Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Mike Reader Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here. You will not be surprised to know that, as the Member of Parliament for Dartford, I have residents who are hugely inconvenienced by the overcapacity of the current Dartford crossing every day and who really welcome the plans, which have been advanced very well under this Government, to build the lower Thames crossing.

One concern for them is that there might be perverse incentives via the tolling to use one crossing rather than another. Do you have views about how we could make sure that does not happen and what the ORR would need to do in negotiation with the licence holder? Do you have any views about local resident discount schemes, including how well they have worked elsewhere and whether they should be a necessary part of any future arrangement, although that may not be in the Bill?

Edmund King: Those are all relevant questions, even down to the time that the toll applies—is it 24 hours a day or 6 am to 10 pm, as it is currently? Are motorcycles free? What is the resident discount? Could there be a resident discount? We believe that there should be, because frequent users, such as those who live on one side of the crossing and work on the other, are already paying motoring tax in other ways, but is this a tax on jobs? Those issues are vital. It is also vital to get the support of local people, whether they be businesses or drivers. Giving those concessions would help win that support, particularly when we know that the construction period will cause a lot of congestion and adverse effects. Those are all valid points.

Steve Gooding: All I would add is that this is one of the challenges with creating an overarching framework in the Bill rather than something specific to the Dartford and lower Thames crossings. I do not doubt that in the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR, there will be explicit reference to the need not to create the sort of problems that you envisage and to set toll levels in such a way that manages the traffic flow between the two crossings, but we have not yet seen that.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

Q I want to clarify something, because it is important that we do not speculate. To deliver a scheme under the regulated asset base model, it has to have a certain scale and it needs to be developed with that in mind. You said that the model could be used for other schemes. What other projects under development in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline are you referencing?

Steve Gooding: I cannot point to anything else in the Government’s programme that specifically lends itself to that case. I have found myself wondering whether, having been announced and dis-announced many times, the Stonehenge tunnel might reappear under something like it as another key link on a longer arterial route, but I do not have a list.

[Mike Reader]

Q There may not be other schemes. The engineering challenges with the A303 probably outweigh any benefits of using finance through RAB. Could you both set out whether you think independent regulation under this model would give stronger consumer protection, particularly in the light of evidence you have given, Edmund, that the M6 toll and Dartford have perhaps not been managed in the best interests of the public? Will independent regulation be a better solution for taxpayers?

Edmund King: I do not know whether there has to be independent regulation, but there should be a greater degree of independence alongside the ORR. The ORR to date has had much more to do with railways than roads. Yes, it is the overseeing body of National Highways, but I think five of the ORR executives are from railway backgrounds and two are from road. It needs to be strengthened there.

I still feel that there should be, alongside the ORR, an independent body that looks at things such as the level of tolls and feasibility. If drivers are going to be paying a higher toll to use these crossings, if a crossing is not working for some reason—for example, if there are roadworks or incidents that need clearing up—it should be a two-way process and drivers should get money back. If this really is an independent business model, it has to work both ways. Under this regulated model, you could push it a bit further to give that degree of independence. That might be through the stakeholder group and you would then change how it is reported, but I certainly think it would help.

Steve Gooding: The independence is of more importance on the other side of the equation. If the investment world does not have reassurance that tolls will be set at a level that enables it to remunerate its efficient cost, it will be more suspicious. As I have dealt with in my past, historically, the political pressure has been to keep the charges and tolls down. If anything, consumer pressure is greater politically than it is for the regulator. That is why it is important that the regulator has a clear duty on consumer protection, as Mr King and I are saying.

[Mike Reader]

Q On that point, for the investor to get a return, it is on them to keep tolls at a reasonable level and the road open. It would be counterintuitive for them not to fix roadworks quickly, because they want people to go through to pay the toll, and you do not want to set a high toll if that would put off your users.

Steve Gooding: They will certainly want the income—there is no question about that. We are comparing it with the M6 toll—one of very few examples of this in this country—where there is an alternative, free-of-charge route. Here, the operating cost for commercial traffic to go around to the west of London, for example, would realistically make that a much less viable alternative.

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

Q To continue the conversation on the ORR, as shadow Rail Minister, I am struck by the fact that in the Railways Bill, the role of the ORR is significantly downgraded, but in this Bill, the balance seems to tip the other way. What is the right balance to make sure both that the ORR has the independence we talked about and that we get the right results for consumers and road users?

Steve Gooding: I worked at the ORR back in the day—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mike Reader]

Q If tolling is used, what is preferable—a statutory regulator with enforceable licensing conditions, or an unregulated commercial tolling arrangement?

Ralph Smyth: We heard a lot about regulation in the previous session. If you look at Ofwat and Ofgem, their income comes from lots of different companies. Whatever you might think of some of the water companies, at least that means diversity of income. You can compare that with the ORR. With nationalisation, now—or soon—all the money will be coming from the Department for Transport. It is similar for much of the road function. That is about National Highways. We are talking about only a very small bit if there is going to be only one toll scheme. If you put yourself in the shoes of an investor, would you be confident that that was an independent regulator if pretty much all its business came from one person—the Secretary of State for Transport?

[Mike Reader]

Q My question was not whether the regulator is independent. It was whether, in general, your preference is for a regulated tolling arrangement or an unregulated commercial tolling arrangement. Which is better for the public?

Ralph Smyth: I am not sure how much difference there is. The problem is that if you build an expensive road scheme with a regulated model, you can want to make it affordable, but at the end of the day, there will need to be a return for the private investor. There is the theory and then there is the reality that this is not a way of creating new money. It is either going to be paid out of public funds or, if it is going to be a regulated system—as other witnesses have said, many of the roads do not have alternatives, but it is hard to see how a regulator can really make much difference.

[Mike Reader]

Q For as long as I have known of LTC, although the previous Government perhaps suggested that it would be delivered by public funds, it was always assumed that it would end up going down a public-private partnership route. Surely, this model delivers cheaper finance and better certainty for investors. Therefore, under a specific RAB model for the lower Thames crossing, what you suggested about investor uncertainty may not be true.

Ralph Smyth: On investor certainty, the problem is that that assumes that traffic will keep growing, but, as I covered in the written evidence TAN submitted to the Committee, the latest ONS forecasts say that from about 2055, the population of the UK will be going down. I heard the Minister say that demand will only increase, but if demand starts to go down, it is a very different picture. That will mean that each user will have to pay more per journey, so it could lock you into higher, unaffordable charges.

[Jim Dickson]

Q Thank you very much for being here to give evidence. The Transport Action Network is on record as being against the lower Thames crossing, under any circumstances and however it is funded. Do you recognise that, as the Committee heard in evidence this morning from the logistics lobby, and as I have heard from my residents, there are not many other ways to deal with the congestion? Are you still against the scheme? What is your alternative to deal with the manifest problems that the Committee has heard about, and that I hear about every day?

Ralph Smyth: I may struggle to persuade you on this within the 15 minutes allotted.