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.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Mike Reader Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Shivani Raja]

No, that is fine. Do you have anything to add, Mr Palmer?

Matt Palmer: I think it is beyond my scope—National Highways is here as an operator and a constructor. I think Will has probably answered the question properly.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

Q Matt, I think you have already answered my first couple of questions: the legal requirement on climate was set in 2022 in the original direct consent order, and the requirement to use alternative fuels to diesel is not a significant cost driver in a scheme of this scale. However, reflecting on a conversation that you and I have had previously, I was wondering about the cost impact, and the impact on the project generally, of delays caused by uncertainty of finance. Would a Bill like this enable future schemes to have certainty of financing arrangements, and therefore get on site and be delivered more quickly? Is that a fair assumption?

Matt Palmer: I think all of us recognise that annualised costs on major projects, especially mega-projects, are very difficult to deal with. They drive perverse cost behaviours, where you are trying to fit into a 12-month window, and the Government are currently moving, with the mega-projects piece, towards more of an envelope-type conversation. This is just another extension of that. You end up with a cost envelope that you are working within, with a driven timeframe that you have to deliver to, which then allows the flexibility to execute at the right time—depending on the weather and so on. It is that flex that you need in order to execute efficiently. If you are constraining yourself on cost to a budget every year, which is common, it does drive cost. This model gives you the flex that allows you to drive an efficient construction project.

[Mike Reader]

Q For those who are concerned that the capital cost of this scheme continues to rise, and it has risen since I was first involved in it many years ago, what mechanisms have you put in place specifically with your contractors to drive down cost in delivery?

Matt Palmer: The base cost of the scheme—the cost without inflation—has been fixed since 2020. The great thing about a development consent order is that the scope is fixed. We are still building 52 bridges, 22 km of road and 4.3 km of tunnel. The cost difference between now and previously is essentially driven by inflation. You have got great cost control sat there inside the direct consent order. Our contracts with our contractors then drive to that same scope and control, and there is a pain/gain share: they get into pain if they exceed and they get incentivised to deliver below, which is normal with any project of this scale.

[Mike Reader]

Q Will, I do not know whether you heard the earlier evidence and the thoughts about how the ORR needs to scale up and strengthen to deliver this. Do you have any reflections and what have you fed back to the Government about what the ORR needs to be able to do its role effectively on this project?

Will Godfrey: I hope my earlier answers go to some of that. If your question is specifically about the scope of what you were just asking Matt, it is important for us that the arrangements around what will be LTC Co. and its relationship with its contractors, and in turn what it is allowed to charge to end customers, is not a simple pass-through-type arrangement. That is really important.

You need to make sure that there are the right liability caps in relation to the pain/gain sharing. Are those at the right level? Has LTC Co. or any company licensed under these arrangements—let us concentrate on the LTC example—got the right incentives to be able to control the relationship with the contractors? Through the licence and the price control arrangements we need to create arrangements in which there remains that discipline to control those costs, so it is not a set of arrangements in which, beyond a certain threshold, end users are ultimately on the hook for cost pass-through.

The importance that the Bill places on efficiency in the economy and that being at the heart of our duties is something that we would take really seriously and very much welcome. It gives us the authority to be able to act on getting to those kind of price control licence arrangements. Of course, as I said earlier, the first price control arrangement would be set by the Department through that first competition for the first licence. In terms of how we operate on it thereafter, we would look to make sure there is not just a simple mechanistic pass-through in the event that costs overrun, whether for inflation or other cost shocks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q Will you not make any changes after hearing the comments today?

Justin Madders: I do not think that this is covered by the Bill anyway, but I will certainly take it away to see if there is anything to reflect on. I assure you that this would not be proceeding if there were no interest in investment.

[Mike Reader]

Q Minister, we have heard evidence that there is not a massive amount of competition for major schemes in Europe, yet competition is important to drive down the cost of capital. Do you think that the RAB model will help us to secure the best possible deal on the capital for building the lower Thames crossing?

Justin Madders: I think it will. Obviously the Treasury decision on how this is going to be funded is driving us in a direction where we have to secure private investment. I think the model gives us the opportunity to give the investor certainty over a long period. Clearly, guardrails in there will protect users as well, but as I say, the indications I have had so far are that the long-term nature of the project and the way in which it has been de-risked make it an attractive proposition.

[Mike Reader]

Q In the passage of the Bill, do we have to be careful to separate what it is about—a financing regime and addressing some of the legacy challenges of tolling in the UK—and the construction decisions made by National Highways on the type of fuel it might use, which is probably the equivalent of less than 1% of the overall construction cost?

Justin Madders: As I probably made clear, the Bill is scheme agnostic, so an amendment to require a certain type of fuel would not really help us at all. Look, we have had quite a lot of evidence and, as a Committee, we should take confidence in the measures that are in place to ensure that the costs are kept under control.

[Mike Reader]

Q We heard some evidence about 343 projects, which I think Sam from Britain Remade referred to, which included a whole range of projects delivered around the world. I did a very similar study in 2020, with a similar number of projects—I need to look at whether a bit of plagiarism is going on there in that work! We are actually very good at delivering major road projects in the UK—the A14, the Silvertown tunnel and various others. We are very good at delivering major infrastructure projects on time in the highways space in the UK. I think people need to have a bit more optimism about the delivery of this project.

Justin Madders: I suppose, to pick up from one of the witnesses, I will reference the fact that the road investment strategy—which was started by the previous Government —has set us up with a very sustainable model to develop these large projects over a longer term, giving confidence to the supply chain to keep control of costs and to deliver on time and within scope. I think that National Highways is now very well skilled at doing that, which should give us all confidence.

[Mike Reader]

Q The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that you would set out the process for setting tolls, which may address some of the concerns about what toll levels might be. Is that still the case? When will we see that during the passage of the Bill?

Justin Madders: The tolls will ultimately be part of part of the licence, which is covered by the Bill—

[Mike Reader]

Q But the process for setting the tolls—will we see how they are to be set, with the key principles and how that is to be done, as the Bill progresses?

Justin Madders: That will be part of the licence conditions, and probably a little too specific for the Bill. Obviously, there are safeguards in the Bill about the things that will need to be considered by the operator.

[Mike Reader]

Q As the licensing conditions are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, will you set out the core principles of what those licensing principles will be as the Bill progresses through Parliament?

Justin Madders: Yes, we are happy to do that.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the Minister for his evidence. That brings us to the end of the sitting. The Committee will meet again at 9.25 am on Tuesday 3 November to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—(Michael Wheeler.)

Highways (Financing) Bill

Mike Reader Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

As many Members will know, I joined the industry 20 years ago as a civil engineer. Throughout my career, I have been very fortunate to work on a lot of major infrastructure projects, including the lower Thames crossing, the A303 and some of the big National Highways frameworks, such as the specialist professional and technical services framework and the regional delivery partnership—the delivery integration partner framework. I now chair the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure, so I come at this Bill as someone who has priced and bid for major contracts and has seen what happens when the money just is not there.

However, I thought I would start my contribution to this debate with a safety moment. Members who have been around the sector will know that safety culture is absolutely critical to delivering our road network and doing so safely, and a safety moment that has always stuck with me is one from National Highways. It is about a lady who I am going to call Jane. Jane had had a busy day at National Highways; she jumped in her car, was driving home, and was involved in a very low-speed traffic collision. When she hit the car in front, her airbag went off and caused her lanyard to be forced through her chest, and she ended up in hospital. That is always a good reminder—when you leave today, if you are rushing to your car to drive home, remove your lanyard, not only for your security but for your safety.

Let me now turn to why this Bill matters to Northampton. Why is an MP for Northampton talking about a scheme in Essex and Kent? Well, Northampton sits at the heart of the logistics network: some 2,640 logistics businesses operate out of Northamptonshire, and 35,000 people in my county work in haulage and logistics. Every day, goods move between warehouses in my constituency and the channel ports, many of them crossing the Thames via Dartford, and when Dartford jams up, those costs are felt in my constituency and across the midlands. I support this Bill—I think it is the right thing to do to deal with that problem—but I agree with the Road Haulage Association and many hauliers that we must also consider the cost for freight operators. When the licensing agreements come forward, we must consider the considerable business and fuel costs that many businesses in my constituency are facing.

Planning has long been the biggest barrier to building roads. In particular, the development consent order process for the lower Thames crossing has been torturous—unfortunately, I know that at first hand. The second biggest barrier, though, has often been money. The Treasury can only fund so many projects at any one time, and every project competes for the same pot. This Bill brings in the private capital to build things that would otherwise sit in the queue. I have long argued that private finance works in this sector; when the Silvertown tunnel opened last year, it showed that modern public-private partnerships can deliver for taxpayers, and I still believe that.

However, having spoken to the Minister previously responsible and now to the current Minister, I want to be straight with this House. This is an ambitious thing that we are doing. I do not believe that the regulated asset base model is used elsewhere in the world for road infrastructure; traditionally, we see it delivered through concessions or availability-based public-private partnerships. I was initially concerned, so rather than shouting at the Department about where the money is coming from, I went out and spoke to industry. Through the Global Infrastructure Investor Association and some of the big advisers to the investment community, I spoke to investors about this project, and they said that this is actually quite an exciting opportunity, particularly because it should reduce the cost of capital. Creating a regulated return reviewed by an independent regulator should deliver cheaper finance and, importantly, more competition for that finance, so it is completely right that the Department cannot say who is funding this project yet, because we need to run the competition to get that funding in the first place. The more certainty we give to the market through a model such as this one, the better our chances of securing that finance at a much lower cost.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously spent a lot of time looking into this matter, and I commend him for that. As a result of his discussions, could he estimate when we might know who the funders will be—is it another year or two? When will it be? As he has obviously spoken to the Road Haulage Association as well, what does he think the initial toll will be for a lorry going through the tunnel?

[Mike Reader]

I would not want to speculate on the Government’s timetable. What is important is that the Bill goes through, and then we will go through the licensing arrangements to find the right partner to deliver this project, as well as the finance, obviously. However, the delays that happened under the previous Government—the first failed development consent order, where they completely ignored the local community, and the second DCO ending up in the courts because of challenges brought forward by the environmental lobby, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said—were not dealt with, and I am really disappointed that the Opposition are playing that card now when they campaigned against the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which brought forward many measures that would have solved the problems that the lower Thames crossing had.

The question of risk is another important one. A RAB model moves construction risk on to the people who are financing, building and delivering the scheme, but the treatment of risk in the delivery of a major infrastructure project can make the difference between success and failure. The question is: who holds that risk? The Competition and Markets Authority’s review of the civil engineering sector rightly identified that the transfer of risk from tier 1s, from financers, and into the supply chain can make a big difference to a project’s solvency and how it is delivered, particularly for major projects. We have to make sure that the licensing arrangements established by this Bill make provision for Government to require equitable risk management and risk treatment within the delivery of projects, as well as prompt payment through the supply chain, so that when billions of pounds of investment are involved, that money flows through quickly into the supply chain and does not get stuck at tier 1 level.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister to round off my speech—I am very grateful for his and his predecessor’s engagement on this Bill. The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that the process for setting tolls in the first settlement period, which would answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), would be set out as the Bill progresses. Will the Minister confirm that that is still the case? The standard licence conditions will be set by the Secretary of State without parliamentary procedure, so will the Government commit to publishing the core principles for investor returns and price reviews before any licence is granted?

The Bill puts new requirements on the Office for Rail and Road. I have had relatively good experiences with that organisation, but this is a new skill and capability that it needs to have, so what are the Government going to do to strengthen the ORR’s capability to manage these contracts effectively?

Turning to existing roads, to address the point made by the shadow Secretary of State, the Government have already confirmed in a written answer that they have no plans to use these powers to toll roads that are currently free. I welcome that, but since there is confusion, could the Minister put that question beyond doubt in his closing remarks from the Dispatch Box?

Some will say that this is a pay-per-journey model that will change Britain’s roads, but I do not believe it is. It is a way of getting the biggest schemes—the schemes that get stalled for years, if not generations—off the drawing pad and into delivery. I fully support the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Reader Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am proud of the fact that we are renationalising the railways, bringing the train operating companies back into public ownership. We have launched the brand-new livery and train designs, but more importantly than that, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that train services that are now under public control are more reliable and have fewer cancellations than those still in the private sector.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to improve passenger rail services.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to improve passenger rail services.

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

Great British Railways will create a railway run by the people for the people, turning the tide on a decade of decline under the previous Government. Eighty per cent of the rail journeys that will ultimately be run by GBR are now being run by publicly owned operators, and we are already seeing more reliable services as a result.

[Mike Reader]

The Minister will be aware that freight services using East West Rail infrastructure already terminate at Northampton Gateway. Will the Minister work with me to ensure Northampton is included in East West Rail’s long-term vision for passenger services, ensuring connectivity across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor?

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy on this issue. He will know that, as set out in the recent project consultation, East West Rail services are not currently planned to serve Northampton. However, current work does not preclude that, and East West Rail will provide important interchanges with major rail lines. I would be very keen to work with my hon. Friend as he seeks to take this campaigning issue further.

Bletchley Railway Station: Eastern Entrance

Mike Reader Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

Good things come to those who wait, Madam Deputy Speaker. Despite the late hour, I am grateful for the opportunity to champion an issue of strategic importance to Bletchley—namely, the case for a new eastern entrance to our railway station to create a direct and welcoming connection to our town centre, for which local people have waited far too long.

This is about more than bricks and mortar. We need to strengthen our transport infrastructure and give Bletchley a modern shop window through which we can welcome visitors, businesses, investors and, ultimately, opportunities from across the UK and beyond. I thank the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and Lord Hendy—the Rail Minister in the other place, whom I met this afternoon—for their constructive engagement on this matter over the past six months. The Minister and his officials have taken the time to listen to us carefully, examine the evidence and understand the significance of this project, not just for Bletchley, but for Milton Keynes more widely. I know that the Department shares the belief that transport investment must go hand in hand with the revitalisation of our communities.

Bletchley is an incredibly proud town. From the wartime codebreakers at Bletchley Park to its foundational role in building the new town—now the modern city—of Milton Keynes, it has played an extraordinary and pivotal part in our national story. Yet while Milton Keynes has become one of the UK’s most dynamic economies, Bletchley has not always shared fully in that success. As the city has expanded northwards, the town to its south, which helped to build it, has too often been left behind. That is not because of a lack of ambition or resilience. Walk through any Bletchley neighbourhood—be it the Lakes estate, Newton Leys, Eaton Leys, Fenny Stratford or the Links estate—and you will find that our town is home to strong and hard-working communities.

For too long, however, too many high quality and skilled jobs have clustered elsewhere. That is not to diminish the importance of Bletchley’s core economic sectors, from logistics to retail and manufacturing, which employ many local residents and play a vital role in keeping our town and city running; rather, it is to recognise that they represent only part of Bletchley’s potential. In technology, artificial intelligence and space-related industries, Bletchley has the potential to align directly with this Government’s industrial strategy and growth mission. Indeed, some have already seen that potential—Starship Technologies, Envisics, Carnot Engines and Pulsar Fusion are just four of the high-growth innovative firms that call Bletchley home.

I want our town to be home to much more than that, which is why I launched our Bletchley investment taskforce last April to begin the process of attracting new investment, new businesses, and new jobs and apprenticeships from which local people can benefit. Yet to unlock that potential in full, we must start with how people arrive in our town. The current station at Bletchley literally turns its back on the town’s centre. Passengers exit to the west, into a car park, with no sightline to Queensway or the town centre. Reaching the town centre requires them to navigate an indirect, unwelcoming route, through an underpass, across a roundabout—we are in Milton Keynes—and along narrow walkways. It is cumbersome, inaccessible for many, particularly those with disabilities, and simply unfit for a growing transportation hub of national significance.

What should be a gateway instead acts as a barrier. That is why an eastern entrance is so important. This is not just a cosmetic change; it is a practical shift rooted in connectivity, regeneration and identity. A new eastern entrance facing the town would deliver, I believe, three clear benefits. First, it would reconnect the station with the town centre, linking directly to the high street and our bus station, increasing footfall and supporting local businesses. It would make the town work better for residents and commuters alike by shortening walking distances, improving accessibility and encouraging greater use of public transport.

Secondly, it would enable Bletchley to unlock early stage investment in our town centre, particularly in the Brunel Centre, but also in the old fire station site and other pieces of residential and industrial land located near the station, that otherwise may stall, as well as other forms of private and public investment that are key to Bletchley’s future. Thirdly, it would create the proper gateway that Bletchley deserves: a modern, welcoming arrival point, especially for those visiting Bletchley Park and the National Museum of Computing, which is just a few moments away and acknowledges Bletchley’s pride in its past, while reflecting its renewed ambition for the future.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I travel through Bletchley on my way to London, and have done so while commuting for many years. It has been amazing to see the station grow with the arrival of East West Rail and the high line. Does my hon. Friend agree that a fourth benefit of the proposal is that it sends a message that the Government are serious about investing in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, which is something the Chancellor has championed?

[Callum Anderson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is a critical part of the Government’s growth mission, and key to the UK’s long-term economic competitiveness. I know he will agree that if we are to realise the full potential of that growth corridor, we have genuinely to invest and promote the core and centre that is the engine of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. That is not just Bletchley and Milton Keynes, but Northampton too.

The case for the eastern entrance is backed by evidence, and I place on record my thanks to the East West Rail team who have completed an incredibly thorough and professional strategic outline business case. It demonstrates high value for money, improved passenger experience, unlocked development potential and support for wider place-based investment, which I referred to a few moments ago.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Mike Reader Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for bringing forward this important Bill. It is fantastic to see space made in today’s programme to debate it. Many of the contributions have been out of this world. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill is a timely and necessary measure to sharpen the UK’s competitive edge in what is undoubtedly one of the most strategically important domains of our time. Having almost completed my first year on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have seen at first hand that our security relies not only on land, sea and air, but increasingly on the space domain and our assets in orbit. Satellite communications, Earth observation and precise navigation form the backbone of military operations, but also of our civil economy—I will come back to that later.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) pointed out in his intervention, any disruption up there has immediate and profound consequences to operations down here. We know at first hand that China and other nations are taking leaps and bounds in its drive to dominate the space domain, so anything we can do to strengthen the UK space economy is critical.

Before coming to this House, I was very fortunate that my team supported clients such as Defence Equipment & Support in negotiations around the space domain, in particular providing better commercial and buying support, which is critical, so I have seen at first hand the complexity of this emerging market, and how the public sector needs to keep up to date and respond to the demands and the asks of the private sector, and drive growth.

Just down the road from me in Harwell, a project completed by my former firm in 2023, the National Satellite Test Facility, received £120 million of new investment by the public sector through the Science and Facilities Technology Council. That shows that when we unlock investment, it is not just about the assets that end up in space, but about the big, chunky, complex engineering construction opportunities that are opened up in places such as the OxCam corridor, where my constituency sits. Through that work, I have seen how the private sector is poised and hungry to drive forward the next wave of space innovation. What is holding us back, generally, is not technology, talent, innovation or the drive for growth, but regulatory uncertainty. Despite the fact that the Bill relates to only four words, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, it will make a big difference.

The Space Industry Act 2018 laid the groundwork for the modern commercial sector we have in space. I commend the previous Government, as we are debating in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation across the House, for their work on that and for the space industrial strategy, which was published later. I can see echoes of that now in the industrial strategy, and I know that when the defence industrial strategy comes out later in the year, space will be front and centre of that as well. It is positive that we can build on some of the good work done by the Conservatives.

Without knowing what financial exposure firms might face if an accident or an incident occurs, companies hesitate to invest, insurers demand eye-watering premiums, and ultimately, we lose manufacturing contracts to other jurisdictions. The simple but powerful adjustment made by the Bill changes the law so that the indemnity limit for each operator licence is not optional, but mandatory. Each licence must spell out the licensee’s maximum liabilities. This is an essential risk management mechanism and it means that companies know exactly what they are signing up for. It also allows them to secure insurance in a predictable way. In the construction sector, we had a lot of unpredictable insurance post-Grenfell and particularly post-industrial shock, so I know how, for a commercial business, insecure insurance and unpredictability of insurance is important.

The Government’s new industrial strategy is really positive for the space sector. In my constituency, the Bill will stimulate jobs and growth. It specifically recognises that the Government will be investing in research and development for the space industry through the Cambridge Growth Company, which will drive new opportunities for my constituents.

When we consider this issue, we must also remember the wider stakes.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech on space. I must declare that I prefer to have my feet firmly on planet Earth, but none the less I am enjoying his contribution. I have been advised that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Where does my hon. Friend think those on the second Opposition Bench are from?

[Mike Reader]

I am sure they are working hard in their constituencies right now.

[Adam Jogee]

Where they are from, not where they are.

[Mike Reader]

Where they are from, I do not know, but I am sure they are working hard in their constituencies right now. I will keep the collegiate relationship we have here today, but I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.

I was talking about international impacts. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international trade and investment, I think the Bill is a very positive step forward to help drive investment. As we see countries such as the US, Luxembourg, Australia and Japan change their regulatory regimes, we need to keep that front and centre.

I did say I would briefly mention the civil economy, as we have a Minister from the Department here today. Regulatory certainty matters. I see that the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill is coming forward, but I note that the fuel strategy is also very important. One in five of my constituents work in logistics, so it is critical that we see certainty in all sectors of the Department for Transport.

I will conclude by saying this. Space is no longer the preserve of big Government agencies alone. We see a lot of innovation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said in relation to her constituency, there is fierce commercial competition and a lot of opportunity. The Bill will ensure that, whether we are exploring near space, planets, exoplanets, exomoons or even going out further into space, we support the British economy and get the space industry growing.

Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils

Mike Reader Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Chris and Nicole in my constituency lost their daughter Beccy nearly 18 years ago. On losing her, they discovered a postcode lottery for bereavement services. Some police services provide them, but some do not. It is important that we discuss road safety measures, but I hope my hon. Friend will agree that it is also important that we end that lottery, so that every family who loses someone in a road traffic accident has the bereavement support they should get.

[Sam Rushworth]

It is difficult to disagree with that excellent intervention.

Another example is Howden-le-Wear, where Hargill Road comes down a fast lane. I spoke to a gentleman there recently who told me that he no longer feels safe going out in his electric scooter and going up the road, because of the speed at which traffic comes hurtling down the bank. People there have been asking for traffic enforcement measures, as was mentioned in earlier interventions.