Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

It will be coming through Chorley as well.

[Justin Madders]

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

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

[Ms Minns]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Dr Evans]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

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

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

“construction of a highway specified in the licence”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

[Olly Glover]

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

With its wheels.

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

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

Ben Garratt: We would concur with all of that.

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

[Olly Glover]

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

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

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

We hope the Bill will address those concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

[The Chair]

I call Olly Glover.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Yes.

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

Do have anything to add, Mr Godfrey?

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

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

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

[Olly Glover]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Minister?

[Justin Madders]

No questions.

[The Chair]

Olly Glover?

Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Arthur]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Maguire]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

East West Rail: Bedford to Cambridge

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Fuller]

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

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: 2026-27 Business Plan

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS392]

Critical Transport Infrastructure: Surrey Heath

Justin Madders Excerpts

Friday 16th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

There is very little that gives me more pleasure on a Friday afternoon than to talk about critical transport infrastructure in Surrey Heath. I am grateful to the House for allowing this Adjournment debate, and to the Minister for responding this afternoon.

If a person were to look at a map of the United Kingdom, they would perhaps think that Surrey Heath ought to be a well-connected place. We have the M3 on our doorstep—indeed, it runs right through the middle of the constituency. We have London nearby, we have thriving businesses, and we have the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, over which I sometimes argue with the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). However, try getting across Lightwater at rush hour, catching a train from Camberley or reaching hospital without a car, and a different picture emerges. At the last census, 56% of Surrey Heath households had two or more cars or vans, compared with 35% across England and Wales. We are in the top 10% most car-dependent constituencies in the country. I would contend that that does not reflect choice; rather, it reflects how little choice people have. Residential housing has dramatically expanded, public services have been rationalised, and the transport connecting them has barely kept up.

There are so many issues that I want to raise today, but in the interests of time, I am going to restrict myself to just three. The first is the ongoing daily nightmare that is junction 3 of the M3 and the A322 at the aforementioned Lightwater. Anyone tuning in to a morning traffic report on BBC Radio 2 or LBC will be all too familiar with the name of Lightwater—it features with depressing regularity. For those Members who do not know, the A322 provides a vital link between Bracknell and Guildford. Businesses and commuters depend on it, and when junction 3 seizes up, the costs are felt across the entire corridor. People are late for work, deliveries are delayed and engines idle, polluting the air and wasting fuel. Productive time disappears in queues. The corridor connects two major centres of employment, yet we seem remarkably willing to accept its regular failure as an unavoidable fact of life.

Then, there are the consequences for the villages around junction 3. Drivers divert through neighbouring communities, and roads outside people’s homes become rat runs. Residents describe speeding, dangerous manoeuvres and difficulty crossing the road. I know that this is not unique to Surrey Heath, but there have been serious accidents—including fatal ones—and there are continuing concerns about safety. This is an issue that Surrey county council has neglected for years, but on the topic of highways funding, it has long raised a legitimate concern. Surrey carries significant through traffic, much of it originating outside the county, yet road maintenance funding has historically been based on road length and physical assets, rather than how heavily roads are actually used.

It is reasonable to ask whether a county carrying such an enormous volume of traffic receives a fair allocation to maintain its roads, and I join Surrey county council in asking that question, but the problems at junction 3 and the A322 go well beyond routine maintenance. Years of inadequate investment have left a problem too large for a local roads authority to resolve from its own resources. The A322 is a strategically important economic corridor that is bound up with one of the busiest parts of our motorway network, so I hope the Minister will resist the temptation to tell me that the A322 is simply a local problem requiring a local solution.

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

indicated dissent.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I see the Minister shaking his head, and I am encouraged by that visual sign. We already know who maintains the A322, but the heart of the problem is the way in which the A322 interacts with the M3. If Surrey county council and National Highways cannot tackle that challenge between themselves, the Government will be required to step in to help broker a solution.

In March last year, Ministers confirmed that National Highways had completed an initial study of junction 3 and was progressing further feasibility work on both short-term improvements and larger-scale interventions. That work was intended to shape investment decisions under the now-published third road investment strategy. I would welcome an update on what has happened to that work, and what prospect there is of securing funding for the improvements that are needed.

My first request of the Department, though, is to bring National Highways, Surrey county council, the incoming West Surrey council, Bracknell Forest council and any other interested local stakeholder, plus Surrey police, together for an urgent strategic review of the whole corridor. That review must examine the economic costs of congestion, road safety, the consequences for residential communities and the demands of future development. I hope that it will also identify practical improvements that can be delivered quickly, alongside properly costed proposals for larger works.

Residents have campaigned for improvements to this junction for decades. Indeed, my predecessor as MP—Michael Gove, who is now a noble Lord—clearly recognised its importance, having spent many years being photographed beside it. However, the people of Lightwater have had enough of photo opportunities, and they have certainly had enough of me standing beside that same junction; instead, they want investment. They deserve to know what can be done, what it will cost and when decisions might be made.

I also want to raise the issue of current and future interactions of new housing targets on public infrastructure. That brings me to rail connectivity in Surrey Heath. Camberley, our principal market town, is only 30 miles from central London. It is considered to be at the heart of the home counties commuter belt, yet there are only two direct morning trains to Waterloo, each taking 73 minutes. Every other service requires at least one change. From Farnborough, Waterloo can be reached in only 37 minutes, and from Woking, which is not too far away, it can be reached in just 27 minutes. Even Winchester has trains that reach London in under an hour, despite being double the distance from London Waterloo. It is little wonder that so many residents begin their rail journeys by driving further away from their nearest train station.

After two years of pressing South Western Railway, I recently received the Wessex suburban journey time study—it is a thrilling and exciting read, and I recommend it to all present. It suggests potential time savings of just six minutes from Camberley, seven minutes from Bagshot and nine minutes from Frimley, yet passengers would depart later and arrive at Waterloo at precisely the same time under the new plans. We need the study to be developed into costed options for faster, direct services, including the infrastructure investment required to make a meaningful difference.

Rail is only one part of the picture; buses are another part. When I asked my local residents about the issues they would like me to raise today, the frequency, reliability and extent of bus services was near the top of their list. They want reliable buses that genuinely serve their communities and connect to other transport nodes, such as local railway stations, but that are timed so that they can fit into the lived reality of the school day, for example, rather than a transport planner’s interpretation of it. When bus services cannot be trusted or simply do not fit into people’s lives, they invariably turn to their cars, adding to congestion and the troubles in our local road network, undermining the economic case for the bus services that remain. That is not a desirable position to be in.

Those pressures will only grow if new housing is not matched by better transport. The Government’s revised housing methodology has more than doubled Surrey Heath’s annual housing requirement. I understand why we need to build: young people want to live near their families, and businesses need workers who can afford to live locally. I am not opposed to development at all in principle, but I am concerned by the lack of matching ambition for the infrastructure on which those homes will depend. The ongoing development at Mindenhurst, an extension of the village of Deepcut, is a case in point.

Based on the old Army barracks, Mindenhurst is a development of 1,200 properties, with a new school, pubs, sports facilities, a refurbished church, and local shops and amenities. It is genuinely an example of development done well. There is much to commend in its design and the quality of its implementation, but it has invariably had a very significant impact on the transport infrastructure beyond the confines of its own site, adding significant additional traffic to an already challenged and congested road network. There are proposals for another 950 houses in nearby Normandy, which will compound those impacts.

At the moment, these schemes are assessed separately in planning terms, but the residents and future residents use the same roads and junctions. Section 106 agreements and community infrastructure levy money from developers have an important part to play in upgrading transport infrastructure, but the money knocks off only the roughest edges of the impact that a single development will have. It is a sticking plaster for an infrastructural patient that increasingly requires major surgery.

Even if we added together every section 106 agreement and every pound of CIL money, it still could not address decades of under-investment in transport infrastructure. That requires serious public investment and strategic planning at both regional and national levels. That is also why the Government must be careful when implementing their new housing requirements, because in many places our infrastructure is already years, if not decades, behind where it needs to be now. Yet we are planning substantial new development, including in areas with limited public transport where many additional journeys will inevitably be made by car. That will create significant pressures. I worry about what that means for public confidence in development itself. Residents see another planning application and ask a simple question: how will the roads, schools and buses cope? Even those who recognise the need for new homes can become frustrated when the supporting infrastructure always seems to be promised for tomorrow rather than delivered today. I hear that repeatedly in Surrey Heath, and I suspect that many Members across the House hear the same.

Buses and housing growth must be planned together. We need to be more ambitious and co-ordinated in planning for growth. At a time when Surrey is undergoing local government reorganisation, we lack both a local plan and the broader spatial strategy that opens our communities up to speculative development. West Surrey council will begin operating next April. That creates an opportunity to plan across a wider area. However, it will inherit a significant debt and cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the investment burden alone.

My second request is therefore for the Minister to work with the incoming council, National Highways, rail and bus operators, and schools to develop a shared infrastructure delivery plan. Above all, residents deserve clarity. They should be able to see who is responsible, where the funding will come from and when improvements may be delivered. Where strategic infrastructure lies beyond the means of local authorities, there must be a meaningful role for central Government in funding and helping to co-ordinate it.

Turning to Frimley Park hospital—an issue I have raised in the Chamber before, not always with the utmost of success—I strongly support a new modern hospital to replace buildings affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. However, I have serious reservations about the hospital trust’s preferred site at Frimley Fuel Allotments, particularly about access for patients, staff and ambulances. That concern is shared by local residents, the South East Coast ambulance service, the blood transfusion service and even clinicians at the hospital itself.

The surrounding roads already serve six schools, and residents and school leaders have jointly raised concerns about the proposal. The area is constrained by single-lane bridges, difficult access routes and limited public transport. When we add ambulance movements, shift changes, out-patient appointments and years of construction traffic, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the local road network can cope. Before a final decision is made on the site selection, we need clear and convincing evidence that access can be maintained safely and reliably, particularly at the busiest times of day when pupils are in schools.

Last year, health officials advised me that the necessary transport works had not been either fully costed or budgeted for and might in fact end up depending on the new hospital programme’s contingency fund to receive the funding they need. I find that deeply troubling, because we know what contingency funds are for: unforeseen consequences that happen during the building process, not things that can be entirely foreseen at the start of it. Surely the cost and the practicality of getting people to a hospital are fundamental considerations in deciding where to build it.

My third request to the Minister, which I recognise may stray beyond his brief in the Department for Transport, is to work with health colleagues to secure a fully costed and funded hospital access plan before any planning permission is submitted or, potentially, questioned. That must cover ambulance access, public transport, parking, the effects on schools and residential roads, and construction traffic.

I also want to know what happens if satisfactory access cannot be delivered. In that case, the proposed location of the hospital must surely be reconsidered. The trust’s public engagement exercise for the new hospital recently closed, leaving many residents with the impression that the most important question of all—the hospital’s location—had effectively been decided before they were even consulted. I do not think we should end up in that position.

In Whitehall, the issues I have raised today—a motorway junction, railway timetables, buses, new housing and a hospital—may look like separate matters, but for people in Surrey Heath they are part of the same working week and the same struggle to get around. The Government want more homes and a more productive economy, and so do I, but we need to get much better at co-ordinating the investment that makes both possible.

I hope the Minister will respond to my three requests: an urgent strategic review of junction 3 and the A322 corridor with National Highways fully involved, a shared infrastructure delivery plan for West Surrey backed by proper Government funding and Government co-ordination, and a fully costed and funded hospital access plan before any planning application. For each, I would welcome a clear indication of who will take responsibility, what happens next and where we can expect progress.

As I said right at the start, Surrey Heath looks well connected on a map. My constituents ought to be able to feel that connection when they leave their front doors in the morning and when they return at the end of a hard working day.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate on this packed Friday afternoon here in the Chamber. [Laughter.] I do not think the attendance is any reflection on the passion and dedication that he has shown to this particular issue. He has been a remarkably consistent campaigner on these issues in his constituency since election.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues, the first of which was the A322/M3 junction 3. As he rightly pointed out, our strategic road network is one of our most vital pieces of infrastructure. Our motorways and major A roads form the backbone of connectivity across England. They link our towns and cities, ports and airports and are relied on by millions of people and businesses every day. He spoke very clearly about the frustration that some of his constituents feel about congestion.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to trying to resolve this issue. Not only has he secured this debate, but he has engaged more widely with National Highways and Government on this matter. He is clearly a very strong advocate for his constituents, businesses and local road users—indeed, he noted the fact that many of the local road users may not be his constituents.

In March 2026, this Government published the third road investment strategy, which produced £27 billion in funding to improve the strategic road network, including almost £25 billion to operate, maintain, renew and enhance it, alongside a set of new national programmes focused on safety, the environment, congestion and growth. As part of that, National Highways is considering M3 junction 3 and the link with the A322 through the small schemes national programme, with, he will be pleased to hear, a focus on addressing congestion.

I will not raise expectations by committing to a timetable today, but I have been assured that the scheme is being considered alongside a number of others and that work progresses on it. As that work continues, National Highways will engage with local stakeholders, including the hon. Gentleman, to fully understand the issue and consider potential mitigations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to engage with that process.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of speeding on local roads. As he will know, local speed limits are set by local traffic authorities, which are best placed to understand the needs of their communities and road networks. The Department provides guidance through the setting local speed limits framework to support authorities in making evidence-based decisions that reflect local circumstances.

The Government are committed to improving road safety and support local authorities in taking appropriate action where there are concerns about road risk. Decisions on speed limits and wider road safety interventions should be based on local evidence and the characteristics of the road. The Department is currently updating the guidance on setting local speed limits following the publication of the road safety strategy. This work will continue to support local authorities in making informed and evidence-led speed management decisions.

Turning to railways, we are spending over £10 billion over the next four years to improve the network, from upgrading the trans-Pennine route to progressing the next stage of East West Rail, delivering high-impact improvements for communities and passengers. The Railways Bill will create Great British Railways—a new publicly owned company that will be responsible for managing most of the tracks and trains used by customers every day. The Bill places passengers back at the heart of the railway. It provides the framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers to instil confidence in our railways and attract more people to use them, with a powerful passenger watchdog established by the Bill to advocate for passengers at every turn.

GBR will take responsibility for the day-to-day operational running of the railways, from delivering services to setting timetables, managing access to the network and operating, maintaining and renewing infrastructure. This simplified railway will encourage more rail freight, with two statutory duties included in the Bill to ensure support for this, helping to reduce congestion on our roads and making rail a greener, more attractive choice. GBR will also support local growth, create jobs and improve connectivity.

The hon. Member mentioned the issue of connectivity for his constituents and the fact that there is currently no direct route from Camberley to London Waterloo via the south west main line. I understand that most passengers must therefore change at Ash Vale or Ascot. We absolutely recognise the strength of local campaigning to restore that connection. Surrey county council’s 2016 Camberley rail assessment examined two options for providing direct services from the Frimley line to Waterloo, and both envisaged two trains an hour calling at Brookwood and Woking before running fast to Waterloo, cutting journeys towards London by almost 20 minutes.

However, I have to be candid with the hon. Gentleman about the constraints we face. Reinstating this line would be extremely costly, and the present timetable and infrastructure cannot reliably accommodate two additional trains an hour into Waterloo. Replacing existing mainline services with Camberley services would reduce provision elsewhere, increase pressure on alternatives and, of course, be extremely expensive.

There is, however, some practical progress, although I know it will not be all that the hon. Member wants to hear. An accessibility scheme at Ash Vale is now funded for delivery, and, although that station falls outside his constituency, new lifts will make interchange easier for residents of Camberley in Surrey Heath and strengthen Ash Vale’s role as a local transport hub.

I also understand that South Western Railway is developing a refreshed timetable to improve reliability and resilience and make better use of the new Arterio fleet, which reflects how passengers travel today. Its priority will be a dependable service, while taking account of customer demand, higher-capacity trains and changes to the network.

I will move on to the issue of Frimley Park hospital. I am aware that the hon. Member has spoken about this issue a number of times, and he is right to raise these important questions on behalf of his constituents. I agree with him that as these plans are brought forward, it is important to ensure that both local people and staff are able to access the new facilities easily. He will know that these access questions will be considered through the planning, consultation and application process run by the council. I will take the concerns he has raised over funding for the access issues he has mentioned back to the Department of Health and Social Care to see if we can get some clarity on that, but he will know that planning applications are best dealt with by the local authority.

On the question of the local authority, the hon. Member will be cognisant of the fact that Surrey will be moving to two new unitary authorities from April next year, which we firmly believe will bring greater opportunity to bring transport and economic planning closer together in the holistic and sensible way that the hon. Member would like. The Government are also working with local partners towards establishing a strategic authority for Surrey, which should enhance that even further. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will work with local authorities through that process to support the benefits of devolution, and we will work with him and local stakeholders to ensure that his concerns are raised.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman raised bus services, which are an important part of the transport network. I think that the new Prime Minister’s commitment to buses is well documented and evidenced from his early actions. The Bus Services Act 2025 also gives greater freedom to local authorities in how they deliver bus services, making it easier for them to actually consider bus franchising. The Department can also provide significant grant funding to the local authority area for Surrey county council of £33 million in the years 2026 to 2029. We are absolutely clear that an integrated and reliable bus service is a hugely important part of transport infrastructure.

I will conclude by thanking the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate and for his continued advocacy on behalf of his constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

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.