operation of the lower Thames crossing, why would all of us collectively—as parliamentarians or as the general public—not want to know how it was going?

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

I was also reflecting upon the fact that the tolling is almost open-ended. From a competitive perspective, in any regular private sector organisation it would be expected that at the end of a licence or a contract, there would be a competitive tender period. If a road has already been built and, as we now know, the maintenance of that road will then become part of a tolling operation, surely we should consider regularly—my hon. Friend said potentially every five years, but I am open to other suggestions—and on a competitive basis which company should operate it going forward, because once a road is built there is no reason why it should be the original road builder that does so.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Amendment 39 would create a mechanism for compulsory compensation for local councils as a result of additional traffic due to people avoiding tolls.

Local council taxpayers must not be forced to subsidise private toll road profits by picking up the repair bill for local roads damaged by heavy diverted traffic. As Declan Pang of the Road Haulage Association noted in front of the Committee last week, local A and B roads are heavily used by small businesses and hauliers, and severe wear caused by toll evasion can hurt the wider local economy.

Placing compensation in clause 7 would make it a binding legal condition so that private operators cannot bypass or negotiate away the wider impacts. One of the reasons I have tabled the amendment is because of the problem with the current roads funding formula. It is based overwhelmingly on miles rather than use levels. Higher use of existing roads would not necessarily lead to more funding for local authorities as a result, so we need a mechanism to deal with that.

Amendment 40 would, in effect, extend the delay repay concept from the railway to toll roads. It would mean an automatic toll refund scheme that issues partial or full refunds to drivers trapped in severe congestion, roadworks or operator-induced disruptions would come into existence. Motorists paying premium commercial tolls expect a reliable, free-flowing journey and should not be charged full price when the operator fails to maintain traffic flow.

Drawing on European tolling models, the Italian network has a motorway refund system, which creates a direct financial incentive for operators to clear incidents and manage roadworks efficiently. Currently, operators do not always manage to do that here. We are not necessarily saying that that is the right system for the UK context, but it is an illustration of what is possible and an example that the Minister may wish to consider.

As Edmund King told the Committee last week, if drivers pay a higher toll under an independent business model, it must work both ways, giving drivers money back when the road fails to operate properly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Greg Smith]

I largely wish to comment on amendment 72 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but before I do so, I will speak briefly to amendments 39 and 40.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage makes a good point about the increased use of local roads that feed vehicles on to new infrastructure, such as the lower Thames crossing, or indeed bring motorists—be they private motorists or haulage operators—off those pieces of new infrastructure. The current modelling that finances local highway authorities—predominantly councils—up and down the land has no mechanism whatsoever for acknowledging the point that the hon. Member makes. When traffic flows are massively increased on an existing road, those surfaces very quickly degrade and start to resemble the surface of the moon. I am sure we all see that in our own constituencies. It something that drives all of our constituents—and me—absolutely potty on a daily basis.

I see that in my own constituency, where we have seen a large amount of big infrastructure being built over recent years, such as East West Rail. That happens where compounds are put in for heavy goods and groundworks vehicles. The traction zones where those vehicles are accelerating to pull out, or braking to come in, as they go to site, move earth away and bring aggregate in, very quickly degrade.

It makes sense to take into account where an existing local road—one that is owned by a local highway authority and is the responsibility of local council tax payers—is suddenly asked, as they will be in the case of the new lower Thames crossing and potentially other schemes in the future, to be used for infrastructure projects. There should be a flow of funding, either from the licensee or from the Government through the Department for Transport, and ultimately the Treasury, that ensures that council tax payers in local areas are not asked to pick up the bill—as my council has been asked to do for roads broken by HS2 construction—for the construction of the lower Thames crossing and other schemes under the Bill. Indeed, they should not be asked to pick up the bill for the ultimate operation of them, either. I have some sympathy for amendment 39 tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.

Amendment 40 is a more problematic proposition. I do not disagree with the sentiment. No one can tell us what the toll on the lower Thames crossing would ultimately be, but we can presume it to be commensurate with the M6 toll, where an average vehicle pays £7 or £8. Therefore, it makes eminent common sense, and is surely reasonable, that someone would be entitled to some sort of compensation, or money back, if they paid the toll but then got snarled up in a traffic jam and just sat in a queue that they could have sat in on the original M6 anyway. I have sat in a jam on that road many times over my life.

The problem with the proposition that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has put forward is how that would be determined. With trains, delay repay is very straightforward: what time does the train ultimately pull into the destination station? That is very clear: it is either on time or a number of minutes late. Certainly, since Chiltern Railways was nationalised, I have been on late trains from my constituency every single day, but that is beside the point.

However, how is that level of delay really determined in a private vehicle? Everyone’s journey will be slightly different. What is to stop someone from deliberately driving slowly in order to avoid paying the full toll, artificially making their journey seem longer? Is it for the ORR to determine whether someone has had a longer than usual journey? How will they determine that without—and I do not want to sound all conspiracy theorist—some level of state snooping on people’s exact movements in order to determine how long that journey actually took them?

[Olly Glover]

The shadow Minister gives me an opportunity to say something I omitted from my notes—despite everyone’s obsession with Google, it is incapable of formatting a document properly when it is printed, but that is for another day. The Italian model calculates a base amount for roadworks, plus an extra amount for time lost. One qualifies after any delay on a trip up to 30 km, after a 10-minute delay on trips of 30 to 50 km, or after a 15-minute delay on trips over 50 km. I do not know how they determine that. It may be through some sort of monitoring system, and we already have that in many formats, such as automatic number plate recognition. The Italians are not generally well known for welcoming state surveillance. That is just one mechanism, and I am sure that many options are available using 21st-century technology.

[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.

[Alison Griffiths]

When I spoke earlier to amendment 82 to clause 3, it was with this exact issue in mind. We failed to get that amendment passed, so the improvement and maintenance of these roads will be paid for through tolling. However, we know that the “fair and transparent code” the ORR will decide on will not be put to a vote in Parliament. It therefore becomes even more important that on the tolling for these roads, we require a report from the Secretary of State that sets out the conditions and proposed arrangements for toll levels and the approval of increases. Without that, there is no control or stopgap for these tolls. The tolling does not end when costs have been recovered by the operator, so we could have a very open-ended tolling situation.

Given that it is going to one operator, we do not know how cost-effective maintenance will be. Will they be required to go out to tender on this? If a report is coming to the Secretary of State before we set tolling, that will create a position where we have greater control.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I have a few questions on this group. We have no problem with clause 16. In respect of clause 17, the Minister referenced the setting of speed limits as an example of where functions should be exercisable by persons other than the licence holder—the state, for lack of a better phrase. I do not disagree with the premise—it would be unusual, to say the least, to allow a private company to set speed limits outside our national scheme—but it prompts a question for the whole Bill.

Let us say that a scheme is built, and its original consent, set by the appropriate body, is for a 40 mph speed limit. If the licence holder then makes a representation to the appropriate body in conjunction with the local police force or local authority, it could be determined that the scheme should be converted to a variable speed limit road—we are seeing a lot of those popping up across the country. That could involve quite considerable expense, putting up gantries and having repeater signs with changing speed limits. Where does that fit in with some of the other provisions we have debated? Would that be a capacity change? In theory, variable speed limits speed up the overall journey time and manage congestion spots before they appear, by slowing the whole road down for a bit so that there is not a pile-up. Can the Minister assure the Committee that there would be no back door for a licence holder to negotiate with the appropriate bodies to charge a higher toll because of a change to a variable speed limit system?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 22, page 16, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under this section must ensure that—

(a) a single authority or licence holder is designated as responsible for litter clearance on each highway specified in a licence;

(b) the identity and contact details of that responsible body are published;

(c) members of the public may report litter and make complaints directly to that responsible body; and

(d) that the responsible body remains accountable for litter clearance notwithstanding any arrangements made with another person to carry out the work.”

This amendment would establish clear responsibility and public accountability for litter clearance on licenced highways.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[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.

[Greg Smith]

I recognise the arguments that the Minister has put forward, but I still think the Bill would be stronger with the exact wording of my amendment. However, I accept his assurances and at this moment, although we might return to it on Report, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Transfer schemes

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 22 to 31.

Schedule 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 51, in clause 24, page 17, line 20, leave out lines 20 and 21.

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.

Amendment 53, in clause 24, page 18, line 6, at end insert—

“(9) Before setting the levels of tolls to be charged, the holder of a licence must consult—

(a) road users likely to be affected,

(b) local businesses,

(c) local residents,

(d) local highway authorities whose areas may be affected.”

This amendment would require consultation before tolls can be charged.

Amendment 54, in clause 24, page 18, line 6, at end insert—

“(9) A tolling scheme made under this section may not come into force unless it has been approved by Parliament.

(10) On any occasion that the licence holder wishes to increase the level of a toll which is already being charged under a licence, this must be approved by Parliament.

(11) To meet the requirement in subsections (9) and (10), the Secretary of State must make regulations setting out the tolling scheme and levels of tolls to be charged under it.

(12) Regulations made under subsection (11) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would require parliamentary approval of road user charging under this Act on each occasion that it was implemented.

Clause stand part.

[Greg Smith]

The amendments in this group stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The crux of much of what we have spoken about today, and I am sure will continue to speak about at length on this Bill, is the way in which tolls are charged. Our amendments in this group seek to get the clarity that many of our constituents, I am sure, will want on that very question.

The lead amendment is about removing the power of the Secretary of State to specify circumstances in regulations for how tolls must be paid. Amendment 51 is about removing the power from a licence holder to specify equipment to be carried in or fitted to a road vehicle while it is on the licensed highway. Amendment 53 requires consultation before tolls can be charged. Amendment 54 requires parliamentary approval of road user charging under the Bill—assuming that it becomes an Act—on each occasion on which it is implemented.

The power to determine how a motorist pays should not be an open-ended power to require equipment in vehicles. I simply do not get the necessity or the proportionality of that requirement in the Bill, which is why we seek to remove it. The requirement for equipment in vehicles is almost like taking 10 steps backwards in order to use a tolled road. Certainly, tolls can have those little boxes in a windscreen, which beep as someone goes through a barrier, but as has now been widely proven—over multiple decades—that is just straightforwardly unnecessary.

Here in our capital city, we cannot drive a vehicle without paying the toll that is the congestion charge. That does not involve anyone having to have a little box in their windscreen or any other equipment in their car, because we all have those very straightforward things that have been on our cars for many, many years called number plates. The cameras can very straightforwardly pick any vehicle up as it goes by. By law, we have to have a number plate. If we have not paid a toll, the congestion or ULEZ—ultra low emission zone—charge, the Birmingham clean air toll or whatever against the registration of our vehicle, we get a penalty charge notice in the post. It works. Some of us might not particularly like it, but it works. Why on earth should any toll operator suddenly require any motorist seeking to use the toll roads to stick things in their windscreen or put chips in their car, or whatever it might be?

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a problem with ghost number plates and other forms of avoiding ANPR, automatic number plate recognition? What would his solution to that be?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

“construction of a highway specified in the licence”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

[Greg Smith]

Absolutely right—do not leave the rural areas out.

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

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

[Greg Smith]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start to hear from our witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?

We will now hear oral evidence from the Centre for Policy Studies and Britain Remade. We have until 2.35 pm for this panel. Would the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Ben Hopkinson: I am Ben Hopkinson, head of housing and infrastructure at the Centre for Policy Studies.

Sam Dumitriu: I am Sam Dumitriu, head of policy at the campaign group Britain Remade.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Q42 Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for appearing before us.

Clearly, this is a Bill of two halves: there is the specific stuff on the lower Thames crossing, and then it is a pretty open-ended book for other projects going forward. Can I have your initial assessment of whether this is the right model to solve both the question of getting the lower Thames crossing built and issues relating to future trunk road projects that may be required or identified in the country? Will it actually deliver value for the motorist and haulage businesses using the scheme? Do we even know that it will deliver to certain metrics? No one can give us an answer yet on what the toll would be on the lower Thames crossing, for example.

Ben Hopkinson: We have quite serious concerns about the regulated asset base model. This will certainly be the first time it is been used for roads. The main issue is that there are quite limited incentives for cost control within a regulated asset base. If you are the private contractor, you have significant incentives to increase the capital expenditure on the regulated asset base to make it as large as possible, because that means you get as large a return on your investment as possible.

The organisation standing in the way of that is the Office of Rail and Road in this case, and it has never overseen a RAB before. It would not even be able to look at other organisations or regulators that have overseen a RAB for roads, because there are none internationally.

We have a better model through concessions. France has built more miles of motorway this century than the UK has in total. It has done that with the private sector working through concessions. Under a concession, there are strong incentives for private contractors to keep their costs as low as possible, because it directly impacts their bottom line, which is completely the opposite for a RAB model.

[Greg Smith]

Q Can you just expand on the example you have given from France? How could that be integrated into the Bill, or does the Bill just get it so badly wrong on that front that it will end up costing British motorists more?

Ben Hopkinson: The Bill is focused on delivering a RAB model. It is a completely different set-up to use a concession model. There is a second challenge with RAB in so far as the Department for Transport does not really bear any of the costs either. That is why you get it doing things like banning diesel construction vehicles for the lower Thames crossing. That is a policy goal it has otherwise that does not actually lead to a better overall road. It is an example of “everythingism”, where it has plenty of different goals, none of which is necessarily delivering the best road project for motorists at a very reasonable cost.

[Greg Smith]

Q I will bring in Sam in a second. How much more will banning diesel in the plant to construct the lower Thames crossing add to the construction cost, which will ultimately come out in the toll people are charged to use it? Are there any other things you have identified that will put the cost up?

Ben Hopkinson: I do not have a specific number for it, but it is a regulation that might lead to a different form of construction than they would have chosen were they going purely for value for money. Across the piece, the lower Thames crossing has been racked by planning delays, which I am sure we are all aware of. It was designated a national priority project in 2011 and it took 14 years, 360,000 pages and £300 million to get planning approval. That all adds cost. When the project started going through, it was projected to cost about £4 billion. Then international events got in the way and it is now projected to be over £10 billion. Moving quickly saves costs. Our slow planning system has been a real driver of added cost here.

Sam Dumitriu: Cost control is one of the most important issues here. If you look at road building generally, the big problem in the UK is that we have a very large construction cost premium. Britain Remade has looked at 345 infrastructure projects across the world, of which 121 were road projects. On average, the UK pays about 65% more to build a given mile of road or railway. It is a bit less for road on average, but when you look at more complicated projects like the lower Thames crossing, it tends to creep back up.

Many people often dismiss our problems around infrastructure as a problem of too little money going in, but over the past five years or so—a period that includes covid, but also years either side of it—we spent about £308 per head on Government public infrastructure investment. In France it is more like £271 and in Germany about £251. When you account for that cost premium, we end up getting about £180 of what the French or the Germans would get. For me, that is the No.1 problem.

About £300 million has been spent on the planning process for the lower Thames crossing. If you add together the world’s longest road tunnel, which was built in Norway, and a tunnel built 282 metres under the sea, you just about reach that. They are building much more complicated projects for much less. You can talk about how it is more difficult to build due to UK geographical or geological issues, but fundamentally, just those front-loaded costs make it very difficult to build anything cost-effectively. Because of that, there is a risk that this model is adopted as a way of taking some of those costs off the books without the right level of scrutiny.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. We have until 2.55 pm for this panel. Could the witness please introduce themselves for the record?

Thomas McLennan: Hi, I am Thomas McLennan. I am the director of policy and public affairs for the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good afternoon. I am grateful to you for being here this afternoon. I am impressed by what it says in your bio; your organisation is responsible for a significant number of vehicles on British roads at the moment. The obvious opener to that is: what is the reaction from your customer base to the change to a RAB model for the lower Thames crossing and potentially other projects in the future that might mean more toll roads on the British strategic road network?

Thomas McLennan: Thank you for the question. For wider context, we have more than 1,000 members, and between them there about 4.6 million vehicles, representing about one in 10 cars, one in six vans and one in six trucks on UK roads. Our members own those vehicles, but other people use them. Right at the core of the problem with almost any measure or change of this scale is the technical detail. Perhaps that is not as interesting as the macro questions around how things are funded and so on, but it is what really impacts us and everyday users.

We have seen in a number of major changes in how road funding and wider funding happens, such as the eVED scheme, that the technical detail has not been considered up front. That has led to huge stress for the sector and potentially administration bills in the hundreds of millions of pounds. We want to see, in any change of this scale, especially if it will encompass an expansion of barrierless charging to more current barriered toll operations, that technical detail is guardrailed in right from the start.

At the end of the day, what we want to see is good user experience, as well as good business experience for both our members and their customers. It is in no one’s interest to have a system that is bureaucratic, challenging and leads to abrasion, when you are reducing the barriers to reduce abrasion and exactly that kind of thing. If you are just moving it elsewhere, it does not really meet its purpose. We are keen to see that this is as technically guardrailed as possible to make sure that end customers have a good experience.

[Greg Smith]

Q I do not know if you heard some of this morning’s evidence, but we had a question this morning around whether there should be a national scheme with a single log-in, as opposed to every scheme having its own charging mechanism, if you are going to have barrierless tolling. In answering that question, can you give your thoughts on the impact that will have not just on schemes built under the RAB model proposed in the Bill but all the other road charging we already have?

For example, here in London, we have the congestion charge. It is dressed up as an environmental scheme, but we all know it is just road charging. Equally, other schemes are popping up. Arriving at my party’s conference in Birmingham, I remember saying to a passenger in the car, “Quick, panic—look up whether I have to pay a charge for this new clean air zone”—or whatever it might be. Is one of the things you are looking for in that answer something that simplifies the experience of the British motorist across schemes built under this model, as well as everything else?

Thomas McLennan: Short answer: yes. The long answer is that consistency is key. A lot of the burden in this model, and in any of these charging models, falls on the registered keeper. On your point, Greg, of needing a passenger to pay, not everyone has a passenger. There are lots of instances where people do not pay and there are inconsistent lengths of time that you have in which to make that payment—it might be 24 hours or six days. There might be an inconsistency in the ramping up of charges if you do not pay, or in how that charging is structured and the portals that you can use—it is all varied.

If you can create a national framework for individual specificity—I am not saying that everyone has to be exactly the same in what they are delivering, but you need to have the same guardrails and structure that enable someone to have consistency of experience. That would enable fleets to advise their customers, who might be someone running grocery stores across the country or a tourist who is arriving at an airport in the north or the south, and to train their staff to be able to give consistent advice and experience. Having every scheme with its own approach could be deeply challenging.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from the Office of Rail and Road and National Highways. We have until 3.35 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves briefly for the record?

Will Godfrey: Good afternoon. My name is Will Godfrey, and I am director of economics, finance and markets at the Office of Rail and Road. I am leading our preparations for the licensing arrangements and the regulatory framework that you have under consideration today.

Matt Palmer: Good afternoon. I am Matt Palmer, and I am the National Highways chief exec for the lower Thames crossing.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. I appreciate your giving your time today.

Given the significant new responsibility that the Bill will give to the Office of Road and Rail in particular, is the organisation suitably equipped to take on a new licensing regime? Does it have a skills base that has looked at other parts of the world or other sectors that have adopted a RAB model? Does it have the necessary interactivity with road users to ensure that early projects do not end up with more teething problems than anybody would have wanted? I am not saying that anybody would want teething difficulties, but we know that that happens when big change comes about.

Will Godfrey: We do not underestimate the significance of this work. It is important work, and it builds very significantly on the experience that we have from both rail and road. Our interactions on the rail side cover publicly and commercially funded infrastructure, and managers and operators. I could refer to a number of examples, including the work that we do on price controls on the high-speed link down to the Channel tunnel, and interactions with international passenger operators looking to expand operations there.

On the road side, we obviously have experience as the monitor and the organisation responsible for holding National Highways to account. We are certainly looking to build on the engineering, economics and finance operations. We also have consumer policy experience across both road and rail.

I started out in economic regulation just over 25 years ago. I have worked in the water sector, and I worked in telecommunications for a number of years, including overseeing the arrangements that led to the roll-out of superfast broadband, among other things. A number of colleagues have worked in other sectors, spanning aviation, water and others.

Your question about the risk of teething problems is well placed. I am confident that we have the lead time to build in the necessary arrangements and resourcing to get ourselves ready for the new arrangements. One of the important things to bear in mind is that the regulator’s role takes place once a licence has been awarded. A licence for the lower Thames crossing—the first scheme that will be enabled by the Bill—is some way off yet. The process for awarding that licence currently sits with the Government, but we are in discussion with the Department about our future resourcing to deliver this work.

[Greg Smith]

Q I am grateful for that answer. This is not a criticism of anyone in the ORR right now, but as we see with so many projects, under whatever model they are built, unexpected things happen; things do not go according to plan. Often, hindsight is that wonderful thing: “Oh, I wish we had just…” What preparation work is the ORR doing, or what additional resource does it need from the Department for Transport, to ensure the lower Thames crossing, as the guinea pig for this new model, does not end with those “Oh, I wish we had…” questions being asked? That might be very significant for Mr Dickson’s constituents, who might suffer from unintended consequences, as much as they clearly want the lower Thames crossing—that is not a point of political difference—and could end up impacted if the regulation and the licensing regime do not work as Ministers, in good faith, expect.

Will Godfrey: There are two parts to that question. One is where we are at with, for example, the lower Thames crossing. There is a lot of debate about the risk of cost overruns and so forth, but this is not a new project; it is already significantly advanced. There has been significant work, and perhaps Matt will talk to it in a moment, on preparation—literally the groundwork—to get this project ready, so it is not a completely new project. That comes with the advantage of some teething issues already happening.

In terms of the ORR’s capability, we are working closely with the Department to look at the arrangements that might apply to, for example, licensing. This is an important point I want to stress: the Bill gives us the duties and powers that we want to see, but the really important thing for making a lot of these schemes work is that the licensing arrangements are the right ones, and that you have the licence conditions in place to hold the company to account properly and scrutinise its delivery not just on construction but on operation, its approach to tolling and so forth.

In terms of having the resource in place to do that, I am currently working with a small team. We are looking at the suite of skills and capability that we anticipate needing across, for example, corporate finance, supporting the stakeholder group—that is an important part of the Bill—and the engineering and operations capability. I am confident that we have the lead time to get in place the team that we need. We are in discussion with the Department about the resourcing necessary to secure that.

[Greg Smith]

Q Will, you mentioned construction in your answer—this is a question to both of you. When organisations are considering regulation, licensing or any factor around the construction of anything at all, but we will take the lower Thames crossing as the example today, do you need much greater freedom within that to license something along what many would call common sense principles, certainly when it comes to cost control? For example, I think it is pretty obvious that the banning of diesel in construction plant is going to make the project more expensive. Where do you sit, both from experience of other projects and looking forward, on factors like that? You might find yourself in a difficult place between what Government want and what the ultimate licensee wants, and having to find a happy medium on that.

Matt Palmer: I am an historic mega-project constructor. I have done many big projects across the world and in the UK. Let’s talk about diesel and its cost. It is part of lower Thames crossing’s requirements, which were set in 2022, for us to construct to carbon neutral, and actually, it ends up with us being in line with the sixth carbon budget. That has been a requirement in our project. We have executed it. It is in part of our development consent order. It is required now by law and by statute through the development consent order. The vast majority of our diesel is being replaced by HVO, for which we are currently paying £1.70 per litre.

[Greg Smith]

Q Just to confirm, for people watching out there who think diesel is £2 a litre, is that plus VAT?

Matt Palmer: We pay £1.70; our contractors do not pay VAT on it. It is marginally over a current diesel cost, but we ran a competitive process and it was competitively bid.

[Greg Smith]

Q But it is more expensive than diesel.

Matt Palmer: It is comparable to diesel. Actually, the total operating cost of some of our equipment that we are starting to bring out is cheaper. The electric kit is actually cheaper per total operating cost, which is what you would experience in your EV and so on.

[Greg Smith]

Q Does the equipment exist out there to build the lower Thames crossing purely on battery electric?

Matt Palmer: No, it does not. That is why we are using HVO and electric.

[Greg Smith]

Q Do you have any comments, Mr Godfrey?

Will Godfrey: Matt has covered the construction side of things. Was there a part of your question about licensing arrangements?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Wates Construction and John Laing. We have until 4.10 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Andrew Truscott: I am Andrew Truscott. I am the chief executive officer of John Laing, which is a global investor in infrastructure projects. We are a 178-year-old UK business. Our specialism is investing in greenfield projects, by which I mean projects that go through the construction cycle. We have delivered about 180 greenfield construction projects across the world over the last 25 years.

Roger Forsdyke: My name is Roger Forsdyke. I am UK operations director for Wates Construction. Wates is a business privately owned and incorporated in 1897, and has been working in infrastructure and house building since then.

[Greg Smith]

Q Gentlemen, good afternoon. Bearing in mind that the Government have been clear that they need to leverage private investment to get the project built, how attractive to you, as private sector entities in the construction world, are the provisions of the Bill introducing the RAB model for the production of the lower Thames crossing and potentially others?

Andrew Truscott: We applaud the use of RAB in this regard. Why? This is a complicated project. Listening to the previous panel, the feature of RAB that feels very relevant to LTC is the ability to have intra-cycle changes, subject to the way that, in particular, traffic operates in the future.

I am speaking purely from an investor perspective, so please excuse me; I look at Tideway as a really well delivered project, from an investor perspective, and a similar model was used there. The model used at Heathrow has also been relatively successful. Being totally transparent, when we first started talking to Government about this project, I felt that a more traditional concession model might be more appropriate, but the way in which the project is now being procured, and in particular the addition of the bridge, means that the RAB model looks really very interesting and, I would probably argue, more attractive from an investing perspective.

[Greg Smith]

Q Is there anything in this Bill that is a red flag for you—a provision that you look at and think, “If that was different, it would be a more attractive prospect from an investing perspective.”?

Andrew Truscott: Yes: uncapped construction cost risk being transferred on to an investor. I am being overly simplistic, so please excuse me, but that is something that we would not do, and I would argue that we are a relatively good proxy for investors of our type. Some work and some thought need to go into how to manage that cost overrun risk.

Echoing the comments from the previous panel, this is a well thought through project. We applaud the way it has been developed. Hopefully it can be delivered on time and on budget, but of the 180 projects that we have delivered, I can probably count on the fingers of one hand how many actually have been. As a contractor, an investor or a Government, all stakeholders have to be prepared for the expectation of cost overrun. Asking an investor to take uncapped cost overrun into its accounts does not necessarily mean that it is a terrible outcome; it just means that I cannot price equity.

[Greg Smith]

Q I understand the answer. Clearly, you and your company have a lot of experience in big construction and these big projects. What are the biggest lessons to be learned that we might be able to write into this Bill when it comes to cost control?

Andrew Truscott: Plan for the worst, and really plan for the worst around cost inflation. It was interesting listening to the Chancellor yesterday. Every element of the supply chain and the cost is increasing globally for all these sorts of projects. Plan for the worst and plan for an expectation that, unfortunately, even though it is not the intention, you will end up with a project that costs more than you expected it to on day one.

[Greg Smith]

Q I understand that. Clearly there are factors that no Government, company or entity can predict—global conflicts and so on—that will impact all that. However, what I really want from you, to improve this Bill as it goes through its parliamentary stages, are the things that you actually can control. In your experience of all those projects that the company has been involved with over the years, what are the things that can be controlled or you can put sensible steps in place to mitigate, that could improve this model too?

Andrew Truscott: Again, I will focus on cost for a minute, and then I would love Roger’s view because he is at the coalface; I am just a simple investor in my ivory tower.

What is important is that there are mechanics in the construction process or the construction phase that incentivise contractors to stick to budget as much as they can. Again, credit to the way in which the Bill is written and the way LTC is being procured—this idea of cost sharing and certain elements of cost being shared between contractor and Government and rolled into RAB. Having those sorts of features that really—no disrespect to Roger—hold the contractor’s feet to the fire in terms of cost control are very sensible. These projects can be delivered on time and on budget. We have just finished the North East Link project in Melbourne where we tunnelled under the Yarra, which is quite a complicated river. We did it on time and on budget.

[Greg Smith]

Q Mr Forsdyke, that is your cue. I am really looking for those practical things, from the years and decades of experience that you and your company have, that can improve the Bill.

Roger Forsdyke: It is about responsibility for outcomes, and Andrew is right: put it where the responsibility lies. As a contractor, we are in control of only some of the process. I often think the contractor is being presented with all the risk, when the design, the planning and the procurement are in some other court.

For me, the most important thing is to get the planning done, so that you do not start before you are ready. A lot of projects start under pressure, without the outcome and the scope having been fully detailed and the risk apportioned correctly. You have to look at the stages that we need to go through so that, when we put a shovel in the ground, the scale and scope have been determined. In the majority of cases, cost overruns come from uncertainty, which is often there before we start work; things have not been properly nailed down with the appropriate parties. Yes, hold the contractor’s feet to the fire, but there are other parties and elements: the designers, the ecology—all the other things that go into a proper, well-delivered project. There needs to be some measure of accountability there also. Often, at the other end of the contract, we find that being transferred—not necessarily fully realised—into the contractor’s risk. That is where you get problems.

[Greg Smith]

Q An example of that came up in the previous discussion. Something not any contractor’s hands is the ruling about no use of diesel in construction plant for this. It may well be that the construction sector, for perfectly noble environmental reasons, wants to use HVO or other sustainable fuels in its operation, but in your experience as a contractor, and Mr Truscott’s as an investor, is it true to say that if the project was allowed to use diesel rather than HVO in construction plant, fuel costs would be cheaper to the tune of something like 20p to 25p per litre?

Roger Forsdyke: Potentially. It is a question of appropriateness. If it is blanket HVO—well, there is some plant, some stuff, you need to use diesel for, so it is a question of appropriateness for me. There is an uplift in use of that type of fuel—HVO. If that is a key stakeholder requirement and the public purse can afford it, it is something that should be done, but those are decisions outside a contractor’s position.

[Greg Smith]

I appreciate that that is outside the contractor’s position. That is why I came with the question.

Roger Forsdyke: That is not a variable cost to me; it is just an additional cost. The risk comes from variable costs that I cannot control.

[Greg Smith]

Q But my point is that this is not a concession model. The model that we are talking about has to have a payback from the tolls that are ultimately paid by motorists, haulage companies, small business people running their vans, or whatever it might be. Therefore, it is not a question of whether the public purse, the taxpayer, can bear it, direct from Treasury; it is a question of where the payback comes in terms of the tolling. If it is cheaper to build in the first place by not using a more expensive fuel, surely that is where that question comes.

Roger Forsdyke: I think you have answered your own question.

[Greg Smith]

Fair enough.

Andrew Truscott: There is only one thing I would add, and this is a bit naughty, so apologies. You are building a road; people have diesel cars that drive on the road. One of the things that we at John Laing do is this. We own toll roads; we own availability roads all around the world, and we couch our stage 1 and stage 2 emissions on each of our roads with a path to net zero in 2050. The one thing we cannot control is the vehicles that run on the roads that we build. We can control the operations and we can have input into the way they are built, but ultimately these are polluting events, because people drive diesel and petrol cars on them.

[The Chair]

Minister?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from the Minister. We have until 4.30 pm for this panel. Will the Minister please briefly introduce himself for the record?

Justin Madders: Good afternoon. I am Justin Madders, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Transport.

[Greg Smith]

Q Minister, we had this discussion on Second Reading, but I want to ask you again after you have had a few days to reflect on it. You said clearly at the Dispatch Box that you do not want to bring in road pricing and tolling on other roads, but the Bill still leaves a little bit of a lawyers’ paradise where it could be argued that that power would exist, either for you, for the current Secretary of State or for any future Secretary of State. Will you amend the Bill to properly rule out, in statutory form as opposed to a commitment at the Dispatch Box, it being used to extend tolling and road pricing to other roads?

Justin Madders: We are pretty clear that it is not a backdoor to road pricing. The hon. Member may have an amendment that he thinks will deal with that, but I can assure him that we have gone through extensive discussions with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on this. I refer him to Logistics UK’s evidence this morning. They said that they thought the Bill was relatively strongly drafted in terms of closing the loopholes.

It is probably worth saying that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Bill’s intent is also important. My statements on the record on Second Reading, probably a number of times in Committee, I imagine, and today will all be relevant should, at some point in the future, a future Secretary of State want to do something that is clearly outside the scope and intention of the Bill. I will say, again, for the record, that this Bill does not provide a backdoor for widespread tolling.

The Bill is creating an additional financing option for major strategic road infrastructure, specifically for trunk roads in England. It is deliberately a framework because, rather than legislate for one individual project, it is possible that there may be more suitable projects in the future, but that does not mean—I want to be clear—that this will become the default model for road investment. Any future use would need to meet the requirements of the Bill and be considered on its own merits. As Steve Gooding from the RAC said this morning, I am happy to confirm that, at the moment, there are not any other schemes that are being considered for use under this Bill.

It is important to say that the Bill narrowly defines when a licence can be granted: for a new road, a capacity-enhancing improvement or the continued operation of a road that has been previously licensed under this regime. This is about major strategic infrastructure; it is not about, as in the example the hon. Member gave, putting in tolls when a new camera or something is introduced. That clearly is not the case. Some of the evidence earlier also suggested that our geographical constraints would make that very difficult anyway, even if that was what we wanted to do, which, I will state again for the record, is not the case.

[Greg Smith]

Q Thank you, Minister; I appreciate your clarity. You are right that we will explore that further during line-by-line scrutiny, because I have genuine concerns that some of the drafting leaves that backdoor open. I want to ask another question that we did not get any clarity on in the Second Reading debate. I appreciate that this is a decision for future licensing authorities or the ORR to come to, but what would be an acceptable window for the toll on the lower Thames crossing?

Justin Madders: I am afraid I am going to disappoint you. We are not going to give figures for tolls for a nine-year window in advance, because that will be part of the ongoing analysis and development of the project and part of the discussions with potential investors. We are clear that the Bill will set out the framework for how that will work. It is about the economic and efficient costs of provision. It is very clear that we believe tolls must remain affordable and they must represent good value for road users. Future projects would be undertaken on the same basis, so although I cannot give any figures in pounds and pence, I can give assurances that there will be sufficient restraints in place to ensure that this is not an unlimited blank cheque for increased tolls for evermore.

[Greg Smith]

Q In terms of unlimited blank cheques, can I come to this point about cost control on any project, starting with the lower Thames crossing? We have heard evidence of other projects that have gone over budget. We have heard clear evidence that it is quite rare for a project to come in on budget. I think we can all understand the reasons for that, but within what can be controlled, are you willing to look again at the ban on diesel, which means an additional cost of between 20p and 25p per litre in using HVO, ultimately having a bearing on the construction cost of the whole project?

Justin Madders: I thought the evidence from National Highways was very clear on that. It is saying that there is not an increased cost as a result of that. It also said very clearly that this was a requirement set in the development consent order in 2022, when your party was in government. I am not entirely sure where you are going with this.

[Greg Smith]

Q We paid our price in 2024 for the mistakes we made. This Government have been in power for two and a half years, and the evidence I put to the representatives from Wates and John Laing confirmed that there is a differential in price. From looking it up, my estimate is a between 20p and 25p per litre difference between white diesel and hydrotreated vegetable oil. Given that we are now operating two and a half years into this Government, and we are looking at significant costs that will ultimately be borne by those who pay a toll to go on the lower Thames crossing, I gently and respectfully ask if you will look at this again to try to get the cost of this project—which the Opposition do want to see built—to come down.

Justin Madders: I would gently push back and say that, rather than evidence from people who are not working on the project, or from ChatGPT or whatever the source—

[Greg Smith]

The market, Minister.

Justin Madders: We had very clear evidence from National Highways that this is not having an overall impact on costs. I am happy to provide further information. I will ask it to put something in writing about the detail of that. You will be aware that this Bill is scheme agnostic, so it is not appropriate for such restrictions to be placed in the Bill, but I am happy to facilitate a further conversation, because I understand you are concerned about that.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful.

[Jim Dickson]

Q I am a very strong supporter of the Bill, because it enables major projects such as the lower Thames crossing to be funded, but the tolling issue is important. We cannot talk about individual toll levels, but we can talk about mechanisms by which reasonable—hopefully affordable—tolls will be set for both industry and individual motorists. Could the Minister enlarge a bit on how the ORR, with the legislation designed and passed by Parliament, will ensure that tolls fit the definition of “affordable” as far as possible?

Justin Madders: I understand why you ask that question. The Bill sets the framework for the RAB model, and that will establish the independent regulator. Its remit is clear, and it is there in the first few clauses of the Bill: to take account of the interests of road users. There will be fair pricing, transparency and long-term sustainability as a result of that. You will also be aware that there will be a stakeholder group in which users will have the opportunity to feed in. We have a pretty robust set of reassurances that I hope will satisfy you and your constituents.

E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate. We have all heard from constituents about the problems caused by the illegal use of these vehicles, whether it is people riding e-bikes on the pavement, e-bikes clearly operating in violation of existing rules, private scooters being ridden on the road, or the serious impact of lithium-ion battery fires on public safety.

The concerns we hear from the public about these devices underscore why effective and proportionate regulation is necessary. People need to know that those using these vehicles are following the rules of the road. However, combining the two issues in this debate risks being somewhat redundant, given that, where we are not discussing dockless rental schemes, the regulatory regimes governing the two types of vehicles are very different.

There is a clear set of rules governing the use of e-bikes. The technical limits in the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 and the associated standards set a reasonably robust framework for their use, but as we have heard, there is a need to go further. That raises the fundamental point we need to consider when examining the regulation of these vehicles: are the current regulations being followed? That is why we must address the need for a much stronger approach to the enforcement of existing laws and regulations.

Over the past couple of years, several local and national news organisations have highlighted the increased illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters. For example, data obtained under freedom of information requests revealed that the number of crimes committed on e-bikes in London alone exceeded 10,000 in 2025, but only 221 of them resulted in the perpetrator being caught and charged—a pretty poor rate of 2.2%. To be honest, if we walked out of Parliament now and observed a nearby crossing, it would not take long to spot an e-bike rider flouting the law.

[Anna Dixon]

I have been out with my local police, and it is clear that they do not have the powers to pursue these very fast, illegal e-bikes to detain people. Gathering evidence is often not possible because of balaclavas. Does the hon. Member recognise that the Government’s action to give the police stronger powers to seize and destroy bikes from garages and lock-ups is a proportionate response to tackling this problem at source and helping the police to do their job?

[Greg Smith]

I do not think the hon. Lady and I are a million miles apart. Colleagues from all parties have set out serious concerns in this debate. The police having greater powers and enforcement ability is always welcome, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) tried to get much stronger regulation and enforcement powers put into legislation during this Parliament, and the Government resisted. It would be foolish to pretend that all the powers needed are out there. We would not be debating this in Westminster Hall if all was fine and rosy.

[Lola McEvoy]

Having had 14 years in power to do something about this issue, the Conservative party might be expected to support the next stage of our policing regulations, as set out in the King’s Speech. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be great if the upcoming policing Bill contained provisions on the regulation of off-road bikes?

[Greg Smith]

It is a well-rehearsed line, but e-bikes and e-scooters were not actually a thing for a large proportion of the previous Government’s 14 years.

[Ms Minns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will give way once more.

[Ms Minns]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the loophole for off-road bikes, which is exploited in the use of illegal e-bikes, has existed since the Road Traffic Act 1988 and could have been closed in the past 14 years?

[Greg Smith]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point about off-road bikes and dirt bikes, but the technology of e-bikes and e-scooters did not exist. These products were not even for sale for a large proportion of that time.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I said I would give way only once more. I fully appreciate that this is a debate—I give way a lot in debates—but I need to make the rest of my comments.

It is almost as if my speech had been pre-written for the first intervention I took: we need to support the police with the resources they need to tackle both the illegal use of these vehicles and their use as enablers of other offences. I appreciate that, last year, the Government introduced legislative changes to make it easier to seize some of these vehicles, but the changes can be effective only if the relevant authorities have the resources to enforce them. Furthermore, I hope the Minister will ask his colleagues to consider policies that enable the police to intervene whenever they witness dangerous behaviour involving e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as ways to impose tougher penalties. Illegal behaviour must be appropriately punished. There must be consequences.

That must be combined with increased police recruitment to ensure that officers are available to tackle this reckless behaviour, including targeted enforcement in locations where crime is most prevalent. However, under this Government we have unfortunately seen a reduction in overall police officer numbers. We should therefore commend the police forces that are using existing regulations to tackle the illegal use of these vehicles and finding innovative ways to discourage illegal behaviour. One recent example is the City of London police’s use of its so-called sin bin, which is designed specifically for cyclists who ride through red lights or across zebra crossings. Those caught are required to watch a safety video, which takes considerably longer than it would to have simply waited for the light to change. Of course, that can apply to any bike, but we regularly see users of e-bike schemes engaging in that kind of behaviour. By removing the perceived benefit of jumping a red light or riding illegally across a crossing, these measures could help to deter such behaviour.

At the same time, many of us have seen the increasing use of private e-scooters alongside the illegal use of e-bikes. Figures released by the Metropolitan police in July show that it had confiscated more e-scooters in the first seven months of the year than it had in the previous whole calendar year. Some people may ask whom this behaviour harms, but the answer is clear. If we cannot enforce the rules we already have in place, we risk endangering the public, particularly disabled people, who rely on our road safety infrastructure to protect them.

That brings us to the increasingly prevalent dockless e-bike and e-scooter rental schemes. Disability charities, particularly those representing people with visual impairment, have highlighted the significant challenges posed by these schemes. Research by the Royal National Institute of Blind People shows that 81% of survey respondents said that bikes or e-scooters left on pavements make their journeys more difficult. I therefore understand the desire to call for appropriate regulation of these businesses. In fact, a number of these organisations have called on local government, and particularly the Mayor of London, to show leadership on the issue and to be clear about what local government wants to achieve from the schemes.

I hope we follow the approach set out by the leadership of Westminster city council. Dockless bikes are here to stay, but poorly parked bikes have become a major headache—indeed, a danger—for pedestrian and businesses. It is worth noting that at a meeting with the major operators in August, Westminster city council agreed to share data that would give the authority a much more accurate picture of the thousands of vehicles operating in the borough. The council also stated that dockless bike operators were considering removing or relocating parking bays that are near taxi ranks and disabled parking bays, to help to keep pavements clear.

Working with the companies in a way that allows them to operate safely and legally is the principal way we should approach the problem.

[Luke Taylor]

rose—

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I give way to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle).

[Neil Coyle]

On the point about Westminster council and data, does the hon. Gentleman support the Mayor of London’s request that the new Government regulations require all providers to share information on how many bikes and vehicles they have on the road in our capital, and wherever else they are operated? I obviously have a London interest.

[Greg Smith]

rose—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been generous in taking interventions, but he is coming to the end of his time. I presume he will draw his remarks to a conclusion.

[Greg Smith]

Of course, Mr Stringer.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark on data sharing, as led by Westminster city council. If the Mayor of London is doing that, it is something that is straightforward and sensible to be done.

We need real action from the Government. We need the serious problems that Members from all parties have mentioned in the debate to be taken seriously, and that means listening to both sides of the House and ensuring that the sensible suggestions that have been made are actually met.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

In calling the Minister, may I request that he leaves two or three minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to wind up?

Highways (Financing) Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

How we pay for infrastructure is a matter that the House needs to take extraordinarily seriously. When the Government announced that they would bring forward measures set out in the King’s Speech on using private finance to build new roads, Labour Members should not have been surprised. After all, the Prime Minister was one of the most effective defenders of PFI schemes in the NHS during his previous time in government, and as Mayor of Greater Manchester his effusive praise of the investment from Manchester City shows his willingness to back private finance. It should therefore come as little surprise that the Government are interested in how we can leverage private funding for our roads. The Minister set out in his opening remarks that this is the biggest change in this area since the 18th century. Well, the Bill does indeed once more open the back door to highway robbery.

Having reflected on the debate and listened to the contributions of hon. Members from across the House, I think that most hon. Members recognise the importance of finding innovative methods to build infrastructure. Members from across the House can look at examples of cost overruns on infrastructure—particularly on the lower Thames crossing—that has used private money and incentives to increase road capacity and improve the experience for drivers. As the Government’s own slightly outdated figures in their impact assessment set out, the vast majority of miles travelled across our country are travelled in our cars, and over two thirds of freight is transported on the strategic road network. That point shone through in many of the contributions.

We started with the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and his public service safety announcement. He was followed quickly by the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who, in true third-party style, could not muster up a speech without a European comparison. He was followed quickly by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who brought us his memories of 1991 and Her late Majesty, focused on a case of private enterprise at its very best: the QEII bridge. He then shared ideas with the House, based on his ministerial experience. His points on London’s bridges were particularly well made.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The issue with London’s bridges is highlighted by Hammersmith bridge, which has been closed since 2019. Is it not time for the Government to get a grip on Labour-run Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Labour Mayor of London, and get that bridge reopened?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Many moons ago, he and I were Conservative councillors in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. I remember in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on that council—we had a small electoral mishap, and the Labour party had taken control of the council once more—trying to call out the Labour-run council for failing to take the steps necessary to put a plan in place to fix Hammersmith bridge. Today, it remains closed to traffic. That is a bridge owned by the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham—it is Labour-run, and it is a Labour failure to get that bridge open again.

[Daniel Francis]

We were all very interested to hear the view of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that charging should be spread across London river crossings. What is the shadow Minister’s analysis of the proposal that the cost of river crossings be spread more widely among taxpayers in London?

[Greg Smith]

I think I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch put some ideas in front of the House that are not necessarily shared by the Conservative Front Benchers. However, his fundamental point—that we have London bridges closed to traffic, and Labour councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham are failing to fix them—desperately needs to be addressed in the interests of motorists in London, and in particular the residents of the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, and of Richmond.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

On the point of charging Londoners for driving, over the past two years, we have seen the Mayor of London introduce the Silvertown tunnel charge, and for the first time, there is a Blackwall tunnel charge. The price for drivers has already risen. The Government have even increased the Dartford crossing charge by around 40%.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. We will come on to those charges later. One thing that has shone through in this debate is that no one can tell us—unless the Minister pulls a rabbit from a hat in his wind-up and gives us a figure—what the charge will be to use the lower Thames crossing once it is built.

[Daniel Francis]

I am aware that my neighbour the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) has not been here for the debate. We have discussed the fact that the charges at Blackwall and Silvertown were introduced, as a result of the 2018 order, under the Conservative Government. The increases were made under that order, introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Can the shadow Minister confirm that all those measures were introduced not by this Government, but his?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman wants me to get on to road charging, but I do not think that the Labour party wants me to go through the record of the Labour Mayor of London; he introduced the ULEZ and hiked the congestion charge to unaffordable levels.

To move on to another London Member of Parliament, the Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) said that she wanted more powers for the ORR on sustainability, as if banning diesel and HVO in the construction of the lower Thames crossing was not bonkers enough. However, I agree with her about HGV driver facilities. I remember in the last Parliament serving alongside her on the Transport Committee when we did an important report on that and visited Thurrock services. The lorry driver was not what I would classically call delighted when the whole Select Committee was shown the shower facilities that he was using at the time to see that the tiles were falling off and everything was not fully in order.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) injected some common sense into the debate, asking serious questions steeped in the history of the project that affects his constituents. He mentioned their scepticism about the cost and the opening date of the lower Thames crossing. We also heard thoughtful contributions from the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson).

The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), raised a fundamental question during his opening remarks: is this the right type of legislation? Why on earth have the Government drafted the Bill in a way that could feasibly allow charges be to be imposed simply for using roads beyond the tolls? Why is that a concern? Well, to quote clause 3 of the Bill:

“A licensing authority may grant a licence to a person authorising the person to charge tolls in respect of the use or keeping of road vehicles on a highway specified in the licence, in return for the person securing works involving…the maintenance, operation or improvement of a highway specified in the licence which has been…constructed in pursuance of the licence or another licence under this section”.

I fear we risk smuggling in charges on drivers through the back door, and are opening the door to the tolling of the M25 and beyond.

At a time when drivers are getting squeezed at the pump and the Government are cancelling multiple schemes, we must be completely clear that the Bill as it stands is not acceptable. That is why my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State tabled our sensible reasoned amendment. We cannot pass a Bill that could impose costs on drivers without a requirement to deliver significantly increased capacity and new schemes.

The Government say that only new big roads will be included, but they have failed to explain why the Bill allows new infrastructure to fall within the scope of tolling. The use of the term “infrastructure” may paint a picture of an entirely new road scheme, but what is there to stop it being something as small as a new set of smart motorway cameras? The Government may protest that that is unfeasible. If so, why will they not amend the Bill to make that abundantly clear? They should put it on the face of the Bill.

By going well beyond the scope of the lower Thames crossing, the legislation puts in place a scheme that is not fit for purpose. If we do not limit its scope, I fear that the words of the president of the AA will be ringing in the ears of drivers. He has said that drivers already pay for roads through £34 billion in fuel duty and road taxes, so extra charges across the road network would be a “toll too far”. As I said earlier, no one can tell us what the tolls for private motorists and HGV drivers will be.

We want the Government to bear down on the costs of building, which make such projects so expensive. That is why we announced at the Conservative party conference that we would leave the Aarhus convention and tackle the rules that allow costly and protracted legal challenges. If we want to achieve low toll prices for drivers and incentivise private investment to build the project at a lower cost, we must reduce the regulatory burden on those involved, as opposed to imposing burdens such as banning diesel machinery. We should use equipment that is cost-effective to get the best deal for motorists, rather than trying to achieve ideological purity.

It is not merely the costs that we have to consider; there is also the structure of the scheme. As has been noted, the RAB model used by the Government will be dependent on the work of the Office of Rail and Road. At a time when the Government are trying to restrict the powers available to the ORR to uphold competition in rail, the organisation that will regulate the scheme will have to have regard to matters including efficiency and economy, the ability of licence holders to finance their licensed activities, safety, impacts on the wider strategic road network, sustainable development, competition and regulatory best practice. It is one rule for road and another for rail, with no consistency from this Government. That really matters.

As the Government’s own impact assessment sets out, using the RAB model for the strategic road network would be a new application of the model. In the literature about the scheme, one of the central principles is the need for a regulator that can control costs and serve drivers. The ORR may be able to achieve that, but we are going in blind. We need complete clarity from the Government about how the scheme will actually work, in addition to answers to the fair questions that have been raised by Members from across the House about the tolling regime. We cannot treat drivers like a piggy bank.

At the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister told the country that people “need breathing space now”, and that he was “determined to provide it.” If Labour MPs want to follow the Prime Minister’s words, they must send a clear message back: unless this Bill clearly prohibits charging drivers for using existing roads, it cannot be allowed to pass through this House.

Draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and also to be across the Floor from the Minister for the second time today. This morning we discussed the coach industry in Westminster Hall, while this afternoon we are discussing an issue that goes to the very nub of our constitutional settlement as a union of nations.

As the Government reference in the documents published alongside these regulations, the operation of the railways in Northern Ireland has always been slightly different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, the 1843 compromise with the Board of Trade on a 5 feet 3 inches gauge and the subsequent Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846 set the railways of Northern Ireland on a different technical path.

However, despite acknowledging that long history, I wholly recognise the concerns that have been raised, and that I expect will equally be raised today, specifically those relating to how the new regime alters the 2011 regulations that cover the whole of the United Kingdom.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has already set out in detail, as I am sure he will again later, his concerns about the impact that this could have on Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to divergence within the United Kingdom. In their impact assessment of the proposals, the Government comment that, outside of the Windsor framework, the main advantage of these proposals is that they will

“provide more certainty to businesses as to which technical standards and processes apply to rail projects being undertaken in Northern Ireland.”

However, what is not clear is why clarity could not be offered under the regulations set out in 2011, even if that must be under a slightly altered regime. Merely because clarity is offered, it does not necessarily mean that the situation is better.

I recognise that in response to concerns about the impact, it has been said that the Department for Transport and the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland have agreed a common framework establishing mechanisms for officials to monitor and avoid regulatory divergence impacting the UK internal market. Even though this is the only risk noted, it is not an insubstantial one. Divergence between the two markets could easily put parts of Northern Ireland’s supply chain at risk. While there is a role for European elements, the requirement for UK goods to have an EU declaration of conformity is a further burden which should not be necessary.

There is also the broader point that, moving forward, we need to ensure that technology and progress in the rail sector in Northern Ireland is able to work within the framework of its relationships with the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom more widely. I fear that removing so much power without even consulting those affected could begin to create significant discrepancies that will have a significant impact.

I appreciate the status of these measures within the framework, but ultimately, we need to ensure that our legislation serves all the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am afraid that these measures simply will not achieve that.

UK Coach Industry

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on securing the debate, and I agree with her that coaches are unique and vital.

The debate has shown that not much divides the House on this topic. The challenge, as ever, is what the Government do with the asks from Members on both sides of the Chamber and how they support the UK coach sector and secure its future.

As we have heard, coaches play a critical role in getting people to school, supporting tourism and helping businesses transport people around the country and internationally. The sector has said that just one additional coach every day can deliver £1 million in economic value annually to a destination. On the face of it, that may sound like a rather surprising amount, but when we consider the capacity of a coach and the number of people it can transport, it immediately becomes less surprising.

Although the precise number is unclear, we know that there are about 2,500 coach operators in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that 88% are family owned or individually owned, and they employ tens of thousands of people across the country. To give just one example of their contribution, they transport 600,000 children—including one of my own—to school every day. On that note, with the indulgence of the House, I want to briefly thank a wonderful man called Rob, who drove coaches on multiple home-to-school transport routes in Buckinghamshire until the end of last academic year, when he moved on to a local taxi firm. His bright outlook gave real joy to the children he transported each and every day. He would hand-write each of them a Christmas card, and he became famous for the songs that he put on between the bus stops, the pick-up points and school. The children very much miss him as their home-to-school coach driver. We thank him for what he did, and hopefully one day he might return to those routes in Buckinghamshire.

As with much of the transport sector, we would be foolish not to recognise the challenges facing the industry, particularly for operators that have not received Government support. With diesel hitting all-time highs, the challenges facing the coach industry are more pronounced than ever. A recent survey by the newly established Coach UK warned that 41% of operators would withdraw from home-to-school contracts and 18% would consider closing down altogether if high prices persist beyond December.

Although hope may be a suitable remedy for the Labour party, it does not help with the financial reality faced by businesses across the county. Given the particular challenges for the industry, there is a need to take steps to reduce costs for business, but what message would operators have taken from what the Government said at Labour party conference? The Transport Secretary did not mention the word “fuel” once in her speech, but operators face an increase in fuel duty scheduled to take effect at the start of next year, and another hike in March. The deadline is fast approaching, which is why the Conservatives have called for the Government to provide clarity immediately and freeze fuel duty further.

Although Labour Members may think that everything is going right simply because they have a new leader, the reality for coach drivers and operators is different. Given these circumstances, I recognise the coach industry’s call for targeted financial relief this year. I can clearly understand why operators are asking for it, and it should serve as a reminder that the Government’s focus should not be on extracting ever-greater revenues to fund its profligate spending. I recognise the challenge in committing to specific financial support, but ultimately we need to ensure that fuel prices remain affordable and that businesses can continue to operate sustainably. That involves ensuring that fuel duty does not increase and doing what we can as a country to increase the supply of fuel—fossil fuel, advanced sustainable fuels and, in the future, synthetic fuels.

Additionally, we must acknowledge the broader energy-related issues that are relevant to this discussion. The consultation outcome on ending the sale of new non-zero emission buses and on the decarbonisation of coaches and minibuses showed that respondents emphasised that coaches have significantly different operating cycles from those of buses used in regular services. For example, coaches may not return to their depots as often as service buses. They may also need to find refuelling locations wherever they operate, and the vehicles may need a range of hundreds of miles. If such measures were introduced, they would place obvious strains on efforts to procure vehicles that meet the standards the Government will ultimately require. The practicalities of operating the vehicles underline the importance of technological neutrality, allowing businesses to buy the vehicles that will enable them to provide the services they know how to deliver effectively.

Returning to the example of transporting children to school, we have heard from a variety of operators about the increasing costs resulting from the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions, originally estimated at £800 per driver per year. Those costs create challenges for the provision of transport for disabled people, who may require more bespoke arrangements. Overall, when considering the financial pressures facing the sector, it appears to be another example of treating those on the roads as a means of simply extracting revenue.

Although costs such as fuel remain an important consideration, we must also consider the regulations in place. One issue raised by operators in the coach sector, as well as the wider transport industry, is the difficulty of recruiting and training staff, which has come through in this debate. Such skill shortages can rapidly affect the industry if left unchecked, as in the HGV sector a few years ago. That means that we need to ensure that the regulations in place enable people—particularly young people entering the workforce—to develop the skills they need.

Providing young people with opportunities to learn and develop at an earlier age would be advantageous. For example, one element that Conservatives have sought to address in our recently released skills package is the removal of the 50-kilometre restriction for fully qualified bus and coach drivers aged 18 to 20. Finding ways to make regulations work better for business while creating opportunities for young people is essential. Furthermore, Conservative plans for a reduction in national insurance contributions for employers of 21 to 24-year-olds could provide opportunities for SMEs to invest in skills and encourage more young people to join the sector at the start of their careers. We do not mind if the Government pick up and run with those proposals.

I appreciate that that alone would not be sufficient to solve all the issues facing the industry, but it should inform the approach. The Government have said they acknowledge the role of the coach industry and are committed to supporting it. They could go further, however, by adopting the right approach and asking a simple question: what can Government do to enable those small businesses to operate and grow? Ultimately, the coach industry needs to be able to operate despite the significant costs it faces. It is an industry that typically receives no public funding, relying heavily on small operators working exceptionally hard to run their businesses.

We must not forget the people behind those businesses. Any steps that can be taken to make it easier for them to run their businesses should be welcomed. Ideas have been put from all sides of the House this morning. The challenge I put to the Minister is to take them back to the Department and make them a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Gentleman points to an important fact: the coach sector is used by those who may not otherwise be able to book public transport to get where they need to. Although those people can also benefit from the package of measures brought forward by this Government to give them much needed breathing space, including the £2 bus cap, he is right to encourage me to always go further to improve on that. Unfortunately, he will be momentarily disappointed as I cannot provide him with advance notice of what may or may not be in the Budget. However, his general point—that support is important—is well made. That is why the fuel duty freeze is currently in place.

The figures that I raised underline the sector’s importance to tourism, high streets and destinations throughout Great Britain. However, the industry is also rooted in local communities. Many of those operators are small and family-run businesses that have served their areas for generations, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) pointed out from his own personal experience. We want those businesses to grow, invest and continue providing the flexible services on which passengers, schools and businesses depend.

I turn first to driver recruitment. We must continue to have an open dialogue with the coach sector about its challenges to doing business and what the Government can do to help. Driver recruitment is central. I recognise the sector’s concerns about recruiting and retaining drivers, in particular about the restrictions affecting younger drivers, which multiple hon. Members have raised today.

At present, 18 and 19-year-olds may drive buses and coaches only on regular services of up to 50 km. That can severely limit the work available in a sector where journeys are often of longer distance or not part of regular services. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) also raised the issue of when young drivers can begin their qualifications and theory tests. I will certainly take that away and raise it within the Department.

The Department has been engaging with the bus and coach industry, alongside road safety groups, to understand the potential impacts of amending the restrictions that apply to young drivers. However, I want hon. Members to be assured that we are working hard and at pace to get the next generation of drivers into the coach sector. We are considering the evidence carefully and will set out our next steps in due course. However, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), the Minister with direct responsibility for this matter, to set out more detail on the timings in writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard.

I turn now to cost pressures, which have been a consistent theme of this debate; they were particularly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I recognise that operators face pressures at the pump. That is why the Government have extended the 5p fuel duty cut until the end of the year, which provides important support to businesses, including coach operators. We will continue to work closely with the sector, listening to its concerns and ensuring that the challenges facing coach operators are understood across Government.

There is also a continued role for international advocacy, which sits within my role at the Department for Transport: working with colleagues both across Government and with the UK delegations at the International Energy Agency, to ensure that we continue to maintain a robust supply of diesel into the United Kingdom.

[Greg Smith]

I want to raise an issue that I appreciate sits more with the Treasury than with the Department for Transport. Since fuel costs increased earlier this year, the Government have taken in over £1 billion in extra unexpected income to the Treasury from VAT on those higher fuel prices. The money is there to support the coach sector, the logistics sector and other sectors that so desperately need it, is it not?

[Keir Mather]

Later in my speech, I will reflect more on the steps that we are taking to support the coach sector, especially in building the longer-term resilience that we believe can be achieved through the benefits that can be accrued from decarbonisation. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of rising fuel prices, which concerns the Government and on which we work on in close collaboration with the sector. He will, of course, understand that ahead of the Budget I cannot say much more about the exact issue that he raised.

I turn next to the issue of transport connectivity and the indispensable role of coaches as part of an integrated transport network. Earlier this year, the Department published “Better Connected”, the Government’s strategy for integrated transport in England. It sets out a clear national vision for all partners across the transport system to create integrated networks that work well for people and are safe, reliable, affordable and accessible, so that people can make their journeys easily. Its principles of putting people first, creating well-connected places and working in partnership apply across all forms of transport, but perhaps no more than in relation to coaches, which have a critical role to play as part of an integrated picture, particularly in connecting people to education and visitor destinations, but also in connecting rural communities and supporting elderly residents, as was raised by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Better information, well-designed interchanges and closer co-ordination with rail, bus and local transport can make journeys easier, and we will continue working with local leaders to ensure that coach travel is properly considered in local transport plans.

I will also just touch briefly on an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) about working more closely with local authorities to break through planning challenges. Currently, there are obligations for local authorities to have regard to land use and land need for myriad factors that do not pertain to driver welfare stops as they relate to critical national infrastructure on the strategic road network. There is more work for the Department of Transport to do in order to work more closely with local authorities to make them more aware of just how critical it is to have proper freight and coach connectivity to every part of the United Kingdom.

I turn next to zero emission coaches. Coaches already provide an efficient form of mass transport, but we recognise the need to support the sector to go further in a way that makes good business sense. The transition to zero emission coaches presents particular challenges that I am very cognisant of: journeys can be long and variable, vehicles may spend extended periods away from their depot and operators need confidence that suitable charging will be available. The Government’s £170 million multi-year depot charging scheme supports zero emission HGVs, vans and coaches by part-funding charging infrastructure at fleet depots. Its first 2026 funding window offered support for up to 70% of eligible charge points and civil engineering costs of up to £1 million per organisation.

Air Traffic Control Disruption

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the failure of the United Kingdom’s air traffic control system and the resulting disruption to flights and passengers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

Good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will ensure that your comments are relayed.

May I begin by again apologising to passengers across the United Kingdom who faced significant disruption as a result of the issues that impacted NATS’s operation on 8 September, resulting in delays and cancellations for hundreds of thousands of passengers, as well as the disruption that it has caused for industry? Let me be clear that disruption of this kind is absolutely unacceptable.

To provide some context to the House, at around lunch time on 8 September NATS experienced an issue with its flight processing system at its Swanwick centre affecting the data that was available to controllers. The disruption had a significant impact across the UK aviation network resulting in widespread delays, cancellations and diversions. NATS worked hard to fix the issue, but that took time as the systems needed to be tested to ensure that they had fully recovered and operations could safely return to normal. My officials were in regular contact with NATS, airlines and airports during the incident to understand the issues impacting them and to offer Government support, such as granting night flight alleviations to support recovery at regulated airports including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

NATS has confirmed that it was a technical issue and it does not believe it to be cyber-related. The Secretary of State and I met Martin Rolfe yesterday, and we have agreed that he will send a report to us by Wednesday 16 September setting out the cause of the incident and the actions being taken to ensure that this cannot happen again. The Secretary of State has also asked the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct an independent review to establish cause and to ensure that our air traffic control systems can get passengers to where they need to be, with an update to be provided to me within six months. We will work closely with both organisations as well as airlines and airports to ensure that lessons are learned and that any necessary improvements are implemented.

This morning, I met representatives from Unite the union to hear directly about the impact of the incident on airport and airline staff and to discuss broader issues with them relating to the abuse of frontline transport workers. I express my and the Secretary of State’s gratitude to all those staff at our airports and airlines who provided support to passengers whose journeys were disrupted over the past few days. Our sympathies remain with all those passengers who have experienced delays to their travel plans or cancellations.

[Greg Smith]

Over 2,000 flights cancelled, with more than 150,000 passengers affected; delays, disruption and pain; embarrassment for Britain—what an absolute mess! As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was no offer of a statement from the Government, hence this urgent question from the Conservative Benches.

Nothing sums up the situation facing real people this week better than Martin Brundle’s scathing post on Tuesday:

“Nine hours and counting sitting on a plane which has travelled nowhere. At a remote parking bay, no food throughout, and mother/baby and a person with a medical condition desperate to get off. As is everyone else. Toilets no longer available as blocked. No sign of steps or buses. And that’s before the wait for luggage. Pathetic and dangerous lack of corporate contingency and responsibility.”

Is the Minister not embarrassed? A report by 16 September, which takes us into recess, and six months then to fully diagnose the problem—that is not good enough. A third failure deserves immediate action, not delaying tactics.

The Government have a considerable say in how NATS operates. Ministers cannot suddenly discover the virtues of arm’s length government when something goes wrong in an organisation of which the taxpayer owns 49%. Passengers have heard before that lessons will be learned, reviews commissioned and improvements made; they do not want another sorry story of apologies and assurances while everyone waits for the next failure.

A cyber-attack has been ruled out, so exactly what did happen? Was it a software failure? Were sufficient engineers available on site? Were previous recommendations actually implemented? If they were, why on earth are we back here again? Why are airlines and airports lacking suitable contingency plans for when NATS fails—when Government fails—and there is no Government support on the ground? The Secretary of State needs to take responsibility, get a grip of this mess and ensure that this time lessons are not simply learned but acted upon.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. He asks me for more detail about what exactly happened, given that a cyber-attack has now been ruled out. The disruption was caused by a technical issue in NATS’s Swanwick flight processing system, which affected the processing of flight plans used by data controllers. NATS advises that the problem was affecting the flight processing system and the data that was being fed into controller radar displays. A fix was implemented later in the day, but recovery took time, as NATS needed to test that the system was safe.

The shadow Minister is right to raise the experience of Martin and the other hundreds of thousands of passengers across the United Kingdom who were adversely affected. That raises serious questions about contingency and resilience planning at our airports, and I am determined to have conversations about that with the CAA, NATS, airlines and airports in the coming days.

The shadow Minister criticises the fact that it will take around a week to get the report back. It is incredibly important that we take the time to figure out exactly what happened, because ultimately this is about aviation safety. It is about making sure that the UK can retain its reputation for getting passengers to where they need to go while protecting their safety. He asked about the report coming back over recess; I am happy to return after recess to answer any questions that hon. Members may have about the issue.

There is a broader question about the CAA being asked to conduct an urgent review and report back within six months, and whether that is the right timeline. I remind hon. Members that after the largest recent outage, in 2023, it took two and a half years for the CAA to fully assess the implications and all the technical improvements and requirements that were needed as a result of that incident. It provided 34 recommendations, all of which have been implemented. A six-month timeframe to get to the bottom of what is a highly technical matter and an incident of disruption is proportionate and timely, and will allow us to react quickly, with stringent ministerial oversight.

The shadow Minister asks Ministers to take control of the situation and exercise effective oversight on behalf of passengers—that is exactly what we are doing.