Highways (Financing) Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I realise that the Bill may seem rather dry at first glance, as it primarily covers how we finance major road building. Financial frameworks, licences and regulators might not get the hearts of the public—or, dare I say, even of hon. Members—racing, so I hope the House will allow me to start with why all this matters, not just for the future of this Government’s second largest infrastructure asset, but for the future of the country. Members from across the House will, I am sure, know the importance of the strategic road network—4,500 miles of highways that frankly punch above their weight. It represents less than 3% of our road network by length, and carries a third of motor vehicle miles and two thirds of lorry miles. If trade is the lifeblood of our economy, the strategic network represents our national arteries, transporting almost all the goods that we rely on for our way of life. Indeed, it does even more, by unlocking house building, connecting people with opportunity, and underpinning the integrated transport network that we want to build.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Minister mentioned roads unlocking house building. Labour wants to build 100,000 houses in south Essex, from Grays to Shoeburyness, so why did it cancel the widening of the A12 some months ago? Last week, it cancelled upgrades to the A127, too. It makes no sense to build all those houses, but if we are going to do that, it is insane to cancel the road upgrades that we need to accommodate that building. Why did Labour do that? None of this is joined up, is it?

[Justin Madders]

I will happily address why certain schemes have been cancelled. It is because the Conservative party put far more schemes into the programme than it put in funding for, so any understandable frustration ought to be directed at the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. Much of the strategic network is over 45 years old.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry, but the Minister cannot get away with that. Labour cancelled the widening of the A12, which had been planned for years, and it cancelled the upgrades to the A127. Please answer my question. How can Labour propose building 100,000 houses while cancelling strategic road programmes? It does not make sense.

[Justin Madders]

The bottom line is that the previous Government committed to far more schemes than there was funding for, so we had to evaluate which were the least value for money and the least advanced. It is nothing more than that. The right hon. Member may be frustrated, but perhaps the previous Government should not have made promises that could not be delivered.

Demand will only go in one direction. Road vehicle mileage is set to rise on the strategic road network by 12% over the nine years to 2035. Climate change continues to bare its teeth across our transport infrastructure, and our strategic roads are no exception. All those challenges bear down on a network that holds up our economy every day. That is why I am proud that the Government published the third road investment strategy earlier this year. It committed not only £27 billion to future-proofing our roads, and to resurfacing a quarter of our entire network, but to three major enhancement schemes in the north of England, on which it will work even closer with local leaders. It proved to MPs like me that road investment can address regional inequalities, and is compatible with our promise of greater devolution. When we talk about growth and power in every postcode, that is exactly what we mean.

That is the context in which I present the Bill. I have mentioned what we have already delivered, but in truth, much more needs to be done. Delivering the roads this country needs to connect our ports, our major cities and our communities requires substantial investment over many years, and across several Parliaments. Public investment will, of course, continue to play a vital role, but we can go further when private investment is harnessed to meet public goals. When Government and the private sector come together in partnership, and when we balance certainty for private investors with safeguards for the public interest, we give ourselves more tools to build the modern infrastructure that Britain needs. The Bill creates such a tool, and does so in two ways.

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

I welcome the measures in the Bill to invest in our road system, but will the Minister comment on the technological advances to vehicles over the next decades? Most vehicles will eventually become self-driving. That will mean much less congestion, and vehicles will communicate with each other, so there will be much simpler junctions and fewer accidents. What account are the Government taking of the technical changes to vehicles?

[Justin Madders]

We are working on projections and what we know about the road network now, and overcapacity at Dartford in particular needs to be addressed. On whether automated vehicles reduce congestion, we need to see what happens in practice.

The regulated asset base model will be applied to trunk roads in England. That model is not new—it was used to fund the Thames tideway tunnel and Sizewell C—but this is the first time it will be used on a road network. For our roads, it starts by granting a licence for a specific highway project to a private investor. The framework for that licence is set in this Parliament. The framework starts with construction and goes through to operation and maintenance. Any infrastructure project under this model will therefore start as it should, with a sound legal and regulatory foundation.

The Office of Rail and Road will then act as the independent economic regulator. It will have a wide range of powers in the public interest, including monitoring performance, obtaining information, issuing penalties and, if necessary, taking enforcement action and revoking a licence. These public interest safeguards are vital and will never be compromised. There can also be no disparity between the operation of a privately funded highway and one managed by National Highways, so I can assure the House that the Bill means that roads operated under the new licensing regime can be held to the same standards as the rest of the strategic road network. Even when difficulties arise, the framework ensures that road users are protected and there is continuity of service on the network.

Finally, the Bill allows a private operator to make a regulated return on their investment. Any charges or tolls will be levied under strict conditions set out by the Office of Rail and Road, which will be required to consider the interests of road users. Let me be crystal clear: the Bill is not and will never be national road pricing by the back door, and it is not and will never be a way to charge motorists across the wider network. The provisions in the Bill apply only to roads brought in under the financial and legal framework that we are debating today.

Let me be clear: that framework is not open ended. Licences may only be issued for new road projects, capacity enhancing improvements or the continued operation of a previously licensed road, and any road specified in a licence must be a trunk road in England. This is about strategically important routes, not minor improvements to the road network. Government policy is that tolling will normally be used only for costly river and estuarial crossings, and nothing in the Bill is set to change that.

I will now turn to the second major feature of the Bill. Some of the legislation governing toll collection dates back to the 18th century. It is high time that was updated, so that we can unleash the benefits of modern technology on our roads. Many of us have at some point experienced long queues at toll booths. It adds unnecessary delay to journeys, and drivers will rightly wonder when regulations will catch up with technology. Free-flowing tolling systems do not require vehicles to stop at traditional booths, and by allowing payment after use, they ease congestion and shorten journey times. The Bill does not mandate a certain approach to toll collection, but simply allows new technologies to be adopted and creates a modern statutory framework for enforcement practices. I have little doubt that drivers will welcome measures that can remove friction from their journeys.

It is no secret that our desire to push forward with this legislation stems from the lower Thames crossing. That crossing will almost double road capacity across the Thames to the east of London. It will improve journey times and it will tackle chronic congestion at Dartford, which is bursting at the seams. Its 2.6-mile dual tunnels under the Thames will be the longest road tunnels in the country, and the largest in Europe by diameter, and it will set the standard for carbon-neutral construction. In short, it is exactly the sort of ambitious and world-leading infrastructure project that Britain should be building.

We have been clear that the regulated asset base model is our preferred financial approach for the lower Thames crossing, but the Bill is not about the lower Thames crossing’s design, nor does it grant development consent. That work has already been done. It simply creates the financial framework that can deliver the lower Thames crossing, as well as appropriate future road projects.

I finish by reminding colleagues what lies at the heart of the Bill: recognition that too many people, in too many places, remain held back by poor connectivity, and a recognition that each congested road and every delayed journey stifle productivity. The Bill does not ask the House to choose between public and private finance as a matter of ideology, but it puts another tool at our disposal for delivering the infrastructure that Britain needs. This financial model will not be used in every case, but it does set out one practical approach, guided by a financial framework set by Government. There will be a compliance regime enforced by an independent regulator. Private capital is provided by investors, and public safeguards are protected at every stage. That is the balanced model that this Bill will deliver, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

No, I am finishing my speech.

What on earth are the Government doing? Where are the safeguards against higher charges for motorists? The Minister does not know.

[Justin Madders]

Read the Bill!

[Mr Holden]

I have read the Bill. Clauses 33 and 81 could lead to road charging schemes right across the country. The Minister seems not to have read his own Bill. What safeguards are there? How much will his plans to ban diesel add to the cost of construction? Does he know? Would he like to tell us? No, he is not going to say.

The shadow Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), will take the Government to task on the Bill and go toe-to-toe in Committee, defending motorists against unlimited tolls and endless charges. That is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment that calls on the Government to see sense, keep costs for motorists down, get this project built and deliver the growth that we desperately need in this country.

Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Wishart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing the debate and for the determined way in which he has represented the interests of his constituents. I join him in saying how very sad it was to hear about the recent tragic road collision on the A38 that led to the death of a cyclist and my thoughts and sympathies go out to his family and friends.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the concerns that the hon. Member has raised regarding the A38 Bromsgrove route enhancement programme and its impact on residents, businesses and road users. He was right to acknowledge that such schemes will inevitably lead to some disruption, but it is clear from what he has said today that both he and his constituents have run out of patience.

As the hon. Member said, the A38 acts as a key strategic link, providing access to the strategic road network as well as serving regional and local traffic. I recognise and sympathise with his comments about the road being a key pressure valve when there is disruption on the M5. My constituency is close to the motorway network and we also see the impacts when there are delays and disruptions there.

As the hon. Member quite rightly pointed out, the programme has been developed and is being delivered by Worcestershire county council. It is the biggest upgrade to Bromsgrove’s local road networks in a generation. Its aims are to reduce congestion and increase journey reliability, support the delivery of housing and employment growth, and improve connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists. It is a critical investment in the town’s infrastructure and has been assessed as providing high value for money for taxpayers.

The hon. Member described the scheme as excellent when it was first announced back in 2023, although from his comments I take it that he is now a little less supportive of the scheme. Whether that is entirely down to the delays or whether the benefits are not as clear to him as they were we will no doubt explore in due course. As he rightly pointed out, since the scheme was approved it has experienced a number of delays. Of course, I understand the frustrations that his constituents have experienced.

The principal cause of delay on the programme has been the discovery of numerous previously uncharted utility assets along the A38 corridor, including complex gas infrastructure. The scale and complexity of these assets have required significant additional investigations and changes to designs and construction plans. As much of that work has involved third-party utility providers, it has not been wholly within the control of the county council or its contractor. As is often the case with major urban highway projects, other factors have also led to delays. Bad weather and the challenges associated with delivering work safely within a live highway environment have also constrained progress.

Worcestershire county council has kept the Department updated regularly. As the hon. Member has confirmed, most elements of the programme are expected to be completed in early 2027. The Oakalls roundabout will be the final section to complete construction and the contractor’s latest plans indicate that the work there will finish in June 2027. However, the council is exploring opportunities to accelerate delivery and it is hopeful that completion of the roundabout could be brought forward to the spring.

The hon. Member has raised a number of detailed concerns through correspondence, in meetings and now through this debate. Of course, I understand why he has pursued those questions on behalf of his constituents, but it is important to be clear that the responsibility for delivering the A38 programme rests with Worcestershire county council as the local highway authority. The council is therefore accountable for project governance, procurement, contractor management and delivery.

The vast majority of issues raised by the hon. Member concern the day-to-day management by Worcestershire county council of the relationship with its contractor. Detailed decisions on the construction programme and the management of delays are matters for the council as the client authority and for the contractor delivering the works. The Department for Transport has provided funding and maintains appropriate oversight to ensure value for the taxpayer and that public money is spent properly. However, I need to be clear that oversight is not the same thing as management: the Department scrutinises business cases, monitoring information and assurance arrangements, but it does not manage contractors, direct operational decisions on site or act as the project manager for locally delivered schemes.

The hon. Member argued that the Department or National Highways should intervene directly and assume responsibility for the project, but neither option is appropriate or, indeed, possible. National Highways is responsible for England’s strategic road network; this programme is a local authority scheme on the local road network and therefore falls outside its remit. Equally, there is no mechanism through which the Department for Transport could take over delivery of the project from Worcestershire county council.

[Bradley Thomas]

I appreciate the Minister coming to the Chamber and responding to my points, but does he accept that this is an example of the fragmentation of the state? The public, including my constituents, are sick and tired of the idea that, “It’s not us, it’s them”. I understand and accept that Worcestershire county council is responsible for delivering the scheme and that it is funded by central Government, but is it not just another example of passing the buck to say that it is nothing to do with National Highways because it is simply a local road when I demonstrated that a key piece of national infrastructure, the M5, is affected by what is going on on this road? It is that fragmentation of the state; we have to do better.

[Justin Madders]

It is not about fragmentation of the state but about letting local areas determine their own priorities and manage their own schemes. That is how local roads have always been run. I listened to what the hon. Member said about the interactions he has had with the local authority, and it seems to me that there need to be some discussions with his elected councillors about where the accountability lies, because from where we are standing, that is clearly where the question should be directed.

We have looked at some of the criticisms and concerns that he raised, and an independent review of the programme was undertaken in 2025, which concluded that appropriate industry standard de-risking activities had been undertaken before construction commenced. It found that many of the delays encountered were “unavoidable” and

“could not have been fully predicted in advance”.

Most importantly, it concluded that the programme remains deliverable. The review also recognised that public confidence has been affected by the length of disruption and recommended improvements to communications. I understand that the council has taken on board those recommendations. The hon. Member mentioned the impact on local business, and I have raised this issue with the council directly; its representatives mentioned recent examples of work on the opening of the new Sainsbury’s and working with Avoncroft Museum to ensure that adequate signage and diversion routes are in place, so it seems that there is some progress in that direction. The council will continue to work with contractors and utility providers to address the remaining challenges.

I will conclude by saying that although this is not the Department’s day-to-day responsibility, I understand the frustrations experienced by the hon. Member and his constituency’s residents, businesses and road users. The Government clearly expect Worcestershire county council, as the delivery authority, to maintain its focus on completing the remaining works, minimising disruption where possible and keeping local communities informed. The Department will continue to monitor whether the council delivers on that. It is important that we do not lose sight of the long-term benefits this investment will deliver: reduced congestion, more reliable journey times and improved connections for pedestrians and cyclists. I am happy to work with the hon. Member and the local authority to see that those benefits are delivered as soon as possible with the minimum level of disruption to his constituents. To be clear, that is not the same as the Department taking on day-to-day management of the project, and I hope that the hon. Member will understand, from what I have said, why that cannot be the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Bus Stops

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing her first Westminster Hall debate and for her sustained interest in the quality of bus stops and local transport provision.

Hon. Members will notice that I am, in fact, the roads Minister, not the local transport and Equalities Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). Not only does he have a very long job title, but he is required in the main Chamber for Women and Equalities questions—which is why I am substituting. I assure hon. Members that I will report back to him the excellent quality of the debate and the issues raised. As the roads Minister, I of course recognise the importance of bus stops and the important effect they have on the streetscape.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard made clear that she is passionate and informed about the importance of bus journeys to everyone. Improving bus journeys is a key part of the Government’s growth mission, and we have made some important announcements on bus travel already. We are determined to deliver better services, grow passenger numbers and connect people with jobs, education, healthcare and opportunity.

The experience of using a bus does not begin when a passenger gets on board. It begins when they plan their journey, reach a stop and decide whether the service feels convenient, reliable and welcoming, as my hon. Friend graphically described in her opening comments. She is absolutely right that the quality of a bus stop is about more than accessibility, although of course accessibility is vital. Passengers notice whether a stop is easy to find and use, whether it offers shelter or seating where appropriate, whether it is clean, whether the surroundings feel safe and well maintained and, as we have discussed, whether there is information about services that is clear and current. Those features help to determine not only whether someone can use the bus, but whether they would make an active choice to do so.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the Bus Services Act 2025. The Act places passenger needs and local accountability at the heart of bus services, giving local leaders greater freedom and the tools to shape networks around the communities they serve. That approach reflects a simple principle: local transport authorities know their areas and are best placed to plan improvements across the whole local bus network. That is why the Department’s vision for buses, within an integrated transport system, puts local transport authorities at the centre of delivery. We have allocated almost £700 million a year through the local authority bus grant for the three years from 2026-27 to 2028-29.

In return for Department for Transport bus funding, authorities are expected to work closely with operators and local communities and to maintain an up-to-date bus service improvement plan. A bus service improvement plan is a public document that should set out an authority’s vision and practical plan for improving services and growing patronage. Our guidance encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to stops and interchanges, including keeping an inventory of infrastructure, identifying priorities for investment and setting locally appropriate standards for facilities and maintenance. Bus funding can support capital improvements to stops, stations and real-time information, as well as services and fares.

My hon. Friend argued that local transport authorities should have clear responsibility for bus stops, rather than responsibility being fragmented across different tiers of local government. I understand the force of that point. The Government’s approach already places the local transport authority in the lead for planning and improving the bus network through its bus services improvement plan and, where relevant, the enhanced partnership.

Where responsibility for highways or individual assets sits elsewhere, close and effective working between the relevant authorities is essential. We expect local plans to join up services, infrastructure and passenger information, rather than treating them as separate issues. That will no doubt be music to the ears of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who explained his frustrations about Cambridge station and bus interchange. I am not sure whether he was complaining that he had to walk 200 metres, or whether that was what caused the disconnect between the bus and rail services, but I hope to see improvement on that. It is a common complaint from many members of the public.

Enhanced partnerships are an important part of that framework for authorities that are not pursuing franchising. Most are performing well, but of course performance is not consistent everywhere. Following the Department’s review, we have published updated guidance and a practical manual, including minimum standards for enhanced partnerships to adopt by March of next year. We will continue to share good practice, and the Bus Centre of Excellence will provide targeted support where it is most needed.

I recognise the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard for a national bus stop standard, which echoes that of the Campaign for Better Transport. Greater consistency can give passengers confidence about what they can expect, but we have to acknowledge that there are about 330,000 bus stops in England, ranging from simple bus stop flags attached to a post to stops with shelters, seating, real-time information and other enhanced facilities. It is clear that the needs of a busy urban interchange will differ significantly from those of a lightly used rural stop. Careful consider would therefore need to be given before taking action to prescribe a uniform national standard—not least, to the potential burden on local authorities of the cost and practicality of doing so.

It is worth noting that the Local Government Association’s general approach is to avoid national standards that reduce the discretion of local authorities to take decisions about their own networks, although it supports the Government’s role in promoting and sharing best practice. The Government’s present approach is therefore to set a clear national framework and provide guidance while asking local transport authorities to establish and deliver standards suited to local circumstances through their bus service improvement plans. I think that strikes the correct balance, but we will continue to share good practice through our guidance. The Bus Centre of Excellence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard asked about, will consider the points raised in this debate and whether any of them can be put into future updates to guidance.

As was mentioned, good passenger information is central to standards. Real-time information is improving and digital information has transformed many journeys, but passengers must also be able to rely on accurate, understandable information at the stop. Our bus service improvement plan is clear that stops should display up-to-date information about the services calling there, and that authorities should set out what they will do to provide that good-quality information.

Of course, accessibility remains fundamental to the wider picture. A stop cannot be considered good-quality if disabled people cannot reach it, wait safely or board independently. The Bus Services Act 2025 introduced measures including bus network accessibility plans and powers for statutory guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. The Department is developing that further guidance with disabled people, local authorities and the wider sector.

On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) raised what is undoubtedly one of the hot topics of the bus stop world: floating bus stops. There is a great deal of concern and discussion nationally about their use. We have issued statutory guidance and asked authorities to pause new installations of the design, which requires passengers to alight directly on to a cycle track, while further research is undertaken. I hope that the local authority in my hon. Friend’s jurisdiction reports back on its experiences, because the more information we get from local authorities on this, the better. It is important that we look very closely at the everyday quality, information, maintenance and governance of all bus stops, and clearly, getting the balance right on floating bus stops is an important part of that work.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard for bringing this issue to the Chamber. We agree on the central point that bus stops are not a peripheral piece of street furniture; they are an essential part of the bus network and the passenger experience. Through the Bus Services Act, sustained funding, bus service improvement plans, stronger enhanced partnerships and clearer guidance, we are giving local leaders the tools and responsibility to make bus travel a more attractive choice, and I have no doubt that we will continue to discuss how we improve on that as the years move by.

Question put and agreed to.

National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

May I echo the many happy returns to you for yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker? I recall that in a previous life you gave many happy returns to me across the Dispatch Box on a very special birthday, of which we do not need to remind ourselves.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this debate and on highlighting an issue of real importance to her constituents and the wider Avonmouth and Severnside area. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on junction 1 of the M49. I apologise for the Department wrongly describing the junction in previous correspondence. It is correct to say that we are talking about junction 1 of the M49.

I recognise the strength of local feeling articulated by the hon. Member. Residents, businesses, local representatives and road users understandably want the junction brought into use as soon as possible. The Government share that ambition. The purpose of the junction has always been clear: to improve access between the Avonmouth and Severnside enterprise area and the motorway network to support economic growth and reduce pressure on local roads. The Government want local communities, businesses and road users to realise the full benefits of this infrastructure.

The Severnside enterprise area is one of the most significant employment and logistics locations in the south-west region. It is home to major industrial, warehousing, distribution, energy and port-related activity. Better access to the strategic road network has long been recognised as important for the area’s continued growth and for reducing the impact of traffic on surrounding local communities, as the hon. Member has mentioned.

While I understand the frustration that the junction is not yet operational, the House should be clear about the complexity of the position. It reflects complex issues involving strategic road infrastructure, a local road connection needed to make the junction operational, developer arrangements and technical matters requiring further investigation and remediation before the junction can safely open to traffic. It is worth recalling that this scheme was delivered as part of a wider programme intended to unlock economic development in the Severnside area through direct connection with the junction at the Western Approach distribution park. That is essential if the benefits of the junction are to be realised.

The strategic road junction and local link road to connect to the existing network were being progressed through different delivery arrangements. The link road connecting the junction to the existing road network was originally the responsibility of a private developer, but with planning permission sought by South Gloucestershire council. National Highways was consulted as a statutory consultee, but had no legal power to compel the developer to deliver the link road. Despite continued engagement, the developer was not willing to meet its commitment.

When it became clear that the original developer arrangements for the link road would not deliver the necessary local connection, the Department, National Highways and South Gloucestershire council worked together to identify an alternative way forward. That work led to the current link road scheme being progressed by South Gloucestershire council. Rather than allowing the project to stall indefinitely, the Government have therefore engaged with our partners to enable the local link road to be constructed and to establish a practical, long-term solution that will bring the junction into use. That has included £10 million of Government funding.

Of course, as we heard and the House will appreciate, completing the local road link road is not the only issue that must now be resolved. As part of monitoring and, more recently, detailed engineering investigations, National Highways has identified technical issues at the junction that require further assessment and remedial work before the junction can be safely opened to traffic. I recognise that that is disappointing for local communities and businesses. A junction visible from the motorway but not yet available for use is, of course, understandably frustrating.

Local representatives, as the hon. Member has done, are right to seek clear answers about what has happened, what is being done and when the junction will open. Some may argue that the junction should simply be opened and any problems dealt with later, but that is not an approach the Government are prepared to take. Where technical concerns have been identified, they must be understood, addressed and assured, and the public would rightly expect Ministers and National Highways to act prudently and responsibly where engineering concerns have been raised. The House would expect no less in any constituency in the country.

However, the hon. Member raises important questions, and I would like to take each in turn. First, she asks whether National Highways will publish a clear timetable for the repairs. I will continue to press National Highways for a clear remediation plan, including the technical solution, delivery route and a clear timetable. However, the technical matters do require careful assessment. Engagement is taking place with the contractor, and an appropriate solution is dependent on the shared understanding of the engineering evidence, and clarity on where responsibility and liability lie. Therefore, we can only confirm timescales once the ongoing technical and commercial discussions have concluded. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge those discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I have asked National Highways to update key stakeholders monthly and to publish the plans as soon as possible.

Secondly, the hon. Member asks what the defects are and when they were first identified. Defects were visible on the junction in 2021, including loss of topsoil and surface cracking. Those came to light as part of the standard inspections that take place across the network. At that stage, they were not deemed significant and so National Highways put standard operating arrangements in place to monitor the structure. However, that ongoing monitoring identified the need to undertake detailed investigations, which were commissioned in 2025, resulting in the identification of geotechnical issues. The later investigations will allow the root cause of the defects to be better understood. This is ongoing and can only be confirmed once the engagement with the contractor has concluded. I have now discussed the matter with National Highways, and I have formed the view that the hon. Member should have been informed when the decision was taken to undertake detailed investigations, rather than have to wait for the outcome of the work.

Thirdly, the hon. Member inquires whether I will commit to a firm date by which the junction will finally open to traffic. As she will probably appreciate from what I have said so far, it is not possible to provide a definitive timeline for remedial works. Responsibility, liability and funding matters remain subject to ongoing technical and commercial discussions. Once those are concluded, National Highways will be able to develop detailed designs for the necessary remedial works and establish a delivery programme. It would not be possible or appropriate to announce arbitrary dates before those assessments are complete or before a deliverable programme has been confirmed.

However, I recognise it is particularly frustrating that, after a long wait, the junction still sits empty. That is why I have emphasised to National Highways the importance of it looking at options to open the junction as soon as possible. Safety is of the utmost importance, but I also recognise that given the remediation will take some time, we need clarity on whether the junction can be opened in any capacity in the interim. I expect National Highways to provide a timely update on that review.

[Claire Young]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I would just like to clarify one point. He said that it would have been appropriate for me to be notified earlier. Probably more importantly, it would have been helpful for South Gloucestershire council, which is proceeding with the work, to have been aware of the work earlier. Will he take that point back to National Highways?

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful for the intervention, and I absolutely will take that point. All stakeholders ought to be informed at the appropriate point, particularly when there are, as I say, connected works to do with that particular junction.

The hon. Member asked how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures. I have been assured that National Highways is undertaking a significant quality incident investigation process to look at lessons learnt, and, once it has concluded, will embed those lessons to ensure that the same thing does not happen on other structures. I should emphasise that such occurrences are not frequent, and I believe that this is not a systemic issue, but of course we need to look into it to be assured of that, so I have asked National Highways to update the hon. Member and other key stakeholders on the outcomes of the lessons-learnt process as part of their regular ongoing engagement.

The hon. Member’s fifth question was: who is responsible? Will the Government do what is right, and launch an investigation so that the public can scrutinise those responsible? Questions have understandably been raised about responsibility, liability and the funding of remedial works, and National Highways is continuing confidential commercial discussions with its principal contractor. As I have said, I will not prejudge the outcome of these discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I want to reassure the hon. Member that National Highways is pursuing the matter with the seriousness it requires. I know that as soon as these processes conclude, National Highways will provide a clear remediation plan setting out the technical solution, delivery route and programme, as well as, I hope, a clear answer on where responsibility lies. As I have said, National Highways is conducting a significant quality incident investigation to establish what went wrong, to identify lessons and to prevent recurrence, and I have asked it to share the lessons learnt following the conclusion of the investigation.

Finally, there was the question of funding. As I have explained, the Government have already provided about £10 million to support the development of the link road, recognising its importance. I am sure the hon. Member will understand that there are limits to the funding we can provide, but we will commit ourselves to prioritising the technical issues that have been discussed this evening.

The Government’s approach is clear. National Highways must identify the right engineering solution, agree an appropriate delivery route, protect taxpayers’ interests, and provide stakeholders with realistic, deliverable timescales. The public deserve certainty, but that certainty must be grounded in technical evidence, not speculation. Stakeholder engagement, which we have touched on this evening, is also important. Local communities and businesses need to understand why the junction has not opened, what is being done to resolve the issue, and how progress will be communicated.

As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, there will of course be limits to what I can say publicly while commercial discussions are ongoing, but commercial sensitivity must not become a reason for avoidable silence. I have asked National Highways to keep the hon. Member and key local representatives informed monthly, and updates should be provided when there is reliable information to share. If the hon. Member does not feel that she is being kept up to date, I ask her to let me know.

There are also wider lessons to learn. The public do not distinguish between a motorway junction, a local link road, a developer obligation, a council-led connection, and a National Highways asset; they see one road, one promise, and one delayed outcome. We as a Government, and delivery bodies, must be clear about the need to manage infrastructure coherently, with clear accountabilities, dependencies and communications. The Department will therefore continue to work with National Highways and South Gloucestershire Council as a delivery partnership. South Gloucestershire Council is progressing the local link road, National Highways is responsible for the strategic road asset, and the Department’s role is to support the overall objective of bringing the infrastructure into beneficial use, while of course ensuring safety, value for money and effective governance.

Let me return to the central point. Everyone involved in this matter wants the same outcome. Local communities want the junction open, businesses want better access to the strategic road network, local authorities want the economic and transport benefits to be realised, and, of course, the Government want all those things to happen. We remain committed to seeing the junction brought into operation and to ensuring that its benefits are realised for local communities, businesses and the wider regional economy, but we will do so in a way that protects road users, maintains public confidence, and reflects proper stewardship of public investment.

Let me again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate, for the important points that she has raised, and for her continued campaign on behalf of her constituents. I assure her that I will continue to engage with her as we work to ensure that the junction is opened safely, and that the intended benefits are delivered for the communities and businesses that it was designed to serve.

Question put and agreed to.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

We need to ensure that the CROs who are affected by these changes have an opportunity to carry on raising their concerns, but also to raise other instances. The hon. Gentleman has argued forcefully that the worker model is an appropriate way in which to continue, and that could be true in a great number of cases, but it is not true in every case. Indeed, I spoke to a CRO in Southampton for whom it is not the case.

We need to tease out the detail of all these matters. We need to listen carefully to CROs, and we need to create the space to allow that to happen. I am not going to say specifically what options I may or may not take in the coming days, but by pausing the sessions that were meant to happen this week I am creating the space that will make it possible to weigh up those options dispassionately and ensure that we can get them right, so that CROs can continue to share their views and we can make decisions that reflect the incredible contribution they make.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB trade union.

I am sorry to say that it beggars belief that the response of a Labour Government to a court judgment confirming workers’ rights should be to run in the opposite direction, in some perverse form of fire and rehire. I hope the Minister will make it clear that that is not what we stand for, and that he will do his utmost to address the situation. However, there is a wider point, isn’t there? Too often we see ambiguities in employment status dealt with by the courts on an ad hoc basis. Is that not a reason for us to get on with our manifesto commitment to move to a single status of worker?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in the House of making sure that workers and their rights are protected, but his characterisation of the situation at the start of his question was one that I could not reject more strongly. Changes in the coastguard rescue service operating model are the result of a legal judgment which meant that the current model could not legally continue. What we are attempting to do is maintain a system whereby CROs feel valued in their work and feel motivated to turn up and carry out their shifts, and ensure that the fairness that is inherent to that is respected and implemented. That is exactly why I have postponed those meetings this week, and created the space in which to hear from CROs directly about their concerns and to get the detail of this right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is glad to have your endorsement for her question, Mr Speaker. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to promote and take forward those schemes and, as I said, the local transport fund in the north will mean that £2.5 billion will be available for them. I encourage her to work with stakeholders such as Lancashire County Council. I had the pleasure of discussing a number of those local schemes when I recently met its leadership on a visit to Preston.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

When I have been contacted by constituents excited by the news of the local transport fund, I have asked my local council officers when we can begin some of these projects, but they have been told by Department for Transport civil servants that the bulk of the money will not come until the end of the decade. When will we have some timelines for the delivery of that money? I do not want my constituents to have their expectations raised unreasonably.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

As my hon. Friend knows, I grew up in Wexcombe and I know that particular area of Collingbourne very well. I pass on my condolences to the individual family. He knows that there are powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I will write to him in detail with the powers that local authorities have to address that particular point. On the specifics of the review, that will be contained in road investment strategy 3, which will be published very shortly.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I listened to the Minister’s response earlier, on why Avanti should continue to provide rail services. It sounded like he was reading from one of its press releases. The litany of excuses was very long, blaming everyone but itself. When will he listen to the leaders of the north? When will he listen to the people of the north and get rid of Avanti?

[Huw Merriman]

The point I was making is that if the operator changes, the contracts between operator and the unions will remain unless the unions are willing to release. There cannot be a unilateral change. The courts would not allow it. As I say, that was put in place in 1997. It was supposed to end in 2002, but continued. It is now, effectively, a part of a term and condition. A change of operator will not make any difference to that. I do listen to those in the north and I am delighted that I will be listening to the leader of ASLEF, because he has agreed to sit down with me so we can discuss those terms. I hope I can work with all Members of the House to make that happen.

Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The Ely junction scheme, which I know my right hon. Friend and others welcome, is a well worked through scheme that was on Network Rail’s list of important priorities, but we simply did not have the money to fund it. We now do, as a result of this project. People cannot want to continue building the second phase of HS2 and simultaneously want to do all these other things. A choice had to be made, and we made that choice, and I think it is the right choice for the country. I know how important my right hon. Friend thinks her road scheme is. I obviously cannot deal with it now but, as ever, I would be happy to meet her to discuss how important it is for her constituents.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I saw the Secretary of State’s Network North map on Twitter, featuring those legendary northern towns of Tavistock, Dawlish and Plymouth. That might have been mildly amusing had my constituency not been cut in half, with the whole of the Wirral disappearing into the Irish sea. Have we been taken off the map because we have no funding for any capital transport projects? Will Cheshire West and Chester Council now get a refund for the hundreds of thousands of pounds that it has already spent on preparatory work for HS2 coming to Cheshire? That money now appears to have been wasted because of the bungled handling of this contract.

[Mr Harper]

Just to be clear, of the money that we are saving as a result of cancelling the second phase of HS2, just under £20 billion is being spent in the north and just under £10 billion is being spent in the midlands. The money being spent in the rest of the country is the money saved from the way we are now going to deliver Euston station—with a much more ambitious development, building thousands more houses and having a much more positive impact on the local economy. It is sensible to call it Network North, because that is where two thirds of the money is going, but the £6.5 billion that is being spent in the rest of the country, outside the north and the midlands, will be very welcome. As I have said, every penny is being reinvested in those parts of the country that HS2 was going to benefit. In the north of England, for example, we are looking at investing £12 billion in the line between Liverpool and Manchester, and at having productive talks with the Mayors in that part of the world to deliver transport projects that are their priorities for the people they represent.

West Coast Main Line Franchise

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

This decision is as embarrassing as it is baffling. The Minister talks about improvements, but my constituents have not seen those improvements. He talks about reducing the number of cancellations: with Avanti having cancelled half of the services from Chester directly to London, that will obviously reduce the number of cancellations. Yesterday, for example, Avanti started a train from Crewe rather than from Chester. That presumably does not count as a cancellation, but that is absolutely no consolation to someone in Chester. It seems to me that the Government know that the companies are playing with the figures and are prepared to accept a second-class service for the people of the north.

[Jesse Norman]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. It is fair to say that, from day to day, there are different issues that interrupt a good service. As I have already said, those relate not just to the availability of drivers and other key staff, but to underperformance from time to time and disruption to Network Rail infrastructure. All of those things can play their role in a highly integrated network.

Rail Ticket Offices

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I hope that these changes will lead to more face-to-face interaction, because those who work on the railway and provide such brilliant help, information and reassurance for passengers will be more likely to be in the places where those passengers are located. Southeastern is doing its consultation in stages—the current part is for the metro side of Southeastern, after which it will be rolled out further—but I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

My constituents and I are getting a bit fed up of everything being pushed online, because as we have heard today, it does not work for everyone. However, I want to ask the Minister what he is going to do to help operators deal with this change. Merseyrail, for example, does not accept tickets on phones, and there have been plenty of examples of people who bought through tickets online being fined because they have not been able to produce a physical ticket. Is the Minister going to do an assessment of operators’ capacity to deal with this issue and give them some financial support to make that change?

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 8th June 2023 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

1. Whether he has had recent discussions with the Leader of the House on legislation to establish Great British Railways.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)]

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will begin by sending my heartfelt condolences to the people of India, who, in the eastern state of Odisha on Friday, suffered the country’s deadliest rail crash in over two decades. The death toll stands at 288, with over 1,000 people injured. It was caused by the collision of two passenger trains and a stationary goods train. I have written to the Indian Rail Minister expressing our deepest sympathies, and I believe I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts are with the victims and their families, as well as with the emergency services as they continue to respond to the tragedy.

Turning to the question, the Government’s ambition is for a customer-focused, commercially-led industry, with the creation of Great British Railways as a new guiding mind for the sector. We are working closely with the GBR Transition Team, the wider rail sector and other Departments to move forward with reform, and I was pleased to recently announce Derby as the location of GBR’s headquarters.

[Justin Madders]

On behalf of Opposition Members, may I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments in respect of the people of India?

In the north-west, we were hoping that the formation of GBR might have been on track by now to help us deal with the chronically underperforming Avanti West Coast, but we see no sign of the legislation. Parliament certainly has the time to deal with it—we finished after a couple of hours on Tuesday—and it is certainly not a question of money, as we know £50 million has already been spent on the project. What exactly is the problem with bringing the matter before the House? Is it a lack of political will, or is it a lack of competence?