Highways (Financing) Bill

Jim Dickson Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We do not yet know who will fund the project. Would the Minister like to intervene on me to say if any companies have been lined up and who is looking forward to funding this project under the proposed legislation? He does not want to at the moment, so I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will be getting an answer to his question today.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Holden]

I have just given way several times, so let me make a little progress before I give way again.

The Secretary of State is too busy to bother about motorists until they become useful cash cows for Labour’s ballooning welfare budget, which shows no sign of changing under the new Prime Minister, no matter how many pints he poses with. The Transport Secretary could not even be bothered to mention fuel in her speech at the Labour party conference, even though diesel has just hit £2 a litre for the first time ever. To be fair, she did mention drivers once, but only to tell us that railways are the drivers of change—whatever that means.

Make no mistake: Labour does not care about Britain’s motorists, unless it is making a tax, a charge, a new fine or a new yellow box junction. Labour—its Government, its Back Benchers and its councillors—will never stop trying to fleece motorists. This Bill proves that in spades with its open-ended approach to what could happen. There are new sweeping powers in the Bill for road charging right across England, with next to no future parliamentary approval. It is not even as if the Secretary of State has been out there banging the drum for Britain’s automotive sector; otherwise, we would have seen the changes to the zero emission vehicle mandate that so many in the industry, and some Labour Back Benchers, are demanding. In fact, we have seen Labour turn the screw on this issue even further since it came to power.

We know that some Labour Ministers—such as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who is a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade—are on the side of motorists. However, the Department for Transport has shown absolutely no indication that it is on the side of Britain’s car industry or those who work in it in good jobs, often with trade union representation, up and down the country. It is not on the side of those who go out and drive for work or for leisure day after day.

What have this Government done? They have been busy merrily cooking up a story with the Treasury and pressing ahead with plans to put an extra 6p per litre on fuel in the new year. They have been busily slicing out road scheme after road scheme and road upgrade after road upgrade. So much for the road investment strategy that the Minister talks about! Under this Government, how can we have any confidence that they will deliver the scheme at all? We have just seen the A303, the Blyth relief road, the A31, the A10, the A12, the A17, the A454 and the A127 growth corridor cancelled, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) just mentioned, as well as many more. The Government have cancelled their own growth corridor!

The Transport Secretary—although she is not here—expects us to swallow the idea that the Government will suddenly be on the side of motorists and road users with this new scheme, which opens the entire road network to potential road charging. As soon as any new enhancement is put in—it may be a central reservation enhancement—it can be opened up to potential road charging.

I read the other day, to my amazement, that National Highways has banned diesel from construction sites on the lower Thames crossing. Are this Government absolutely mad? Are they trying to keep the costs of this project down?

[Mr Holden]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point.

The Government have devised a new cunning plan. They are not just banning diesel—oh no; they are banning hydrotreated vegetable oil. You heard that right, Madam Deputy Speaker: they are going to wipe out vegetable oils being repurposed as diesel from the sites. The sites will have to be all electric. How much cost will they ram through on to this scheme? In the end, who will pay for that? It will not be the private company that runs the scheme; it will be everybody who crosses the Thames. That is what the Government are doing: driving in costs from day one. This is the biggest road scheme that this country has done in decades, and the Secretary of State is not even here to talk about it.

[Jim Dickson]

The shadow Secretary of State keeps mentioning the fact that the Secretary of State is not here. Is he aware that one of the first things she did on assuming her role was to agree the development consent order for the lower Thames crossing? The last Government failed to do that over 14 years, because they were not prepared to stand up to the environmental groups who slowed the thing down and allowed dither and delay.

[Mr Holden]

The last Government fought tooth and nail through the courts to deliver the scheme and get the planning consents all the way through. I think the hon. Member should take note of that. This is not something that this Government have dreamed up overnight and delivered. They are ramming costs right into the heart of the scheme, and it is his constituents who will pay for it in the years to come, because of the way in which it will be constructed.

This is neither the time nor the place for one of Baldrick’s cunning plans. Does the Minister know how much this scheme is going to cost? If not, why not? Why on earth will any private sector company look at investing in the scheme if it has an open-ended cost? The Government say that they want to deliver growth, but instead they spend their days screwing over motorists, cancelling road schemes and calling Heathrow expansion a “hypothetical” or “a matter for London”.

Labour is not a serious party intent on delivering growth. They are only fit to whack up the welfare budget and leave the rest of us to pay for it. My party has set out a clear plan to tackle some of the costs of infrastructure, including leaving the Aarhus convention, which we discussed at the Conservative party conference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

My constituents will be delighted to see this piece of legislation before the House. It is, as others have said, key to unlocking new infrastructure and finally ending the traffic chaos that plagues my Dartford constituency daily. The new lower Thames crossing is planned to be the first new road project funded in this way. The Dartford crossing and the M25 motorway, which along with the A282 provides access to the crossing, cut across the heart of my constituency, providing, as has been said by others, the one crossing over the Thames east of London. This represents a single point of failure, and fail it often does.

The Dartford crossing was designed for 135,000 vehicles a day, but as the Minister has said, the crossing now averages 150,000 vehicles a day and needs to be carefully managed around the clock. When failure happens, it is the residents of Dartford who pay the highest price. When the crossing has to close, which happens regularly, it leaves the town at a complete standstill. Journeys that should take 10 minutes can take four to five hours. Children cannot get home from school, tradespeople cannot get to jobs, and medical appointments are missed. Dartford residents have been waiting for years for this to be addressed.

Earlier this year, on 23 January, an over-height lorry somehow evaded the sensors designed to detect and halt such vehicles and caused significant damage to the roof of one of the tunnels, leading to a closure of more than 30 hours and absolute chaos for residents on both sides of the crossing, as traffic backed up for miles around. Even when there is not a major issue such as a tunnel closure, most days see heavy traffic. For those heading northbound in the evening, 95% of journeys feature delays, with two thirds taking twice as long as they should.

The high amount of slow-moving traffic also has health impacts on Dartford residents, with air quality far below what we should expect. For our country more widely, delays at the crossing affect goods coming to and from ports in the south-east, and the delays are estimated to cost the UK more than £200 million every year in time lost sitting in traffic. It is therefore incredibly welcome that the building of the lower Thames crossing is now proceeding rapidly forward after moving slower than traffic over the Dartford crossing on a bad day under the last Government.

We now see a reasoned amendment to the Bill, which would decline to give it a Second Reading, because the Conservatives do not believe the Government can deliver it on time. That is quite some accusation given their record of—how can I put this kindly—glacial progress on the project. Their 14 years of dither and delay are followed by an active attempt to block progress today. That will go down really well in Dartford, and I have no doubt that Dartford Conservatives will be ecstatic at the antics of their colleagues in the House today.

The new crossing, when finished, will take away more than 10 million vehicles from Dartford, freeing up almost a full lane of traffic. It will be hugely beneficial for the local economy. Thousands of jobs will be created during construction, with half the workforce recruited locally. I hope that that will kick-start a whole generation of new careers in construction for young people across north Kent and Essex. Once built, the new road will increase access to jobs for those living on both sides of the Thames, providing crucial employment opportunities for my constituents and others living nearby.

The campaign to get this piece of infrastructure up and running has been the single biggest priority in my time as Dartford’s MP. I welcome the Bill as a crucial step forward in getting the crossing built and open. I send my thanks to residents, businesses large and small, organisations across Dartford and north Kent, national trade bodies including Logistics UK, local government representatives and colleagues across this House and in the other place for their support with the campaign. I also thank the Secretary of State for Transport and Treasury Ministers, including the previous and present Chancellors, for the planning and funding decisions that they have made.

I appreciate the time the Roads Minister took to discuss the project in the summer and hope that he will indulge me by answering just a few outstanding queries that I have about the operation of the Bill and its impact on the new crossing. Most importantly, on tolls, local residents in Dartford and Thurrock are entitled to discounted use of the Dartford crossing. Will the Minister clarify whether the Bill has any impact on the operation of a future residents’ discount scheme for both the Dartford crossing and the new crossing? It is crucial for my residents that the tolls across the two crossings are set at an equal value and remain affordable via the discount scheme. I would be grateful for any assurance that the Minister can provide on that issue. The arrangement clearly will not work if there is a financial incentive for goods vehicles to use one crossing rather than the other.

It is important to recognise that, at its core, the Bill allows private companies that are licensed by the Government to charge tolls on newly built roads—the mechanism by which we unlock capital to build much-needed new infrastructure. British motorists already pay substantial revenue to the Government through fuel and vehicle excise duties, so does the Minister agree that although it is right to use tolls on new infrastructure in certain circumstances such as this, we do not want to see new toll roads created on currently untolled highways? I am sure that the Minister will give us reassurance on that.

I have some concerns about the vulnerabilities highlighted by the Government’s final stage impact assessment with the Office of Rail and Road, which has been appointed as the independent regulator. How will Ministers address the concerns that have been raised about information asymmetry, such as the concern that in some cases, private firms bidding for and then building and operating the development may possess more detailed information about actual project delivery and operational costs than the ORR, which might allow them to inflate costs, with knock-on inflation in the charges that users will eventually pay? Some reassurance on that would be useful.

Notwithstanding those queries, which I am sure the Minister will answer, I am happy to support this very welcome Bill. I know that it is widely welcomed as the key to unlocking the critical funding needed to build such a vital piece of new infrastructure.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q I guess you could step in and increase the costs and have them earning more to try to keep them on a sustainable footing.

Will Godfrey: At certain points it is possible that a regulator could introduce things like cost limits, beyond which there was then a redetermination of a price allowance, but not necessarily one that was a simple “costs have overrun by CX, therefore tolls increase by the same amount.” It would not be an automatic pass-through; it would be subject to that efficiency and economy test.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Q One of the things that has come through from other witnesses today is the need for pace on this project—the status quo is appalling for my residents but every bad for the economy and for various sectors. Matt, would you say that the need for us to pass some legislation, then have an equity competition and then appoint the funders is slowing down your work to make sure that the project continues and completes on time—and hopefully on budget and on spec as well?

Matt Palmer: We are moving at pace. The Chancellor at the last autumn Budget—not this one—announced funding to get us to private finance, and we are well into that. We are moving at pace. There is a misunderstanding that we have not started. We have very definitely started: 2,000 people are on site, we have 14 sq km of land and there is a lot of mud at the moment, I am afraid. We are moving well and at pace. Our target is to get a tunnel boring machine, which will be the largest in the world at the time, in the ground in 2028, which will line up roughly with when we go to private finance. All of that is contingent on the fact that we need the legislation through to allow us to get the equity to move on thereafter.

[Jim Dickson]

Q Is this largely the result of having had considerable allocation of Treasury funding already, in order to be able to make a start and, essentially, mobilise and begin the project in the way described?

Matt Palmer: The logic is that the economic benefit of the scheme is great. Not only does it solve the problem in the local area; it is a national-level project, so we move at pace, we start the construction and we take a lot of the difficult, time-consuming activities like land assembly—putting plots of land together—and that is what we are doing at the moment. All of that enables a much more stable platform for investors to come in.

[Alison Griffiths]

Q I want to come back to the question of hydrotreated vegetable oil. Mr Palmer, you suggested that there was parity/comparability in costs between white diesel and HVO. I have spent a little time in the last few minutes looking at Google, Claude and ChatGPT, and not one of those sources suggests that is the case unless you count HVO being 10% to 30% more expensive as comparable. So I want to push back and ask you to be more precise on the additional cost base of using HVO in construction across the course of this project, both to date and in your estimates going forward.

Matt Palmer: In construction in the UK, about two thirds of our constructors use HVO as standard. For a project, you will find that a number of constructors bid with HVO—it is just in the costs. That is the case with lower Thames crossing. Two thirds of our contractors bid with HVO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

Q Can anything in how the relationships are built with the procurement teams be changed to shift that?

Roger Forsdyke: I think so. If you have gateways where you build the price through detailed submissions, you can then control it. You do not want uncontrollable cost and excellent quality, but you need to create some gateways through the process so that you can control the quality as you go through. That is my experience. Those sorts of two-stage processes create the best outcomes.

You then have to make sure there is no undefined scope. As you cross the line to secured and the responsibility moves to the contractor, you do not want any change. That is sometimes very hard to achieve, but it is a really important step. It is often, “Oh, we just need to get started,” and the pressure of starting often means that the project will start prematurely, before the scope is defined. That is where the optimism bias goes in—the provisional sum might be light or whatever—and then you end up with escalation, notwithstanding the delays to resolving the issues themselves.

Andrew Truscott: I do not have a huge amount to add, because Roger has put it beautifully. I will just say one thing, and he can kick me under the table: contracting is a hard business. They do billions of pounds-worth of revenue for 2%, 3% or 4% margins—it is hard—and there is therefore little scope in their business models for mistakes. They will always enter into these sorts of projects with an expectation that mistakes do not land at their desk, because otherwise they go bust, and they have done globally.

Again, credit to the way LTC is being procured. I think separating church and state a little bit—separating equity and financing from contracting, rather than having one single proposal—is arguably a way of getting more certainty around deliverability than amalgamating all those elements into one. Where we have seen material cost overruns, it tends to be in the big projects where one single solution is given to a customer. We have been looking at a lot of US projects recently in the road space where single projects— equity, traffic and revenue, as well as construction—are lumped into one big unit and presented to a customer, who then tries to aggregate and always aggregates to lowest cost, and that is not always the right solution.

I am giving my previous panellists an awful lot of credit today, which is wonderful. I think disaggregating elements could be a way of managing that risk and that cost and delay overrun quite well.

[Jim Dickson]

Q I agree with your earlier point that it is really important that the tolls are kept affordable in every way, not only for the haulage industry but for motorists and other vehicles. Presumably one aspect of that will be this being an attractive project for which lots of interest is generated in the market, and therefore we get lots of potential bidders—

Andrew Truscott: Hopefully not.

[Jim Dickson]

In terms of investor attractiveness, how would you rank the scheme globally against other schemes of similar size, or other comparable schemes? Do you think we are set to have a competitive and very interested set of players looking to bid?

Andrew Truscott: It is a really good question. I will try to keep my answer brief, because I could bore you for about a month on this.

The short answer is that the big attention for the main global contractors—of which there are, let us be honest, a handful—is currently on the US. The US is undergoing a big programme of what they are calling managed lanes projects, which are about upgrading existing roadways to be either tolled or semi-tolled or managed. I am sure you have not seen Ferrovial or Cintra—all the big Spanish contractors are very focused on the US. Australia is sporadic but yes, there are some large projects—not necessarily transportation projects—that are attracting interest from investors and contractors in Australia. In Europe, you can count it on the fingers of one hand. Actually, that is where LTC may get more attention, as a consequence of the lack of other available opportunities.

However, this is a big project. This is a big equity cheque and there will be an awful lot of investors who say—well, I am certainly yet to meet the investor who will be able to write a single cheque for the entire amount. My guess is that this will come down to pools of consortium of capital, very much like those that ended up being on Thames Tideway, who come together because the amount of capital required is just so huge.

Do I expect it to be competitive? Unfortunately, yes. Do I expect you to have 10 to 15 single-asset bidders all vying to buy 100% of the equity? Not in the slightest.

[Jim Dickson]

That is very helpful.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q Andrew, I think you said earlier that one of the issues was uncapped cost overruns for the contractor. What is the consequence of that? Does it scare some contractors away?

Andrew Truscott: Not for the contractor; for the investor. Sorry—if I said “contractor”, I meant “investor”. Apologies. I do not care about the contractors. [Laughter.]

It is not because we do not understand and price risk; that is what we do for a living. It is just that I cannot go to my investment committee and, when asked, “Okay, Andrew, what is the maximum amount of equity you are going to put into this project and therefore what is the return you are expecting to get on it?”, give the answer, “I don’t know.” That is not a conversation—well, it could be a conversation, but it would be the last conversation I have with my investment committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Olly Glover]

Q A witness said that one of my questions was best aimed at Government, so it would be churlish of me not to avail myself of the opportunity to ask it to you, Minister. What metrics should the Government use to determine whether alternative financing arrangements deliver better value for money for road infrastructure projects than direct Treasury funding? How are the Government thinking about that question?

Justin Madders: First, as it made clear, the Treasury will not fund the totality of the project, so we have to look at other models. There are different views about how that would work. If we want to compare it to the private finance initiative, which has been the major funding source for a number of crossings in recent years, costs under the RAB model tend to be lower.

Clearly, we have an independent regulator that will, as I have explained and you have heard in evidence, be able to limit cost recovery, to make sure it is economic and efficient. There will be regular requirements set out to review that under the licence. Ultimately, the Government will not be left, as they would be under PFI, with repaying a debt over many years. That might be off the balance sheet, but it still ends up coming to the taxpayer.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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?

[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 ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

Highways (Financing) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Jim Dickson 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

[Jim Dickson]

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