Highways (Financing) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 78, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

“(v) any mayoral combined authority, combined county authority or local highway authority whose area includes, or is likely to be affected by, a highway specified in the proposed licence.”

This amendment would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities who may be affected.

Amendment 87, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

“(c) prepare, consult upon, and publish a report assessing—

(i) the anticipated impact of the specified highway on traffic volumes, congestion, and highway wear across local road networks maintained by adjacent local highway authorities; and

(ii) the specific traffic management, infrastructure, and financial mitigation measures required to address any adverse impacts identified under subparagraph (i).”

This amendment requires the licensing authority to publish a comprehensive local road impact and mitigation report prior to granting any licence, ensuring that traffic displacement onto surrounding local council roads is fully evaluated and mitigated in advance.

Clause stand part.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I think where we got to before we adjourned was that we would withdraw amendment 45, but press amendment 87 to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 87, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

“(c) prepare, consult upon, and publish a report assessing—

(i) the anticipated impact of the specified highway on traffic volumes, congestion, and highway wear across local road networks maintained by adjacent local highway authorities; and

(ii) the specific traffic management, infrastructure, and financial mitigation measures required to address any adverse impacts identified under subparagraph (i).”—(Olly Glover.)

This amendment requires the licensing authority to publish a comprehensive local road impact and mitigation report prior to granting any licence, ensuring that traffic displacement onto surrounding local council roads is fully evaluated and mitigated in advance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I was about to sit down, but there are publication requirements in clause 78, which will deal with a number of the issues that the hon. Member referred to, so I request that the Committee reject the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Tolling and other mandatory conditions

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 7, page 6, line 11, at end insert—

“(c) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to compensate affected local highway authorities for extraordinary maintenance costs, traffic management or congestion mitigation arising from any increased traffic as a result of vehicles avoiding tolls on the chargeable highway.”

This amendment ensures that local authorities are compensated for the knock-on costs of increased traffic on local roads as a result of drivers aiming to avoid the toll road.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 40, in clause 7, page 6, line 11, at end insert—

“(c) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to establish a scheme for issuing automatic partial or full refunds of tolls to users in the event of significant traffic delays as a result of roadworks on the specified highway.”

This amendment would ensure that license conditions must include automatic refunds for drivers who face severe delays as a result of roadworks.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 72, in clause 103, page 67, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—

“after the Secretary of State has published a report setting out the proposed licence conditions including proposed arrangements for setting toll levels and approving any increases.”

This amendment would prevent the Act from coming into force until after the Secretary of State has published a report setting out the proposed licence conditions including tolling arrangements.

[Olly Glover]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Amendment 39 would create a mechanism for compulsory compensation for local councils as a result of additional traffic due to people avoiding tolls.

Local council taxpayers must not be forced to subsidise private toll road profits by picking up the repair bill for local roads damaged by heavy diverted traffic. As Declan Pang of the Road Haulage Association noted in front of the Committee last week, local A and B roads are heavily used by small businesses and hauliers, and severe wear caused by toll evasion can hurt the wider local economy.

Placing compensation in clause 7 would make it a binding legal condition so that private operators cannot bypass or negotiate away the wider impacts. One of the reasons I have tabled the amendment is because of the problem with the current roads funding formula. It is based overwhelmingly on miles rather than use levels. Higher use of existing roads would not necessarily lead to more funding for local authorities as a result, so we need a mechanism to deal with that.

Amendment 40 would, in effect, extend the delay repay concept from the railway to toll roads. It would mean an automatic toll refund scheme that issues partial or full refunds to drivers trapped in severe congestion, roadworks or operator-induced disruptions would come into existence. Motorists paying premium commercial tolls expect a reliable, free-flowing journey and should not be charged full price when the operator fails to maintain traffic flow.

Drawing on European tolling models, the Italian network has a motorway refund system, which creates a direct financial incentive for operators to clear incidents and manage roadworks efficiently. Currently, operators do not always manage to do that here. We are not necessarily saying that that is the right system for the UK context, but it is an illustration of what is possible and an example that the Minister may wish to consider.

As Edmund King told the Committee last week, if drivers pay a higher toll under an independent business model, it must work both ways, giving drivers money back when the road fails to operate properly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Greg Smith]

I largely wish to comment on amendment 72 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but before I do so, I will speak briefly to amendments 39 and 40.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage makes a good point about the increased use of local roads that feed vehicles on to new infrastructure, such as the lower Thames crossing, or indeed bring motorists—be they private motorists or haulage operators—off those pieces of new infrastructure. The current modelling that finances local highway authorities—predominantly councils—up and down the land has no mechanism whatsoever for acknowledging the point that the hon. Member makes. When traffic flows are massively increased on an existing road, those surfaces very quickly degrade and start to resemble the surface of the moon. I am sure we all see that in our own constituencies. It something that drives all of our constituents—and me—absolutely potty on a daily basis.

I see that in my own constituency, where we have seen a large amount of big infrastructure being built over recent years, such as East West Rail. That happens where compounds are put in for heavy goods and groundworks vehicles. The traction zones where those vehicles are accelerating to pull out, or braking to come in, as they go to site, move earth away and bring aggregate in, very quickly degrade.

It makes sense to take into account where an existing local road—one that is owned by a local highway authority and is the responsibility of local council tax payers—is suddenly asked, as they will be in the case of the new lower Thames crossing and potentially other schemes in the future, to be used for infrastructure projects. There should be a flow of funding, either from the licensee or from the Government through the Department for Transport, and ultimately the Treasury, that ensures that council tax payers in local areas are not asked to pick up the bill—as my council has been asked to do for roads broken by HS2 construction—for the construction of the lower Thames crossing and other schemes under the Bill. Indeed, they should not be asked to pick up the bill for the ultimate operation of them, either. I have some sympathy for amendment 39 tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.

Amendment 40 is a more problematic proposition. I do not disagree with the sentiment. No one can tell us what the toll on the lower Thames crossing would ultimately be, but we can presume it to be commensurate with the M6 toll, where an average vehicle pays £7 or £8. Therefore, it makes eminent common sense, and is surely reasonable, that someone would be entitled to some sort of compensation, or money back, if they paid the toll but then got snarled up in a traffic jam and just sat in a queue that they could have sat in on the original M6 anyway. I have sat in a jam on that road many times over my life.

The problem with the proposition that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has put forward is how that would be determined. With trains, delay repay is very straightforward: what time does the train ultimately pull into the destination station? That is very clear: it is either on time or a number of minutes late. Certainly, since Chiltern Railways was nationalised, I have been on late trains from my constituency every single day, but that is beside the point.

However, how is that level of delay really determined in a private vehicle? Everyone’s journey will be slightly different. What is to stop someone from deliberately driving slowly in order to avoid paying the full toll, artificially making their journey seem longer? Is it for the ORR to determine whether someone has had a longer than usual journey? How will they determine that without—and I do not want to sound all conspiracy theorist—some level of state snooping on people’s exact movements in order to determine how long that journey actually took them?

[Olly Glover]

The shadow Minister gives me an opportunity to say something I omitted from my notes—despite everyone’s obsession with Google, it is incapable of formatting a document properly when it is printed, but that is for another day. The Italian model calculates a base amount for roadworks, plus an extra amount for time lost. One qualifies after any delay on a trip up to 30 km, after a 10-minute delay on trips of 30 to 50 km, or after a 15-minute delay on trips over 50 km. I do not know how they determine that. It may be through some sort of monitoring system, and we already have that in many formats, such as automatic number plate recognition. The Italians are not generally well known for welcoming state surveillance. That is just one mechanism, and I am sure that many options are available using 21st-century technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Members for Mid Buckinghamshire and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for their amendment.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage tried to make a noble case for something that this Government are already dealing with through the record funding for highways maintenance that we have announced and are already delivering on. I understand the thrust of his argument about compensation to local highway authorities for displaced traffic. The right approach is to undertake an assessment of the whole strategic road network, to understand what improvements and likely increases to overall capacity could achieve more widely. Then, we should assess the impact if we do not proceed.

Of course, the whole thrust of the Bill is to reduce congestion, not increase it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has said on many occasions, we know that his part of the country is already at bursting point. We know what happens when things go wrong at that vital section of the strategic road network. There are already local problems as people try to find alternatives to avoid the congestion it has caused. That is clearly not because people are trying to avoid the toll, which has been in place for many years; it is actually about the lack of reliability at that vital pinch point. The answer is not to compensate people for delays caused by trying to avoid that unreliability; the answer is to make the Dartford crossing more reliable so that people actively choose that road.

[Olly Glover]

The Minister, as he has in a few of his speeches, is talking as if the Bill is only about the lower Thames crossing, but it is not. It is much broader than that, as he has acknowledged, although it is focused on the lower Thames crossing. If the Bill was just about the lower Thames crossing, I might well agree with his argument, as there are no alternatives in that particular case. But as drafted, it is not just about the lower Thames crossing, is it?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that the Bill is scheme-agnostic, but as the lower Thames crossing is the only scheme we currently have in mind, it is helpful to draw examples from that for why the amendment is not acceptable.

It is probably also worth pointing out that I am not aware of any other such toll schemes operating in this country at the moment. Is it his position that this compensation measure should be extended to the Mersey tunnels or the Mersey Gateway crossing, for example? My local transport authorities might be interested to hear that, and they might wonder where the funding would come from.

As I have said, the whole purpose of the Bill is to create the regulated asset base model that will fund the crossing. It will be a separate income stream from the general roads budget, and those who benefit directly from the new infrastructure will pay for it. It will improve the reliability of the whole network, which is the correct approach and is far more effective than trying to compensate people for an already overstretched and failing network.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 4 already requires the licensing authority, be that the Secretary of State or the ORR, to consult on a licence before it can be granted. In my view, that is adequate consultation on licence conditions, and consultation at an appropriate time. Requiring the publication of a report before a licence comes into force would delay the process and add inefficiency. It would also be duplicative. As I have said several times already, we have been waiting an awfully long time for this project to proceed, and I am afraid this amendment would further delay an already elongated process.

[Olly Glover]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. On amendment 40, the Minister said that delay repay could incentivise toll road operators to do less maintenance, but I disagree. It would incentivise them to do maintenance efficiently and at appropriate times, such as overnight, rather than making a case for recreating the Conservative party’s cones hotline of the 1990s. One sometimes sees plenty of cones and lane closures out there with very little work taking place.

In light of the shadow Minister’s offer to work collaboratively on a proposal, and of my offer to help him with his conspiracy theories of state suspicion, I will leave amendment 40 for another day. However, I will press amendment 39 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

This group also contains amendment 44, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. I will not steal his thunder, but it would set a strict physical threshold for what legally constitutes “increasing capacity”. Again, the official Opposition have sympathy with this amendment. We always come from the standpoint that it is better to have clarity than to leave something completely vague. Any measure that seeks to pin down precisely what the Government mean will work pretty well, hand in hand, with my amendment 82 to be really clear about what we are trying to do. If the Liberal Democrats wish to press amendment 44 to a vote, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support it. When the Minister responds, can he be as clear as possible about the full intent of the Bill and, particularly on amendment 82, will he make a legislative commitment where there are currently only words?

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd—I hope you are not too distraught about not having been in the Chair for some of the other very exciting transport Bill Committees that we have had this year.

I want to start by addressing amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Minister. We understand where he is coming from, because the Committee heard evidence from Steve Gooding of the RAC Foundation about the danger of clause 3 being used as a Trojan horse for widespread road pricing, which is something that the Minister has assured us will not happen.

Our amendment 44 takes a different approach to the problem of excluding non-new roads altogether. As I said on Second Reading, we feel that the idea of tolls and fees is reasonable in principle, and it is used quite widely in Europe, but the safeguards must be clear. That is why our amendment 44 would require a strict threshold for applying tolls to existing roads, which we are defining as a continuous extra lane, to show a genuine improvement in the road’s capacity and to justify any introduction.

I agree with the shadow Minister on clause 3, in that so much of the Bill relies on us to take it on trust that the Government will do the right thing with the extensive powers that it creates. There was a good article in The Economist a few years ago about the problem with the good chaps theory of government, which has been an historic feature of the British so-called constitution. The problem is that it is difficult to take things on trust and rely on the current generation to do the right thing and interpret a Bill as it was intended, because a Bill cannot force the hand of a future Government, but future Governments do need to work to the legislation that has been passed. We therefore have some concerns about that and would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

We support the shadow Minister’s amendment 81. It is sensible to require consultation with the relevant local and mayoral authorities and important to involve them in any major changes to their areas that could increase local traffic flow and the burden on the local community, so we would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division.

Subject to what the Minister says, at this point we would be keen, with your permission, Mr Dowd, to press amendment 44 to Division.

[Alison Griffiths]

I will speak to amendment 82, standing in the shadow Minister’s name and my name.

On the face of it, clause 3 looks quite straightforward. The licence would be granted for “works involving”—not delivering, just involving—

“the construction of a highway specified in the licence”.

However, granting a licence for being involved in the work set out in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c), which our amendment 82 would remove, would make the ORR responsible for determining what is fair and transparent in terms of a toll that could be charged in future for that work. Again, to be clear, the clause does not talk about delivery; it just talks about involvement, so there is a total lack of clarity.

The ORR will rely on a code that has not yet been written and that will not come before this House, so we will have no say in what it looks like. As far as I am aware, there will be no cost-effectiveness constraints on the licensee, so the toll could be considerable. Nor does the toll need to end when the costs have been recovered. Paragraphs (b) and (c) create the prospect of a never-ending toll upon our constituents for what could be a pretty unspecific piece of work.

To return to the points already made by the shadow Minister, a licence should be granted only for the construction of new roads. If we want to look at future roads, the code should be subject to a parliamentary vote at a later stage. Obviously the Committee has voted against this, but to return to our earlier discussion, we would prefer to be looking at two specific roads: the lower Thames crossing and, potentially, the associated Dartford crossing. Without those constraints, however, this piece of legislation is very problematic. I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Consultation in relation to grant of licence

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

“(c) publish an independent assessment evaluating whether alternative transport investments, including rail and bus connectivity, could fulfil the transport requirements of the proposed licence.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the ORR to evaluate whether alternative transport investment, including rail and bus, is needed and suitable before granting a license to upgrade or build new highways infrastructure.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 78, clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

“(v) any mayoral combined authority, combined county authority or local highway authority whose area includes, or is likely to be affected by, a highway specified in the proposed licence.”

This amendment would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities who may be affected.

Amendment 87, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

“(c) prepare, consult upon, and publish a report assessing—

(i) the anticipated impact of the specified highway on traffic volumes, congestion, and highway wear across local road networks maintained by adjacent local highway authorities; and

(ii) the specific traffic management, infrastructure, and financial mitigation measures required to address any adverse impacts identified under subparagraph (i).”

This amendment requires the licensing authority to publish a comprehensive local road impact and mitigation report prior to granting any licence, ensuring that traffic displacement onto surrounding local council roads is fully evaluated and mitigated in advance.

Clause stand part.

[Olly Glover]

I want to be clear at the beginning that we are keen to press amendment 87 to a vote.

Amendment 45 would mandate an independent modal shift and alternative transport assessment before any new highway tolling licence could be granted. It would prevent multibillion-pound road schemes from proceeding in isolation without evaluating whether rail passenger, rail freight or bus upgrades could deliver better value and lower carbon emissions. There is a clear need to reduce pressure on the Dartford crossing and improve connectivity in the south-east of England via the lower Thames crossing. But so far, the Labour Government appear to be looking only at roads-based means to do so.

I grew up in Staines, which is very close to junction 13 of the M25 and which road nerds will know is the busiest segment of motorway in Europe. When I was growing up and the M25 was new, it had three lanes, which then increased to four and eventually to five. Seeing the M25 permanently under upgrade was the accompaniment to my youth and adolescence. Do people who use that section of the M25 now find it a joyous driving experience, one that is entirely bereft of stress and complaint, or do they still consider it to be what Chris Rea once called a “road to hell”? They still consider it a road to hell, because while the M25 is of course a useful asset, one of the challenges of increased road investment is that very often that capacity gets absorbed and it does not address some of the wider transport challenges.

There is a clear need to improve rail connectivity in the region alongside the lower Thames crossing project. There is currently no Kent to Essex rail connection and very limited provision for channel port freight to move by rail—only by road. There are developed proposals on the table to upgrade the Kent railway network and the Barking freight terminal via High Speed 1 as part of the plan to significantly increase rail freight through the channel tunnel.

As Ralph Smyth from the Transport Action Network argued in front of the Committee last week, granting certainty to a major private road scheme can make it significantly harder for regional mayors or local authorities to promote sustainable alternatives like rail, tram or bus upgrades. Ben Garratt of Logistics UK noted that while road capacity is needed at Dartford, rail freight connectivity to ports plays a vital role in national supply chain resilience and must be integrated into transport planning.

Why should Ministers grant a potentially century-long highway licence without first publishing an independent evaluation of whether rail or public transport investment could solve the bottleneck? If we are to move towards achieving our environmental goals and providing good transport for those who cannot, will not or cannot afford to drive, serious investment in other infrastructure and public transport is needed alongside improving the road network.

Amendment 87 would make it mandatory to publish a local road impact and mitigation report. Toll-avoiding traffic that diverts into surrounding residential streets and local A roads could cause severe congestion, noise, air pollution and safety hazards for nearby communities. The amendment would force the licensing authority to assess the exact financial cost of extraordinary road wear imposed on “adjacent local highway authorities” such as Kent, Essex or Surrey—or whatever they are called now as part of local government reorganisation. As Declan Pang, the director of policy at the Road Haulage Association, warned us last week, traffic displacement and unmitigated local congestion can drive significant indirect costs across local economies and businesses.

I will turn briefly to Opposition amendment 78, which we support. It would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities. That would go some way towards addressing some of the deficiencies of clause 4, which leaves it quite open as to which organisations need to be consulted. Clause 4 does not explicitly list local highway authorities, local planning authorities or emergency services—among others—as mandatory statutory consultees. In his comments, I hope the Minister will address why clause 4 is so open and why it does not explicitly name local highway authorities and emergency services as mandatory statutory consultees.

[Greg Smith]

I will start with amendment 78, which was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage hit the nail on the head regarding why we tabled this amendment. We have come back to what I fear will be a familiar theme as we go through the clauses of this Bill in Committee: the openness, at times fuzziness, of the drafting, which leaves too much open to the imagination.

Ill-defined legislation that then gets caught up in the courts forever, with lawyers forever arguing over what was really meant, gives none of us, certainly none of our constituents, our local authorities or those areas of the country that have mayors—mine does not—the clarity that they need and want from this Bill. So amendment 78 really is a very clear and straightforward amendment. It was not tabled with any intent to undermine or derail the Bill, or push it off course, but to give the Government an opportunity to lock in something that gives clarity to the important institutions out there that we and our constituents rely on to deliver local services.

Local authorities and councils—in my case Buckinghamshire, which is also the highways authority covering my constituency—and in other parts of the country, mayors like the Mayor of London, where we are right now, and as per my earlier reference, the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, should be locked into the process. I cannot see a single argument why the Government would not want that clarity in the Bill. If they have an in-principle opposition to that, there needs to be a very clear and compelling reason not to simply include the status quo of local authorities, mayors, mayoral combined authorities and the emergency services, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage said, in the Bill. I cannot see us moving away from a local authority and mayoral model, but in any future Government—we cannot predict changes—I am sure it will not be difficult to update the legislation to bring those authorities and institutions into effect.

--- Later in debate ---

However, the official Opposition take issue with trying to prioritise modal shift over improving, in this instance, the lower Thames crossing and solving the problems the hon. Member for Dartford spoke about very eloquently with the current arrangements. Some Members may not like this, but in reality, most people in this country choose the private motor vehicle as their primary way of getting around. It is not for any of us in this House to tell people how they should or should not get about. It is for us to ensure that the road network is sufficient—which the existing arrangements at the Dartford crossing clearly are not—and is there for road users, including private cars and the haulage sector, to get about freely.

[Olly Glover]

I did not seek to say that we should not have more cars or support private road users, merely that the reason a lot of people choose to drive is that it has been the relentless direction of policy going back decades. The rail network has significantly contracted, and a lot of investment has gone into motorways. Does the hon. Member accept the clear statistics showing that far fewer young people are learning to drive and they need alternatives? We cannot rely on continuing to promote the private motorcar over everything else.

[Greg Smith]

I am not sure the private motorcar has been promoted over everything else. I accept the challenge the hon. Member lays down about the issues young people have securing a driving test in a timely manner, but the statistics out there absolutely show that—whether it is people commuting to work, travelling for leisure or a holiday, getting kids to school or whatever—the majority of miles travelled across the totality of the country are by private car. That is why the Bill seeks to ensure that the lower Thames crossing is built and there are potential future capacity increases elsewhere: so that the vast majority of our constituents—outside of the country’s major cities, like London, which have tube networks and more frequent bus services—can use their cars. We take issue with amendment 45. I will reflect, when we break for lunch, on whether to report to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that the Liberal Democrats have called the junction to Staines on the M25 a “road to hell.”

Amendment 87, which would provide for a comprehensive assessment of the impact on local roads, has more to be said for it. I will not repeat the arguments I made earlier about the importance of the local road network supporting any new infrastructure. There is some merit in the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. This is something we should all reflect on. We must try not to look at the road network as if it can be compartmentalised into the strategic road network and local roads, but to see the two as part of a single ecosystem that cannot be separated.

[Justin Madders]

I turn first to amendment 45. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for raising whether alternative transport investment should be considered before a licence is granted. I have to say that I have never been entirely clear whether the Liberal Democrats support the lower Thames crossing. The hon. Gentleman’s comments push him more into the “no” territory, but as the Bill progresses we will no doubt see whether they can support it.

[Olly Glover]

Given that the Minister was putting words in my mouth, let me clarify my view. We do support the lower Thames crossing, because the Dartford crossing is under pressure and there is no resilience when it closes, but that does not mean that we support only the lower Thames crossing. The problem with policy over decades—I disagree with the shadow Minister on this—is that it has been roads, roads, roads, and motorways, motorways, motorways. It should be not either/or, but both.

[Justin Madders]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s clarity. I understand his argument, but it is probably a bit late now. The assessment on alternative transport options belongs in the scheme appraisal and the business case process, not in this Bill, which is about whether to grant a licence in the first place.

The Association for Consultancy and Engineering was clear in its written evidence that schemes must be

“sufficiently developed before financing and procurement decisions are taken.”

As the hon. Gentleman knows, for the lower Thames crossing, the development consent order has already been issued, and all the issues that he talked about were considered. It has been approved, and construction is under way.

The Bill is not about which road should be built; it is about creating an additional financing and regulatory framework, which can be used where there is a need for a road scheme. It is not about putting roads ahead of rail or bus transport. That will be considered through the earlier business case process. Requiring that to be assessed again once the licence has been granted would duplicate the work and add delay. As hon. Members have said, there is an urgent need for this scheme to proceed, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

On Opposition amendment 78, we debated a similar point when we discussed amendment 81. The shadow Minister did not press that amendment to a vote, but given the gusto with which he advanced his argument today, he may press amendment 78. I will not repeat the point that have been made, but clause 4(1)(b)(iv) requires that consultation includes

“such other persons (including persons exercising functions in relation to highways) as the licensing authority considers appropriate.”

So the assurances that Opposition Members seek are there in black and white.

If we are too prescriptive, we may not cover every type of authority. At the moment, we know exactly what the local authority structures are but, as we have seen in recent years, that can change, so it would not be prudent to hardwire that into primary legislation. The Bill rightly allows the licensing authority to identify and consult the appropriate bodies exercising high-risk functions for the scheme. That makes the framework flexible enough to respond to the circumstances of individual projects and changes to local government structures over the lifetime of the legislation.

On amendment 87, I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. We absolutely recognise that major road schemes can have impacts on surrounding local roads, and they need to be properly considered—indeed, the lower Thames crossing is proceeding because we want to improve the conditions on the local roads—but I do not believe that the amendment puts the consideration in the right place.

Licences granted under the Bill are about bringing qualifying trunk road projects within the new financing and regulatory framework. It is not the process through which the underlying impacts of a road scheme are first identified and addressed. Those impacts, including changes to traffic and congestion, should be considered through the development and planning of the road scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, for the lower Thames crossing, traffic forecasts were assessed and considered as part of the development consent order, which is the appropriate stage for such considerations. Carrying out that work again would delay the project and duplicate work that has already been completed.

Clause 4 sets out the requirements that must be met for consultation before a licence can be granted under the Bill. It ensures that the grant of a licence is subject to a clear, transparent and accessible consultation process, giving those likely to be affected a proper opportunity to make representations before the licence is granted. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Q Under the French model which you have cited as a template, 91% of roads are owned by privatised companies, and that is very different to the UK. They are extremely controversial and many accuse companies in France of price gouging. We have concerns about asset management and the valuations. You have said that the RAB model is potentially ideal, but is there any element of it that you can say is better than the French concessionary model? What teeth would you give the regulator to make it so, if we were to go down that route? What is missing from the RAB model that would make it more effective?

Ben Hopkinson: It is a good question. First, in the French example, I am well aware that it is quite expensive to drive on a French motorway. On the other hand, they have many more miles of motorway, and if it is too expensive you can take the equivalent of an A road for certain journeys. Judging by the number of people who drive on French motorways, I think people are generally willing to accept the costs, especially given that they have built many more miles of motorway just this century than we have in total.

I could be proved wrong if it works really well, but the main challenge with the RAB model is the sheer uncertainty of whether the ORR is up to the task and has the right staff in place. It has never done this before. I know there have already been some concerns about capacity issues and general commercial experience within the ORR. I would be concerned if the private sector had large commercial control and contract teams and the public sector did not have them and was out-negotiated. That is certainly possible if civil servants are not able to properly push back on price increases.

I think the fundamental incentives in a RAB model are not right for delivering one-of-a-kind, unique pieces of infrastructure. It works a lot better for infrastructure that has very clear unit costs—for example, the cost of laying 100 metres of pipe. That is good because a regulator is clearly able to understand how much 100 metres of pipe costs to lay and can apply that across its base, whereas the cost of one lower Thames crossing is up in the air. Some additions from the private contractor might seem sensible; they might get away with that. Having a more environmentally friendly construction process certainly seems sensible on the face of it, but that also adds cost. I would want to be reassured that the ORR is up to the task and has both the capacity and the know-how to properly understand the arrangements it is entering into.

Sam Dumitriu: You mentioned price gouging. It is important to work out what the main risks are. Roads are, in most cases, natural monopolies, and the best thing about being a monopoly is a quiet life. It is not necessarily that you have all these opportunities to gouge your customers; it is that the lack of competition means you are not forced to adopt cost-saving measures, or become more customer-friendly and so on. You might have a situation where various people are claiming quite high margins or they are being aggressive in that sense, but the UK has the other problem, where people are not on it around costs. They are not working out what the best structure is to ensure that costs keep falling.

On Ben’s point, one possible way of resolving the issue is quite a radical reform that is probably beyond the scope of the Bill. I have always wondered whether it makes sense for the UK to have Ofgem doing RAB regulation for energy networks, Ofwat doing it for water, the ORR for road and rail and Ofcom for telecoms, or whether it makes sense to have a specialist economic regulator that deals with the costs of natural monopoly networks. That would have a bunch of advantages. It would potentially resolve some of the revolving door problems that you might see. It would also ensure that there is a similar expertise and a standard approach. You do not want varying approaches between all the regulators, because that suggests that they are doing something wrong when you have essentially the same economic problem to solve. As I say, however, that would be far beyond the scope of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Olly Glover.

[Olly Glover]

I am all right, Chair—I will defer to other colleagues.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I will thank the witness for his evidence and we will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Will Godfrey and Matt Palmer gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Olly Glover]

Q Any thoughts from you, Mr Palmer, using your rich and wide-ranging career experience?

Matt Palmer: If you talk specifically about the lower Thames crossing, its strategic case is incredibly strong and it was introduced by Government to be built because of the broader economic benefit for the country. There is a mixture of models that the Government could choose to fund it. There was a discussion about concessions and RAB-based models earlier. They will all carry the same carrot and stick for driving cost performance. In the end, it is the Government’s decision to bring a project forward. If it is of a strategic nature then this Bill will allow you to fund it.

[Olly Glover]

Q I have a quick follow-up on something you said earlier, Mr Godfrey, about the importance of getting the licence right. You perhaps cannot answer, but let me ask the question in a slightly mischievous way. There was a debate about the Railways Bill and how it was important to see ancillary documents that it referred to while considering it, because those documents had a lot of implications for how the Bill would operate in practice. Would you view the licence and the code, which this Bill stipulates that the ORR must create, as operationally critical to how the Bill would be implemented in practice?

Will Godfrey: One distinction I would draw with the Railways Bill is that that Bill was so significantly concerned with the creation of Great British Railways, which will be responsible for something like 75% of all traffic on the network—not quite the whole market but a very significant proportion of the market. People are therefore understandably keen to see what arrangements are in the licence for that entity. This Bill is enabling and economy-wide. Clearly, the main project that we are talking about currently is the lower Thames crossing, but in principle several other licensed entities could be out there. That is one distinction that I would draw.

As to whether a particular licence is essential to inform the scrutiny of a Bill, my feeling is that the Bill gives you, as a regulator, the kind of duties, functions and powers that you would expect. On the licence, clearly there is work to be done there, but one advantage is that the licences will be put out to competitive tender. That provides a different level of scrutiny from the arrangements under the Railways Bill, in which the licence is awarded to GBR as the given entity that will receive it.

[Tristan Osborne]

Q The recent independent regulatory review of the ORR included a section specifically about the Thames crossing. Paragraph 5.58 of that review indicated that there are resource concerns:

“There are, however, likely to be gaps such as those relating to construction phase price controls, project specific

I know you said that you had confidence in that area, but that report was published just last month. Can I get some clarity? Are you saying that the report is not entirely right and that you are confident that the three aspects it raised will be covered going forward?

Will Godfrey: We very much welcome that independent review of the ORR. It is always helpful to have that sort of outside-in look and scrutiny.

On what it describes as gaps, the other point that Dr Richard Judge brought out was that we are not building from scratch, so this is about providing incremental capacity. I think he was right to draw out those areas as ones where you would want to make sure that the gaps have been filled by the time you are past Royal Assent, the first licence has been awarded and you are into the start of the first price control, which is a long way from today. The point I am making is that, from the discussions I have been having with the Department, I am reasonably confident about being able to resource what I would describe as incremental gaps, rather than starting from a blank sheet.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Olly Glover?

[Olly Glover]

Q This Bill proposes use of alternative financing models. Do you have any thoughts on the principles that should be used to make sure that risk is appropriately allocated among Government, investors, contractors and the eventual road users, to keep the project deliverable and affordable for all those parties?

Andrew Truscott: My biggest concern about this project is the ultimate cost to the end user. That is a piece of maths that we all, collectively, need to get right, because we cannot end up with a wonderful project that unfortunately saddles the user with an uneconomic toll for the next 50 or 60 years. How can we manage that? We can manage it by, obviously, trying to keep the cost of construction as low as we possibly can. Other things in our toll roads and our businesses globally include dynamic tolling, where we encourage road use by differentiated pricing depending on the time of day—I would love to explore that with the Government at the right time—and differentiation for different types of vehicles. I think there is a way of getting the end users’ experience to be a little fairer than if there was just a flat toll.

In terms of the overall costs and delivery, obviously, the cost of financing at the moment is as high as it has been in my career. That is a factor that we all have to be aware of. I am sure you guys all know this, but infrastructure is a diversifier in pension fund portfolios. We are a spread to the risk-free investor. That is how we calculate our returns, so unfortunately, as risk-free rates go up, the expectation of the returns on our capital also goes up.

Innovation around how we can collectively deliver a financing package against that backdrop that is as cheap and deliverable as possible is also quite important. How do we do that? Certainty of outcome, high-quality regulation and ensuring that everybody who commits capital understands the limits of their capital and is therefore able to calculate their returns accordingly.

[Olly Glover]

Any thoughts from you, Mr Forsdyke?

Roger Forsdyke: Not on the subject of financing; it is outside my experience.

[Olly Glover]

Fair enough.

[Tristan Osborne]

Q This question links to the independent review. I questioned the ORR on this. Obviously, you are sitting on the other side of the table, and you are looking to extract as much as you can from an investor perspective. You represent one side of the spectrum, and the regulators are on the other side. There has to be a working partnership between you both. Obviously, the efficiency of a project finance model such as the one for this crossing relies on certainty and predictability for investors, and regulators being there to ensure the stability of the regime. Obviously, we do not have a regulator that manages this at the moment. Where does investor confidence stand regarding the ORR? Do you think investor confidence is there for this model to work going forward?

Andrew Truscott: I would slightly reject your first statement, if I am honest. As an infrastructure investor, we provide, candidly, the lowest cost private capital that is available across the world. If you are attracting John Laing and people like us, I can guarantee that you are getting the lowest cost of equity capital that you can possibly attract and therefore the risk transfer needs to be accordingly appropriate.

I will slightly repeat my opening comments: when we first started interacting with DFT about this project, I was quite nervous about the RAB model. I am not a RAB nerd; there are lots of RAB nerds, and I am not one. RAB can be incredibly complicated, and it can take a huge amount of time to drill down. There is not a regulator. There is an awful lot of work that needs to be done. Am I nervous that that is going to take longer than it should do or could do? Yes, I am, but again, credit to DFT and the Treasury, they seem to be well on track. Maybe the better answer to your question is that we as investors will need absolute certainty—and I mean absolute certainty—about what that regulatory model is, who the regulator is and how that regulation is going to work before we will put in a dollar, a pound, or a euro—whatever currency you like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

Q I am a very strong supporter of the Bill, because it enables major projects such as the lower Thames crossing to be funded, but the tolling issue is important. We cannot talk about individual toll levels, but we can talk about mechanisms by which reasonable—hopefully affordable—tolls will be set for both industry and individual motorists. Could the Minister enlarge a bit on how the ORR, with the legislation designed and passed by Parliament, will ensure that tolls fit the definition of “affordable” as far as possible?

Justin Madders: I understand why you ask that question. The Bill sets the framework for the RAB model, and that will establish the independent regulator. Its remit is clear, and it is there in the first few clauses of the Bill: to take account of the interests of road users. There will be fair pricing, transparency and long-term sustainability as a result of that. You will also be aware that there will be a stakeholder group in which users will have the opportunity to feed in. We have a pretty robust set of reassurances that I hope will satisfy you and your constituents.

[Olly Glover]

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

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

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

[Olly Glover]

Q We hope that will end up being the case, because they have not all ended up marvellously—although you are right to say that some have gone well. You mentioned the Office of Rail and Road as the regulator. Why has it been selected as a regulator, given that the Railways Bill was rather shunted into the siding, some could say? Why the ORR rather than a different kind of regulatory arrangement?

Justin Madders: As this is a road, the Office of Rail and Road seems to be the appropriate regulator.

[Olly Glover]

Q Yes, but it is for rail, which is also in its title. I alluded to the Railways Bill, and I am just interested in the different approach.

Justin Madders: There is a different approach because this is a different situation. This is the regulated asset base model, which is about a long-term investment, balancing the interests of users and investors and having a strong regulator that understands the sector. As we have heard, the ORR is already working on it. That is absolutely the right balance to make sure this delivers for everyone.

[Olly Glover]

That is an interesting answer, because railways also have both users and investors, but perhaps that is a debate for another day. I will happily let other people come in now.

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Q It is a pleasure to serve on another Bill Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. One of my key concerns about the Bill is that a lot of it is about stuff being decided by regulations and secondary procedures, and by the ORR. There is a real concern about making sure that rights of consumers—the people who are going to be charged to use these roads—are protected. Do you have any suggestions, in addition to what you have already said, about better safeguards that the Bill could have to make sure that tolls are set and continue to be maintained at an affordable level for the people who will use these roads?

Steve Gooding: Our starting point would be that the right sort of duties are applied to the ORR in the Bill, in terms of having regard to the interests of road users and customers of this service. Of course, there are certain things that the Bill provides for that we have not seen yet: we do not know what the terms of the licence will be, we do not know what the terms of the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR will be, and we do not know exactly the ORR’s template will be. I am well aware that there is always a balance to be struck between what goes into those documents and what could actually be in the Bill. In principle, I think that the protection is there, but in practice, it might be sensible to have a bit more in the Bill and a bit less reliance on the other documents—but until you see the drafts of the other documents, it is quite hard to tell.

Edmund King: Clause 26 talks about tolls being “fair and transparent”. I think that we would like to have seen something built in there about affordability, because they can be fair and transparent, but can people afford them? In effect, the lower Thames crossing and Dartford will have a monopoly position. If you want to cross the Thames to the east of London, they are your choices.

When the M6 toll first opened, it was rumoured that the tolls for HGVs were initially artificially high and that the operators did not particularly want HGVs to cause wear and tear on the toll. I think that question of affordability is important, and it goes beyond cost: if people cannot afford the toll, they will use other, inadequate roads or go the long way around the M25, which is already vastly congested near Heathrow. I think something about affordability should be built in—perhaps linked to inflation; something more—so that the monopoly position cannot be exploited.

[Olly Glover]

Let me make a brief comment. On your point about some of the things that are dependent on the Bill, such as the licence, not yet being specified, we had a similar debate during the passage of the Railways Bill through the Commons. I think the Government ultimately decided to at least start publishing some of those things alongside it, so I hope the Minister might give some thought to that.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Olly Glover Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

A £1 billion order for 29 new five-car, battery-electric trains for TransPennine Express was recently announced. While welcome, it has raised some eyebrows, with Modern Railways magazine estimating that the cost is nearly double that of conventional electric-only trains. It would cost a staggering £25.2 billion for similar deals to replace England’s passenger trains that have diesel engines. Are we on the right value-for-money track with this approach to rolling stock specification and procurement?

[Heidi Alexander]

I was delighted to be in Derby a few weeks ago to announce the new fleet of battery-electric trains for TransPennine Express. It is a £1.2 billion investment. Included in that are hundreds of millions of pounds of maintenance costs for the duration of that contract. We are working on procurements for both Southeastern trains and Northern trains at the moment. Value for money and affordability will be central to the decisions we make on those procurements.

Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

Olly Glover Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for so eloquently introducing this debate and for revealing himself as a lifelong cat lover. One of the things I like about this Chamber is what we learn about our colleagues here. I have to say, if I had participated in a guessing game about some of the cat-loving Members we would hear from today, I probably would not have done very well—perhaps somebody could create one of those internet guessing games about MPs and whether they lean dog or cat. That would certainly be more savoury than some of the web applications there have been about Members of Parliament—I shall certainly not say any more about that.

I thank CatsMatter for all its hard work over many years to advance protections for cats, and the 189,192 signatories to this e-petition, including 334 of my constituents in Didcot and Wantage. I have never had a cat of my own, but I absolutely love them. I want to illustrate the very strong bonds that can be formed between humans and cats by talking about three of the cats that I have formed a strong bond with over my lifetime.

The first was called Henry. He lived primarily in another house in our cul-de-sac, but he liked to visit a number of people in the area, including us. He was a ginger and white cat. He was very friendly and intelligent, and he really enjoyed human company. He was an enormous source of companionship and comfort to me during some quite lonely and difficult times as a child and as a teenager growing up.

Where I lived a few years ago, the landlord’s cat, Puzzle, would come and visit quite often. She was quite old—I think she was 17 when she died—but you would never know it: she was full of energy and very chatty. When my doors were open in summer, she would enter and announce herself by miaowing very volubly. She was incredibly friendly.

I wish that anybody who thinks that cats are aloof or unfriendly could have met Puzzle. There was a little shop in the complex where I was renting, and when somebody would enter the courtyard she would run over, wanting to say hello to the people who were there—even children, and cats are not always the biggest fans of children. If I went too long before stroking her, she would start crawling up my leg, demanding more strokes; I was always very happy to give them, but occasionally the working day had to take priority. I learned of her death—not from being hit by a car, thankfully, but by natural causes—the same week that Putin invaded Ukraine, and it definitely added to the feelings of sadness.

The final example is my friend Freddie’s cat, Mr Whiskers. He grew up as a stray cat roaming the mean streets of Haywards Heath for much of his life until he was adopted. He became an indoor cat because he got feline immunodeficiency virus as a result of being a stray. However, he had to be given up for adoption because his owner acquired a girlfriend who had a cat allergy—a rather controversial decision. I am not sure I would have chosen a significant other over Mr Whiskers, but that is one for another time. Mr Whiskers is called that because he has very distinctive whiskers. He is a black and white cat and is very friendly and chatty.

We have heard some very powerful accounts, both from Members and from their constituents, of the strong bond that they have formed with cats. I have a constituent called Jenny who lives in Moulsford. She and her family had a cat called Mowgli, who was sadly hit by a car four years ago. The car did not stop and Mowgli was later found by a resident who was jogging through the village and recognised that the cat belonged to Jenny. He was only one year old, and Jenny’s daughters were devastated when they found out what had happened. That perfectly illustrates what many Members have said during this debate: cats are intelligent, are members of our family and have their own characters, and we can be absolutely devastated when we lose them, particularly in a manner as brutal as being hit by a car.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are sympathetic to the petition’s ask that we extend the legal requirement to report road traffic collisions involving animals to include cats. It is not right that when a cat is hit by a vehicle, there is no legal requirement for the driver to report the incident to the police. As a result of such accidents, injured cats can be left at the roadside without prompt veterinary treatment, causing unnecessary suffering. We believe that it is important to improve welfare and quality of life for household pets, while also ensuring that all animals are treated equally in legislation. We believe that, like us, animals can experience suffering, pain and fear. Experts in the field of neuroscience are confident that mammals, birds and many other creatures possess consciousness. If we accept animal sentience, then animal cruelty or accidents must be considered unacceptable. It is crucial that we change the law to better protect animals from harm.

As some Members have said, cats are also working animals. It is not just dogs who do that; the role of cats in pest control has been established for millennia and continues to be important to this day. I know that there has been debate about getting cats here in Parliament. That has been declined as a suggestion because people are worried that they could get stuck in nooks and crannies —although I think that perhaps we have underestimated their ingenuity for getting themselves out of trouble as well as into it. However, certainly those of us who have occasionally seen a mouse scurrying in the Tea Room or the Pugin Room would welcome cats here in Parliament. They would also be very good for our morale, and maybe we need to start a campaign for that as well.

The Liberal Democrats have already had success in improving pet welfare in this Parliament, with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) passing the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, which aims to protect animal welfare by restricting the importation and non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets.

I want to say a little about what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) said regarding an alternative approach advocated by Cats Protection. It is interesting that there is not necessarily unanimity among organisations that care passionately about cats that amending the Road Traffic Act is necessarily the sole solution to this challenge. As the hon. Lady said, the concern is that an amendment to include cats in the Road Traffic Act could force drivers to report collisions, but could also lead to various unintended consequences, for example, the imposition of criminal and civil liability on the owners of cats involved in collisions. I am sure that we would all agree that we would rather not open up another front of legal warfare—there are already so many as it is. Bringing cats into a framework designed for dogs and livestock could risk creating new legal responsibilities around containment, control and liability.

Cats Protection advocates an even bigger push on microchipping. It led the call, along with others, to campaign for compulsory microchipping. That was introduced in 2024 in England, and Cats Protection calls for it across the rest of the UK, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) said, along with an important duty on owners to keep their details up to date so that the chipping system can work. It also advocates for scanning. Highways agencies in England and Scotland already collect, scan and notify owners about cat road victims, and the charity has published a scanning guide for local authorities.

Finally, there is more that we can do not just within legislation but beyond it, as good citizens. A driver who hits a cat should take them to a vet for emergency treatment, where they can also be scanned for a microchip. That is the quickest way to identify the owner. Those are some options for the Minister to consider in tackling the problem. I look forward to hearing his comments.

E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

Olly Glover Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for setting out the case for regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters with great passion and conviction. She spoke very movingly of the loss of her constituent Jacob’s life, and highlighted the enormous geographical range of police forces that are concerned about this issue.

Hon. Members from across the country have also spoken with great thought on some of the key themes of the debate. First and foremost is the human impact of the problem of illegally modified and used e-bikes and e-scooters: not only the deaths and the injuries, but the fear that so many people feel, particularly people with disabilities or who are partially sighted, and the fact that pavements are no longer thought of by everybody as a place of refuge from motor traffic and somewhere that they can rely on to safely complete their journey.

Some hon. Members also highlighted the growing financial impact of the problem in terms of insurance payouts, where users of these vehicles who are not insured mean that everyone else bears the cost through increased premiums. They noted the problem of battery fires, which sometimes lead to loss of life, and rightly stressed the need for greater enforcement and for more support and resources for our police in dealing with the issue.

Part of the problem comes from the complexity of what an e-bike or e-scooter is or is not. A legal e-bike has pedal-assisted electric power up to a speed of 15.5 mph and no more. In some parts of the country there are long-standing trials of e-scooters, but in most places there are not, and that adds to the complexity. According to statistics from the Office for Product Safety and Standards, the vast majority of battery fires arise from conversion kits and unknown brands of e-bike, highlighting the need for much greater product regulation.

In 2025, London’s Metropolitan police seized more than 2,200 illegal e-bikes and e-scooters across London. In the first seven months of 2026 it seized more than 2,500—already exceeding the whole of 2025. In March 2026, a two-day enforcement operation seized 52 illegal e-bikes and mopeds. The London Fire Brigade reports that e-bike fires have doubled between 2022 and 2025, with most fires caused by illegally modified or designed e-bikes and their batteries. Many people see some food delivery couriers using e-bikes, sometimes illegally modified, in a reckless and inconsiderate manner.

However, there is also a great opportunity if we can get e-bikes right. In 2024, the UK sold just 2.1 e-bikes per 1,000 people, compared with 8.5 in France and a staggering 36.1 in Denmark. If we do not buck that trend, we are unlikely to achieve the continuation of cycling into older age that happens in the Netherlands, where e-bike travel accounts for over 50% of cycling distance in the 65 to 75 age bracket. There is an opportunity, as well as a problem that needs to be solved.

As well as the many hon. Members from many parties who have spoken on this issue, the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking conducted an inquiry into this issue last year and produced a very thoughtful and wide-ranging report. At the Liberal Democrat conference in September, which is still only last month—time is a very strange concept in this job—we passed definitive policy on the need to take much tougher action on illegally modified e-bikes. The strength of feeling in this room shows there is a widespread lack of confidence that the current Government are taking the co-ordinated and sustained action we need on this issue.

This is a multifaceted problem that straddles many Government Departments, and we know from many Select Committee reports and the Institute for Government that, alas, we have not always been good at tackling problems that straddle multiple Departments. Hopefully the Minister will give us some assurance that a multi-pronged, multi-departmental approach will be taken on this issue.

Our asks of the Government are as follows: first, we need to tackle the root cause, which is the supply chains. We need to make online retailers police and stop the sale of all non-conforming e-bikes, conversion kits, batteries and chargers, dealing with the problem at its source. We also need to deal with the perverse incentives created by the gig economy. The phenomenon of worker substitution makes avoiding individual identification and accountability too easy, while the pay-per-delivery model used by many of the delivery platforms incentivises reckless and illegal behaviour. Delivery platforms should be undertaking their own speed and e-bike checks. They need to take some responsibility for the issue.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

Is the hon. Member aware that University College London published data this week indicating that almost three quarters of delivery riders surveyed are concerned about their own bike battery catching fire, while one in 10 had personally experienced overheating?

[Olly Glover]

Those statistics highlight the problem. The delivery companies need to take ownership rather than dumping the problem on everybody else, leading to the demonisation of their workforce, and expecting the Government to clear up their mess. They need to take action as well. If they will not, they need to be regulated much more toughly.

The Government also need to get on with legislating to regulate e-scooters clearly and consistently. The current postcode lottery of arrangements is unhelpful for everybody. We also need a Government-backed e-bike safety certification scheme, building on the action taken by the cycling industry to come up with its own kitemark to show that an e-bike is safely manufactured and compliant with legal standards.

Our police need much greater support. They need greater powers, they need more training on how to identify illegal e-bikes, and they need appropriate resources. We should also consider a national swap or amnesty scheme for illegally modified or designed e-bikes and e-scooters so that people can come forward. We heard from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about how seized e-bikes can be used for positive purposes. There are good examples of such amnesty schemes in New York.

The biggest reason why this needs to be tackled is the human impact, in terms of both deaths and injuries and the increase in fear and nervousness when using our streets.

[Anna Dixon]

I recently spoke to an A&E doctor in my constituency who had witnessed the rise in catastrophic injuries, particularly to children and young people. Does the hon. Member agree that we have to get to the source and ban conversion kits to stop these deadly bikes?

[Olly Glover]

I agree, and the hon. Lady is right to highlight the impact on our health service. There is also the economic impact on insurance. If this problem is not dealt with, there is a real risk that it will undermine the Government’s commendable aim to increase walking, cycling and wheeling, and all the resulting health and congestion-reduction benefits. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, and I hope to see the tough, multi-departmental action we need.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

I turn to new clause 6, which I find rather extraordinary. We have been clear about our concerns over soaring airport drop-off charges, which is precisely why Conservative peers secured a review of such charges in the other place, despite Labour initially voting against it. Why on earth do the Liberal Democrats want to introduce a £5 cap, when a number of airports currently charge considerably less than that? Belfast International and Cardiff charge £3; Belfast City charges £4; and Manchester and Newcastle charge £5. What reassurance can the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage give us that his proposal would not simply encourage airports currently charging £3 or £4 to increase their charge to £5? That would be a remarkable outcome for a measure supposedly designed to protect consumers.

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

The hon. Lady has always struck me as a master of the English language. I am sure she will therefore understand that the word “cap” does not refer to a target; it is an upper limit. There is no reason why it should induce an increase among those airports that do not feel the need for one, because those airports will have reached that decision for their own particular market. If she does believe that limits are targets, perhaps her party will withdraw its frequent opposition to such measures as 20 mph speed limits, because by that argument people only ever drive—or go—up to the cap, and therefore all other sorts of limits are harmless are well. I of course do not actually think that; I am just suggesting that is how one could logically extend her argument, if we are to view all caps and limits as in fact being targets, or incentives to hit them.

[Alison Griffiths]

Of course, the historical evidence is not in the hon. Gentleman’s favour. For example, universities charge education fees to the cap almost immediately, and the same is true of other things—market behaviour is such that that will happen. May I also correct his suggestion of the Conservative position on 20 mph limits? We do not want to get rid of all of them, only the blanket 20 mph limits. They need to be used precisely in order to meet their objective. That is why a blanket cap or ban makes no sense, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have already secured a review of these changes, and it makes sense to allow that work to take place before introducing further legislation .

[Keir Mather]

I will begin by responding to the shadow Minister. I am no physicist, but I know that a plane must fly on both its left and its right wing. I am very pleased therefore to see the consensus across the room today on the principle of a review of airport drop-off changes.

On a serious note, Members have raised a number of key themes which go to the heart of why a review has been deemed necessary by the Government. That is to ensure that when consumers travel through our airports and use the drop-off facilities, they can be assured that fairness, transparency and ultimately choice about their transport mode is at the heart of their travelling experience.

The shadow Minister was right to point to the special impact that drop-off charges can have on people with disabilities who travel. I would also focus on people who travel from rural communities to airports, who might not have the public transport access that they require. It is of course worth noting that airports provide bespoke drop-off locations for people with disabilities, but that brings us to another question about signage and access to those spaces. Those points were very well made, and those sorts of issues should form part of the discussion about how this system evolves.

Speaking to new clause 6, I have a particular question about freezing a cap in aspic, at around £5. Is it proportionate and is it enough? There was a point about disparity around the country, which is worthy of further discussion. Ultimately, I identify with the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about ensuring fairness and compliance with mode shift targets where public transport access to airports is poor. It is also worth reflecting on the shadow Minister’s contribution that actually a lot of planning requirements on airports need management of mode shift targets in a way that impacts directly on how those drop-off systems work. That is worthy of consideration.

Though we can have conversations about fairness, transparency and choice, drop-off charges are often used by airports to make very necessary improvements to their facilities and access. That is also worthy of consideration. The shadow Minister perhaps did not point to the work we have done more recently to facilitate airport expansion and modernisation, which helps the airport sector to grow. That being said, she is right to point to the fact that the cost stack faced by airports is of material concern, and therefore we have to be cognisant of what we do in terms of reviewing airport drop-off charges and think of them in the round when we consider how best to support the sector.

On that basis, there have been some great contributions by both Government and Opposition MPs speaking to the constituency impact of drop-off charges. The review will be designed to address some of those questions. I do have concerns about new clause 6, which mean that I cannot support it.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Directions about implementation

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 8, page 7, line 16, at end insert—

“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—

(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,

(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and

(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.’”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Amendment 27 is intended to make sure that expansions of airports and changes to aviation and flight paths are done with, rather than to, communities, and that their significant environmental impact is taken into account. At this point, there would usually be chuntering from the Government Benches about we Liberal Democrats being nimbys. However, the amendment is intended to counter precisely such sentiments, which often originate from the feeling that major decisions on infrastructure and transport are taken apart from, and done to, the communities that are most affected.

The amendment is in part about communities directly affected by noise and air pollution from airports, including those in the densely populated area around Heathrow, as well as around Gatwick, Luton and many other airports. However, the environmental impact of aviation affects us all. Despite the Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026, there remains a long way to go before the aviation industry has a credible plan for decarbonisation. The amendment would make sure that where directions are issued, an assessment is made of their impact, so that people have the opportunity to see the decision making and make their voices heard. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Before entering this House, I spent nearly two decades as a pharmacist. That gives a person a particular view of the world, as staying up to date with technology, processes and drugs is crucial to saving lives, and that is, in part, why I support the Bill, including clause 8. Surely, if it is good enough for pharmacy, staying up to date, with modern rules, plans and powers, is good enough for flying.

Clause 8 will help with a problem that my North Somerset constituency, which is home to Bristol airport, knows only too well. With around 12 million passengers using the airport and a potential expansion on the horizon, we must reform and bring up to date the 1950s framework that governs our airspace. My constituents stand to gain the most from that, including less noise overhead, greater efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions and fewer delays.

As with all things, there is a cost to doing nothing. Without reform, flight delays are expected to rise by 200% by 2040. We must also do all we can to help to combat climate change. The establishment of the UK Airspace Design Service will deliver the resilience and efficiency that our airspace needs. The service has begun its work in London, but will the Minister consider Bristol as a priority for the next phase? North Somerset residents have waited long enough for an airspace that works for them.

[Alison Griffiths]

I will speak briefly to amendment 27 and clause 8. On amendment 27, the Opposition of course believe that local communities should have the opportunity to make their voices heard when decisions may affect them—that is an important part of the process. Consultation should be meaningful and, intrinsically, there ought to be sensible, local, proportionate mitigations.

I have concerns, however, about the additional requirements that the amendment would impose. The clause addresses the implementation of airspace changes, including those that have already been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. I question whether it is sensible to require further environmental and noise impact assessments before the Secretary of State can even issue a direction to implement those changes. Our aim ought to be to reduce the merry-go-round of regulation that impairs growth and investment; after all, modernising our airspace is absolutely vital to improving capacity, reducing delays, and ensuring that our airports can grow and expand. The last thing we should do is introduce further requirements that risk holding up improvements that have already been through the appropriate approval process.

Of course, local communities should have their voices heard and their concerns properly considered, but that must be done proportionately. We cannot allow endless assessments and procedural hurdles to strangle the growth of our aviation sector. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of local consultation and the intentions behind the amendment, I confess that I have reservations about the additional burdens it could create. For those reasons, the Opposition will abstain in any vote on the amendment.

Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to direct that approved airspace changes and the findings of airspace design reviews are implemented. We support the modernisation of our airspace, and we want to see approved changes delivered without unnecessary delay.

[Olly Glover]

I have heard the debate; perhaps we need to have a whip-round to buy the shadow Minister a house underneath the flightpath and see if her view would remain the same then. I would like to press amendment 27 to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Olly Glover]

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

New clause 3 would call on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ban the practice of surveillance pricing when purchasing airline tickets. Many people have been in this situation: they look at the details of the journey they wish to take via plane, but when they go to book it a few hours later, the price has skyrocketed. It can often seem that flight prices change constantly, with no real rhyme or reason. Information on the extent of surveillance pricing is limited, but there have been some recent suggestions that airlines are using such methods.

Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in New York against JetBlue, claiming that it uses customers’ personal data to set ticket prices. That is an example of the phenomenon of surveillance pricing: the strategy of a seller using personally identifiable online information to set prices. It is nearly impossible to know exactly when that is occurring and how widespread it is, but there is evidence that the airline industry is quite widely using those methods. Using a different device or incognito mode on a browser to book flights are well known methods to get around this, but they are not particularly customer-friendly, and not everybody will have the tech savviness to do that.

The advance of artificial intelligence means that these types of systems are only set to become more advanced, likely in ways that we cannot currently imagine and without the necessary transparency for consumers to make an informed decision about what platform they buy from. We are not the only ones voicing concerns: as well as the lawsuit in New York, Colorado passed a Bill in May banning surveillance pricing and surveillance wages. We have concerns about the privacy of customers whose data is being scraped to price in this way. Tickets should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger, although of course we understand the need for demand-based pricing. We believe that the Government need to look into this issue more, to establish how widely it is occurring and bring in measures to ban the practice, which runs counter to consumer interests. This is a matter of fairness, transparency and privacy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for this new clause on surveillance pricing. Airline pricing should be transparent and fair, and consumers should have the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions.

Airlines operating in the United Kingdom are responsible for setting their own fares in a competitive market, but they must comply with consumer protection law and requirements on price transparency. Where pricing practices use consumers’ personal data, businesses must do so in accordance with data protection requirements.

The hon. Member is right to point to concerns that many Members and members of the public have about surveillance pricing. He is also right to say, however, that the evidence on its application is not complete. It is a fair challenge that perhaps we need to do more work to discuss this matter. Clause 1 allows for reforms to price transparency, should they be required on the basis of that work. For that reason, I do not believe that implementing this new clause at this moment is appropriate. I hope that this provides reassurance that this is a matter that we can take forward through discussion with colleagues across the House in the future, and that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw the clause.

[Olly Glover]

I am partially reassured by the Minister’s answer. I do not think the vote would be an enormous nail-biter, so I am content to withdraw on this occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Automatic Compensation

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic compensation for delays under Regulation (EC) 2004/261 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004.

(2) The scheme must ensure that compensation for delays is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flights’ planned departure date.”.—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would introduce automatic delay repay for UK flights.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Olly Glover]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Duty to provide information about flight delays—

“(1) An airline operator must provide passengers affected by a delay to a scheduled flight with timely, accurate and accessible information about that delay in accordance with this section.

(2) That duty requires the operator to–

(a) notify affected passengers of the delay as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of it;

(b) provide an updated estimated departure time at intervals of not more than 30 minutes until the flight departs or is cancelled;

(c) state the reason for the delay so far as the operator is able to do so;

(d) inform passengers of any rights to assistance, compensation or rebooking arising from the delay; and

(e) ensure that information provided under this subsection is accessible to passengers with a disability or impairment.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations–

(a) specify the minimum information threshold to which passengers are entitled under this section, including as to its content, form and frequency;

(b) impose additional requirements on airline operators in relation to delay information for passengers with complex travel circumstances;

(c) make provision about accessibility standards for the purposes of subsection (2)(e); and

(d) make provision about enforcement of the duty under this section, including by conferring functions on the Civil Aviation Authority.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are to be made by statutory instrument.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires airlines operators to provide passengers with timely, accurate and accessible information in relation to delays and establishes the provision of a minimum information threshold to which passengers are entitled.

[Olly Glover]

New clause 4 would introduce the concept of automatic delay repay to flights. The concept exists in the rail industry, although admittedly it is somewhat inconsistently applied, as we debated previously during the Railways Bill discussions, which I am sure we all remember with great fondness and nostalgia.

At present, the law grants air passengers a right to compensation for significant delays, yet places the entire burden of securing that right upon the passenger. Passengers do not always find that a welcome experience. They must identify their entitlement, submit a claim and, in many cases, pursue it through dispute resolution or the courts. Anyone who has ever had to try to get compensation from an airline knows that it is often a long, hard-fought struggle to get what one is owed.

The scale of the issue is considerable. More than 45 million passengers departed UK airports between June and August of this year. Disruption over those three months is estimated to have cost in excess of £800 million. The consumer organisation Which? has found that airlines are retaining millions of pounds in unclaimed compensation, with thousands of passengers refused payment. Airlines already hold the information required: passengers’ identity, payment details and boarding records, and the precise arrival and departure times of the planes.

As I mentioned, the rail industry has demonstrated through delay repay that compensation can be processed automatically and at scale, for clear consumer benefit. A claims-based system disproportionately disadvantages those least able to navigate it—older passengers, disabled passengers, families with young children and those who may be less confident or have less access to digital services.

An entitlement that can be realised only by the most persistent is not an entitlement equally available to all. Passengers should not have to fight for what the law already says they are owed. It should be paid to them in full as a matter of course, except of course in the minority of cases where the delay may not be clear and so on.

Were I a betting man, I would predict the Minister saying that this legislation is not the appropriate place for this measure—if I have correctly anticipated that, perhaps he might say what he thinks of the idea and where else it might be explored.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

They are together.

[Olly Glover]

My mistake.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 9, which seeks to establish a duty to provide information about flight delays. Passengers should receive timely, accurate and accessible information when their flight is delayed or disrupted. However, many of the matters addressed by this new clause are already covered by existing legislation and regulatory oversight. Airlines are already required to provide passengers with information about disruption and, where applicable, in accessible formats. The CAA monitors compliance with those requirements and recently conducted research on airline communications with passengers during disruption. The report looked at passengers’ preferences and made recommendations to airlines, and the CAA will work closely with industry to take those forward to improve passenger communications.

While the intention of this new clause is clear, it would create a new and highly prescriptive statutory regime, including requirements for updates every 30 minutes, regardless of operational circumstances. We do not believe that duplicating existing obligations is the most effective way to improve the passenger experience. Instead, our focus should be on ensuring compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the framework already in place, while retaining the flexibility under the Bill to introduce targeted requirements in future where evidence demonstrates they are needed.

[Alison Griffiths]

I will speak to new clause 9. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is seeking to achieve, and the principle behind this new clause is very sensible. Passengers deserve timely, accurate information when their flights are delayed and the industry should absolutely be doing everything possible to improve communication. However, I do have some concerns about the practical implications of requiring airlines to provide updated departure estimates every 30 minutes, particularly when delays are caused by circumstances outside their control, as we have seen with the recent National Air Traffic Services incidents. We must be careful not to impose additional costs and administrative burdens on airlines without being satisfied that those requirements are proportionate and deliver a genuine benefit to passengers. While the Conservatives strongly support its direction of travel, we have some reservations about the precise requirements in this new clause and will therefore abstain.

[Olly Glover]

My apologies; I should have covered new clause 9 when speaking at the beginning—that was my oversight—but both the Minister and the shadow Minister have summed it up well. All I would add on that particular new clause is that, while I understand what hon. Members have said, we are going to have to do something to improve this issue, rather than just hoping that the marvellous aviation sector sorts it. These are very long-standing problems. Technology, and information technology in particular, have moved on. It should be easier to do these things well. The Minister keeps referring to clause 1—goodness me, the heavy weight of expectation really does sit upon it; it will perhaps be the most impactful clause 1 there has ever been in a Government Bill, the way he is talking it up. We can keep an eye on that in future. I shall not push these new clauses to a vote, as we do have a few more to get through; I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

National Disruptive Passenger Database: Duty to publish proposals

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish proposals for a National Disruptive Passenger Database.

(2) The proposals under subsection (1) should include, but not be limited to, provisions that would—

(a) facilitate airlines to share information on disruptive passengers;

(b) require airlines to notify the Government of an incident involving a disruptive passenger;

(c) alert participating airlines when a person in the database books a flight; and

(d) provide airlines with an option of refusing to carry passengers flagged by the database.”—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a National Disruptive Passenger Database.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Olly Glover]

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

I am up and down like a jack-in-the-box. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a national disruptive passenger database, for all the obvious reasons that we know of. Alas, when one is on a plane and there is a disruptive passenger, one tends not to have the luxury of moving to the next carriage, as one can on a train. One of the many advantages of rail travel is that fact that one has that freedom—although not always, of course, because trains are sometimes rammed or short-formed, and so on. I am not going to wang on for too long about this, because I believe that the Government have some good plans on this topic, and I will give the speaking time over to the Minister to hopefully tell us about them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

I thank the Minister for his response. To conclude, although we welcome the debate that the new clause has prompted, and we recognise the importance of the issue that it raises, we will be abstaining, pending more information from the Minister.

[Olly Glover]

We have heard enough. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Passenger Luggage Minimum Sizing: Duty to produce regulations

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament regulations providing for ‘British Standard’ luggage for Air Travel.

(2) The regulations specified in subsection (1) must set out the following definitions—

(a) ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’, namely a hand bag or personal item form of carry-on luggage; and

(b) ‘British Standard Suitcase’, namely a form of large carry-on bag.

(3) Regulations made under this section must provide for a minimum size, both in terms of dimensions and weight, for both the British Standard Hand Luggage and the British Standard Suitcase, and require airlines to allow luggage which meets the definition of a British Standard Hand Luggage to be taken on board by passengers without charge.

(4) The regulations made under subsection (1) may permit airlines to charge passengers who wish to carry a British Standard Suitcase aboard, however airlines may not impose a restriction on ‘carry-on luggage’ which would be smaller than the definitions of a ‘British Standard Suitcase’.

(5) Regulations made under this section must establish a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet the definitions of either ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’ or ‘British Standard Suitcase’.”—(Luke Taylor.)

This new clause makes provision for a minimum standard for hand luggage and carry-on bags and establishes a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet those standards.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Taylor]

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

The new clause returns to my overarching theme, and that of all of us, which is how to make flying slightly less horrible for all involved—for families, the disabled, those who need to drive to the airport. The new clause would take a huge step towards making flying marginally less stressful and, importantly, less expensive for anyone who brings hand luggage aboard a flight.

To explain the new clause as clearly as possible, I will start by defining the difference between the British standard hand luggage in subsection (2)(a) and the British standard suitcase in subsection (2)(b). Those admittedly somewhat overly theatrical terms simply act as minimum standards and not, sadly for any aspiring baggage entrepreneurs among us, as required suitcase models or dimensions.

Regulation EU261 has recently been agreed for passengers departing from inside the EU. That regulation will entitle passengers to carry a personal item that fits under the seat in front of them, which corresponds roughly to my British standard hand luggage item. Under EU261, that has a maximum dimension defined as 40 cm by 30 cm by 15 cm, adding up to 85 cm combined. EU261 also defines one piece of hand luggage, which corresponds roughly in concept to my British standard suitcase, as weighing up to 7 kg and requiring a maximum of 100 cm in combined dimensions.

We are all very aware that the UK is no longer part of the EU. Opinions on the wisdom of that may vary, but it means that British passengers may be entitled to a free cabin bag only when returning home on a carrier covered by the new EU regulation. For example, easyJet has confirmed that the changes will apply to flights returning from EU countries and not to departures from the UK. Passengers flying out of the UK will therefore not benefit from a free item of hand luggage, despite the new rules in Europe. The airline easyJet said that the rules will apply to UK passengers only on return flights.

That demonstrates the need for the new clause. It would avoid streams and streams of passengers potentially being fined by airlines on their way home to Europe, because of different rules on one leg of the trip from another. If we do not address the issue, we risk tourists being put off visiting our country due to the lack of parity, costing our fragile economy and hospitality industry huge amounts of revenue.

Today, we have already heard about how passengers run a gauntlet of fees, charges, fines and mistakes: as they travel from home, through the drop-off curve where they are forced to pay a charge or are fined; at check-in, where they may be forced to pay a fee to guarantee that they can sit near their children or to check a bag; and then at security, where they might have their perfume or purchased drink taken away if slightly over the limit. Having navigated our way to the gate, we can see the fragile aluminium or carbon-fibre tube, mere millimetres thick, which, together with the wings full of extremely flammable jet fuel, will convey us at 600 mph at 40,000 feet through storms and turbulence, lightning and rain, to a far-off land while we stew in 200 strangers’ halitosis and flatulence, surrounded by other people’s screaming children—while ours sit at the far corner of the plane, because we did not pay the fee to guarantee we would all sit together.

Before boarding, however, we must face the most terrifying hurdle of all: the gate agent and the handbag sizing frame. We look down and suddenly realise that we have packed our hand luggage in our easyJet bag, instead of the Ryanair bag—easyJet, alongside British Airways and Jet2, allow the most generously sized bag for large airlines, at 56 cm by 45 cm by 25 cm, which compares with 55 cm by 40 cm by 20 cm for Ryanair. The 1 cm-height, 5 cm-width and 5 cm-depth exceedance of that bag clearly means that it cannot fit on the 40-metre long aircraft I longingly gaze at through the terminal window. I shuffle forward with my bag. I am now past the point of no return, because I could have dealt with my error at check-in by paying £45-ish to check the bag into the hold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Regulatory alignment does not have to catch consumers out, and it can also provide regulatory certainty for business. Of course, the Government keep developments in the European Union under close watch and advisement, and I saw the ones made in relation to both baggage sizes and family seating. The beauty of this legislation is that it allows us, where appropriate, to align with European rules when it is in the best interests of both British business and consumers. He pre-empts a point that I was just about to make on clause 1, which, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage rightly reflected, has done a great deal of the heavy lifting: it allows us to make these changes once we have had time to consider matters carefully.

I have absolutely no doubt that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will continue to make a full contribution to those discussions. I do have sympathy with what he says, but I do not believe that now is the right moment to put what is quite a prescriptive regime on the face of this legislation. I thank him for what has been a very thought-provoking debate.

[Olly Glover]

How do I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam?

[Peter Fortune]

Quickly.

[Olly Glover]

One will endeavour to be brief; I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s ventures always succeed in that aim either. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam generally shows himself to be a champion of the aviation industry, yet his description of the experience perhaps undermines that brand.

I want to speak to new clause 11, which would introduce a passenger charter for air travel. My hon. Friend has talked about a micro example of some of the challenges of customer service in the industry; new clause 11 is more about the macro—the wider picture. Airline customer service is too often not up to scratch, as we have discussed already, especially when problems arise. Which? research in 2024 found that airlines were the third-worst sector for overall customer service. Another Which? customer satisfaction survey earlier this year found that four in 10 customers experienced problems when contacting an airline with an issue or query. The survey also found that Ryanair was the worst short-haul airline for customer satisfaction, although it is interesting to note how many people continue to use it. That is one for the business and marketing students to ponder.

In that survey, customers were asked to rate airlines on numerous factors, including whether the flight was on time, last-minute cancellations, how big the seat pitch was, seat comfort, how easy the booking process and boarding were, customer service, food and drink, cabin environment and value for money. Ryanair’s response was that the survey was “fake”—who does that remind us of?—and that nobody pays attention to these “manufactured surveys”.

For those reasons, we have tabled this passenger charter for air travel. It would provide targets on punctuality, reliability and improved onboard amenities, including in-flight wi-fi. It would also take steps to ensure that delay compensation is automatic and digital. The charter is ultimately designed to promote a customer-first approach in the aviation sector, just as we have sought to do for the railways. Poorly performing airlines such as Ryanair, which dismiss negative customer feedback as fake, could clearly use some statutory direction on how to treat their customers.

We support the principle of redesigning the skies and recognise that they need updating, but we must ensure that, in doing so, we do not leave communities on the ground suffering a bad service. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on new clause 11. Mrs McVey, with your generosity, we would like to press new clauses 8 and 11 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Passengers’ charter for air travel—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter for Air Travel.

(2) A Passengers’ Charter for Air Travel must include—

(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any flight operated to, from or within the United Kingdom;

(b) targets for punctuality and reliability of air services;

(c) timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on aircraft, including in relation to—

(i) seat design and minimum seat pitch,

(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable in-flight connectivity,

(iii) provision of power outlets and USB charging points,

(iv) storage for carry-on luggage, pushchairs and prams,

(v) provision of lavatories, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and

(vi) provision of in-flight catering on any service with a total scheduled duration of at least two hours;

(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of aircraft, airports, areas immediately surrounding airports and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and alternative transport arrangements, for passengers with disabilities requiring relevant equipment such as wheelchairs;

(e) extension of the principles behind existing flight delay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities; and

(f) a commitment that air carriers will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—

(i) are digital by default;

(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation; and

(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by the carrier from a customer's booking or ticketing account.”

This new clause creates provision for a Passengers’ Charter.

[Olly Glover]

First, I apologise: there was an error in my notes as to the groupings and I had new clause 11 in the previous one. That is entirely my error, and I apologise to the Committee for the confusion. The good news is that the speech on new clause 11 has already been done, and the one for new clause 10 is significantly more concise—good news all round, I would suggest. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, marvellous.

New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report two years after the passage of the Act reviewing its impact on passenger protections and standards. Given the somewhat concise nature of the Bill, for which we might be grateful in the Committee but may regret in future, we feel that Parliament needs a formal mechanism by which to judge whether the Government’s promises of strengthened rights, for instance at the baggage carousel, havematerialised. The new clause would help to ensure that passenger protections and standards are not weakened as a result of the Bill. If the Minister is not minded to agree, perhaps he will say how else this legislation can be reviewed and he and his Department held to account, so that the many high expectations of clause 1 are fulfilled and delivered in.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 10, which would require a report on this legislation’s impact on passenger protections and standards two years after Royal Assent. I agree that it is important to ensure that legislation and regulation have the intended impact, but it is not necessary to include in primary legislation a requirement for a post-implementation review.

In practice, the inclusion of such review requirements must already be considered when developing secondary legislation and included where appropriate. Given that the much talked about clause 1 will give the Secretary of State the power to amend air passenger rights legislation through regulations, that would be the most suitable point at which to decide whether such a review was needed for a specific regulation and to determine its scope. In addition, a Government amendment made in the other place—clause 5(2)—requires the CAA to report annually on its use of the direct enforcement powers introduced by the Bill. Parliament will therefore receive regular, ongoing information on how the new enforcement regime is operating. As such, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw new clause 10.

I also thank him for tabling new clause 11, which would require the Government to introduce a statutory passengers’ charter for air travel. I recognise the ambition behind this new clause, but as was made clear when this proposal was considered in the other place, a statutory charter is not the right or most effective mechanism for delivering on that objective. The fundamental difficulty is how such a charter would operate in practice: if drafted broadly, it would create expectations that could not meaningfully be enforced; if drafted prescriptively, it would quickly become inflexible. Where reform is justified, targeted and evidence-based, regulation under clause 1 will offer a clearer and more effective route, allowing requirements to be introduced where there is evidence of consumer detriment, without prescribing broad service standards in primary legislation.

The new clause brings together matters that are already addressed through existing legislation and regulatory frameworks, while others are commercial decisions properly left to airlines. Established requirements cover safety, accessibility and passenger rights, and those protections can be strengthened through statutory instruments where the evidence demonstrates that change is needed. In contrast, catering, wi-fi, seat configuration, charging points and baggage allowances are ultimately commercial matters that properly sit with airlines.

Different operating models give passengers a choice between price and service. Low-cost carriers, for instance, can offer lower fares because they use higher-density seating and unbundle optional services. Imposing uniform statutory standards in these areas could reduce choice, increase costs and make affordable air travel less widely available. Nor are all the proposed commitments suitable for statutory targets. Concepts such as “value for money” and “adequate seating” are subjective, while punctuality and reliability can be affected by weather, air traffic restrictions and other factors outside an airline’s control.

The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Department is already developing a non-statutory accessible travel charter. That work will set clear, shared expectations for transport operators and local authorities to improve accessibility for disabled people across all modes. It is a more focused and practical response than the wide-ranging statutory charter proposed here.

In short, the new clause would duplicate existing frameworks, constrain legitimate commercial flexibility and create a risk of unintended consequences. For those reasons, I cannot support it and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 11.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Olly Glover]

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

I know that you, Ms McVeigh, and the Committee will be delighted to know that this will be my final speech in this Bill Committee, because the last new clause will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The end is in sight.

New clause 12 would prohibit any powers in the Bill from being used for the purposes of airport expansion. Airport expansion is an entirely valid debate to be had and, indeed, the Transport Committee is spending innumerable hours at the moment scrutinising the Heathrow expansion national policy statement. I know everyone here who is also on the Transport Committee is very much enjoying that task. The new clause would ensure that the efforts to advance airport expansion are handled appropriately, transparently and not through the back door. We have received reassurances from Ministers in the Lords that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion and we take those assurances in good faith, but the time when British politics and our constitution, if that term can be used, can be relied upon in good faith has long gone and there is no substitute for legal guarantees.

While we are glad that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Aviation Minister are still with us and hope to continue the stewardship of their Department for a long time, none of us knows the future and we do not know who will be in charge going forward. Without clear instructions written into the Bill, the public and local communities do not have reassurance that powers included here will not be used for airport expansion via the back door. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against vast, unscrutinised delegated powers that are potentially contained in this legislation.

While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition of a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister in the Lords, the noble Lord Hendy, pointed to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement as the proper avenue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in a Bill.

While we recognise that this new clause is something of a blunt tool, if the Government truly have no intention of using the powers in this Bill to facilitate airport expansion we see no reason why such a clear safeguard cannot be written into it. It is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad—we come back to the marvellous clause 1. The Bill touches everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making function. Local residents deserve the certainty that can only come from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of a regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause, which seeks to prevent the powers in the Bill from being used “in connection with” airport expansion. The reasons I cannot support this new clause are clear and the central point is straightforward: this Bill is about aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. Its measures are needed irrespective of whether an expansion proposal comes forward and irrespective of the outcome of any such proposal.

The Government have been clear that they support airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements, but such proposals must be considered through the established planning system. They are not authorised, facilitated or decided through this Bill.

That distinction is reflected in the scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, including my appearance tomorrow before the Transport Select Committee, which I very much look forward to. Airport expansion is considered through dedicated processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and Parliamentary oversight. Nothing in this Bill displaces those processes or prejudges their outcomes. The new clause would therefore not provide a meaningful safeguard against airport expansion. Instead, its broad reference to powers used “in connection with” facilitating expansion could create uncertainty well beyond any individual proposal. It could cast doubt on routine regulatory activity that neither approves nor promotes expansion, potentially constraining the effective operation of the aviation framework to no clear benefit. Put simply, in my view this new clause seeks to guard against something the Bill does not do, while risking unintended consequences for what the Bill must do. It is therefore unnecessary and could inhibit legitimate regulatory functions. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm—it is not yet shared by those on the Government Benches, but perhaps that will come in time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Here we are with yet another Transport Bill Committee. People often say that transport is a boring, unsexy topic—

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

No!

[Olly Glover]

Well, indeed. Yet the Government are dedicating so much legislative time to it, which rather undermines that thesis.

I also note that a number of Government Members have already served their time in Transport Bill Committee jail, and now they are here again. I hope that is a sign of investment in their futures, rather than a punishment, because some would argue that being on a Public Bill Committee sometimes feels like a punishing, if necessary, duty—although I am sure the Minister would not endorse such seditious sentiments.

I will defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on the substance of these amendments, but I will just say a little about the Bill as a whole and how I hope the Committee will operate. We broadly support a large amount of the Bill, but there are some aspects that we have concerns that. Perhaps there is a little too much faith being placed in the abilities of the CAA without enough oversight of it. We would also like to see some protections for consumers and the communities affected by aviation expansion. Of course, those communities include everybody on the planet, because of the significant environmental impact that aviation has, but I will say more on that as we as we go.

As for this Committee, of course, the normal arrangement is for the Government to reject all ideas that are not their own. At this stage, however, I lay down a challenge to those on the Government Benches: could it be different this time? The new Prime Minister has indicated his willingness to embrace Liberal Democrat ideas on occasion. For example, yesterday he warmly embraced our policy of banning people listening to things on their phone in public without using their headphones. I hope the new culture initiated by the Prime Minister will be embraced by the Minister and that the Government will perhaps accept at least one of our ideas in this Committee. That is my hope; we shall see if it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 2

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 3

Noes: 11

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

“(1A) Regulations under this section may not reduce the standards of service and protection available to passengers and consumers of airport and air transport services compared to any provision which those regulations replace.”

This amendment ensures that regulations made under this section do not make provision setting out lower passenger and consumer standards than current regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 25, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—

“(2A) The regulations must include provision prohibiting a carrier from seating members of the same booking in such a way that any child under the age of 16, or any adult requiring care, is not seated adjacent to, or within immediate proximity of, at least one accompanying adult or carer included in that booking.

(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an "accompanying adult or carer" means a person who is—

(a) a parent or guardian of the child,

(b) a carer responsible for the child or adult requiring care during the journey, or

(c) any other adult who has legal responsibility for the child or adult requiring care,

and who is included in the same booking as the child or adult requiring care.

(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an "adult requiring care" means a person aged 16 or over who requires assistance or support from another person during the journey by reason of disability, illness or any other condition affecting their ability to travel independently.”

This amendment requires regulations to prohibit airlines from separating family groups travelling under the same booking, ensuring that young children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult or carer.

Amendment 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) Where regulations modify passenger standards, including but not limited to mandatory compensation provisions, and such standards depart from equivalent assimilated law or other EU aviation standards recognised by the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must ensure that the consumer protection afforded by the replacement domestic standard is equal or superior to the standard it replaces.

(3B) In making regulations under subsection (3A), the Secretary of State must keep passenger standards under continuous review to identify opportunities for enhanced consumer protection, and shall have a duty to implement such higher standards of compensation and protection wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so.”

This amendment ensures that if the UK diverges from EU aviation laws regarding passenger rights and compensation, the new domestic standards must match or exceed the level of protection currently provided by the EU.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(4A) Before making regulations under this section for the purpose of aligning United Kingdom law with any provision of European Union law or any international standard, requirement or practice, the Secretary of State must publish a statement explaining—

(a) the provision of European Union law or international standard, requirement or practice with which the regulations are intended to align,

(b) the reasons why the Secretary of State considers such alignment to be necessary or appropriate,

(c) whether, and if so to what extent, the regulations make provision that goes beyond such alignment, and

(d) the likely impact of the regulations on passengers, air transport service providers, airport operators and competition in the aviation sector.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement before making regulations under clause 1 for the purpose of aligning UK law with EU law or international standards, explaining the basis for alignment, whether the regulations go beyond it, and their likely impact.

New clause 14—Automatic Refunds: failure to honour pre-purchased seats—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic refunds for passengers who paid for specific seats on planes but who were then allocated different seats without their consent.

(2) The scheme must ensure that the refund specified in subsection (1) is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flight's planned departure date.”

This new clause would introduce a refund scheme for passengers who have paid for seats on plane journeys but who are then allocated different seats, without their permission, by the airline, and not require the passenger to apply for the refund manually.

[Olly Glover]

The amendments and new clause 14 are intended to strengthen the consumer and general citizen protections that the Bill has the opportunity to provide, should our amendments be accepted.

Amendment 24 would stipulate that regulations coming from the Bill cannot create lower passenger and consumer standards than currently exist. This is important because, whether we are debating information rights, delay compensation or the powers conferred on the Secretary of State, the test has to be the same: does the provision leave the passenger better protected or leave the door open to an erosion of the standards that they currently enjoy? The amendment does not seek to load new obligations on to the Government but simply asks that when Ministers use the powers that the Bill grants them, they cannot use them to quietly lower the bar. Where the Government take a power to make new regulations, the existing baseline of protection should not be capable of being diminished through that power.

This approach is not novel; section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 requires a Minister, before the Second Reading of any Bill touching environmental law, to confirm that it will not reduce existing environmental protection. If they cannot do so, they must say so and explain why. That single duty has kept the floor from moving. Air quality standards inherited from European Union law were carried through undiluted, and remain in force today.

Amendment 25 would put into law that family groups cannot be separated when travelling under the same booking, ensuring that children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult. In other aspects of life, when someone makes a booking and finds that they have been seated separately from their children or family, that is not considered acceptable; the booking has to be honoured or redress has to be made.

Even on other modes of transport, that is the case. For example, on a train, if someone reserves multiple seats in the same booking, the booking system automatically tries to seat the whole party together—although admittedly, on occasion, there is disruption, or CrossCountry decides to put on a four or five-car train, ruining all that, but that is perhaps another matter. Why do those arrangements not also apply to airlines?

This issue might be more common with some airlines than others, but they can currently get away with what they are doing because there are no restrictions. We hear far too many heartbreaking stories of passengers being treated in that way, and particularly of passengers with disabilities being treated as a lower priority.

We are glad to hear reports that the Government have been convinced of the case that we set out for this change in the House of Lords and are now considering consulting on scrapping any charges for being seated next to children under the age of 14. However, we really believe that this requires focus, so we very much hope that the Government will view amendment 25 favourably or otherwise indicate what they are going to do instead of accepting it. Subject to the Government not being willing to accept that principle, we will press amendment 25 to a Division.

Amendment 26 would require that, if the UK diverges from EU aviation laws regarding passenger rights and compensation, the new domestic standards must match or exceed the level of protection currently provided by the EU. For the reasons that I have outlined, it is important that we maintain our current standards as a minimum—of course, we want to increase them.

New clause 14 would support amendment 25 by introducing automatic refunds for a failure to honour pre-purchased seats.

Let me say something briefly about the Opposition’s amendment 7. I understand what the Conservative shadow Minister intends with the amendment, and I would be interested in hearing her case if it is about transparency and good governance; however, I feel there is a tendency on the Conservative Benches to table such amendments more when it comes to European Union matters than to others, which I find ironic given how often they accuse the Liberal Democrats of being obsessed with Europe. Perhaps they have a comparable obsession, but in a different direction.

I think I have said more than enough, and I look forward to hearing other Members’ comments.

[Alison Griffiths]

I will speak to amendments 24 to 26, amendment 7, which stands in my name, and new clause 14, which have all been grouped together.

Amendment 24 sets out an eminently sensible ambition, namely to ensure that any future regulations do not water down the passenger and consumer protections currently in force. That is an important principle and one that we recognise. Of course, as hon. Members know, the Opposition support a thriving, competitive aviation sector, but passengers must also have confidence that, when they travel, they will be treated fairly and the protections that they rely upon will be upheld.

That is particularly important for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Far too many people still face unnecessary difficulties when travelling by air, whether regarding the provision of assistance, the handling of mobility equipment or simply being able to travel independently and with dignity. Those matters deserve serious attention. As we—and particularly my Conservative colleagues in the other place—have consistently argued, accessibility should be considered from the outset rather than treated as an afterthought.

However, I have some reservations about binding ourselves to every existing regulation, particularly where certain requirements may create perverse incentives, impose disproportionate burdens or simply fail to deliver the outcomes that they were intended to achieve. We should always be in the business of retaining the flexibility to revisit and improve regulations where necessary, while ensuring that passengers remain properly protected. We welcome the overarching objective of the amendment, but given those concerns, we will abstain.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government should not prescribe a particular scheme and timetable in primary legislation, without first assessing the evidence and ensuring that any intervention is both proportionate and workable. Should there be evidence to go further in this space, clause 1 would enable necessary reforms to be made. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the hon. Member not to press it.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Minister for his comments. We are content not to press all the amendments, except amendment 25. The Minister has given some assurances about the Government’s future intentions, which are good but not quite enough. With the Chair’s permission, we would be a grateful for a Division on amendment 25.

[Alison Griffiths]

We would like to press amendment 7 to a vote. I do not consider the Minister to have sufficiently addressed our concerns around the reasons and impact of the provisions in the Bill.

[Olly Glover]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 25, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—

“(2A) The regulations must include provision prohibiting a carrier from seating members of the same booking in such a way that any child under the age of 16, or any adult requiring care, is not seated adjacent to, or within immediate proximity of, at least one accompanying adult or carer included in that booking.

(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an ‘accompanying adult or carer’ means a person who is—

(a) a parent or guardian of the child,

(b) a carer responsible for the child or adult requiring care during the journey, or

(c) any other adult who has legal responsibility for the child or adult requiring care,

and who is included in the same booking as the child or adult requiring care.

(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an ‘adult requiring care’ means a person aged 16 or over who requires assistance or support from another person during the journey by reason of disability, illness or any other condition affecting their ability to travel independently.”—(Olly Glover.)

This amendment requires regulations to prohibit airlines from separating family groups travelling under the same booking, ensuring that young children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult or carer.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

There is a lot of talking from me about this part of the Bill. I thank hon. Members for their contributions so far. Clause 5 is another part of the Government’s objective of strengthening consumer protection in the aviation sector. It will give the CAA the tools it needs to enforce consumer law effectively.

The CAA’s current powers are not strong enough, and court processes can be slow and resource-intensive. The clause brings the CAA into line with other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, by allowing it to investigate breaches and take direct enforcement action where appropriate. That means that, when passenger rights are breached, the CAA will be able to act quicker and secure better outcomes for consumers.

The clause also includes mechanisms to ensure oversight of the CAA’s enforcement activity, which were strengthened in response to scrutiny in the other place. The Bill now requires the CAA to report on the use of the powers, and that information will be laid before Parliament, ensuing appropriate scrutiny and accountability. This measure will strengthen consumer protection in the aviation sector by enabling quicker and more effective enforcement, improving compliance with consumer law and giving passengers greater confidence that their rights are protected when travelling by air.

Amendment 11, tabled by the shadow Minister, would introduce an independent review of a CAA direct enforcement notice before the existing right of appeal to the courts is exercised. I agree with the underlying principle that organisations must have a clear and independent means of challenging the CAA’s decisions. That safeguard is important, but the statutory right of appeal already provides it. The amendment would instead add an administrative stage ending only in a non-binding recommendation. That could delay resolution and increase complexity, particularly where a party then proceeds to court in any event. It would also create an uneven framework by adding a review process for CAA notices, but not equivalent notices issued by other direct enforcers. There is no clear case for that distinction.

The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with air passenger rights in the first instance. Where its decision is challenged, the court offers independent scrutiny and a binding outcome. A further non-binding review would add process, not meaningful protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

Schedule 1 gives effect to clause 5, which provides the Civil Aviation Authority with direct consumer enforcement powers. The schedule provides the CAA with the detailed investigatory and enforcement powers needed to exercise those functions. It enables the CAA to investigate suspected breaches, take direct enforcement action and impose penalties where appropriate, while also providing for appeals and reporting requirements. The schedule is therefore an essential part of the new enforcement regime established by clause 5, setting out the detailed powers and procedures needed for it to operate effectively, and I commend it to the Committee.

Finally in this grouping, clause 6 ensures that the CAA can effectively enforce existing safety and consumer requirements relating to air carrier identity. It does so by bringing existing legislation relating to air carrier identity requirements within the CAA’s consumer enforcement framework. This legislation sets out requirements for passengers to be informed of the identity of the air carrier operating their flight and requires the Secretary of State to maintain a list of air carriers banned from operating in the United Kingdom. Clause 6 does not create new requirements for passengers or airlines; rather, it strengthens the enforcement of existing regulation, ensuring that passengers have the information they need and that measures designed to protect passengers and maintain safety standards can be effectively enforced.

[Olly Glover]

I want to say a bit about the Conservative amendment 11, which would introduce an independent review stage before an appeal went to the High Court or the Court of Session. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that it is a sensible amendment. We are somewhat perplexed by the logic of the Government’s not being keen on it, given that in the Railways Bill the Government put in an extremely high bar for any legal action against a decision taken by Great British Rail or the Office of Rail and Road.

Using the same principle, logic would suggest that the Government should welcome opportunities to avoid litigation and protracted court procedures—opportunities that, to us, would quite sensibly introduce an element of peer review to ensure that the enforcement action or notice taken by the CAA made sense before it got to the courts. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on why, given that context, he thinks this amendment does not make sense.

[Alison Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his support, and indeed the Minister for recognising that the underlying principle is absolutely the right one—that this is an important safeguard, to use his words. It is not administrative, as he argued; we should be ensuring that the CAA is not judge and jury.

Clause 5 and schedule 1 give the Civil Aviation Authority new enforcement powers, while clause 6 brings the existing rules on banned air carriers and informing passengers which airline will operate their flight within the consumer protection enforcement framework. We support those provisions and the principle of effective enforcement, but we believe that the process needs an additional safeguard for those affected by the CAA's decisions. As such, we have tabled amendment 11, which stands in my name.

The Opposition have tabled the amendment to ensure that there is a more sensible and balanced process for reviewing enforcement notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. As the Bill is currently drafted, the route for challenging these decisions is through an appeal to the High Court or Court of Session. I must say I think that that is quite unreasonable. Surely there should be an opportunity for an independent review of the decision before businesses are expected to embark on potentially costly and lengthy court proceedings. That is precisely what our amendment seeks to achieve.

We are simply suggesting that an additional check should be available, allowing an independent reviewer to consider whether a notice could be confirmed, varied or withdrawn before the matter proceeds to court. That would provide greater certainty and clarity for those affected, while helping to ensure that the process was fair and proportionate. Importantly, it would not prevent anyone from pursuing an appeal through the courts if they remained dissatisfied. It is an entirely sensible safeguard; I hope the Minister will now recognise the merits of the amendment and support it.

Highways (Financing) Bill

Olly Glover Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I start by welcoming the Minister to his place. He has been blessed with the opportunity to bring another scintillating transport Bill to this House, which has clearly excited a very large number of hon. Members.

Starting with the Minister’s comments about the lower Thames crossing, which is clearly a major reason why this legislation has been laid, he is quite right to say that there is a clear need to relieve pressure on the Dartford crossings that connect the two ends of the M25 across the Thames. However, it is interesting that we seem to be assuming that traffic growth is inevitable, which is an assumption that the Government were not quite so willing to make when they opposed passenger growth targets in the Railways Bill. I make that point purely because although we of course need to cater for future increases in road demand, there is also a lot we can do to transfer that demand—both passenger and freight—to other transport modes, particularly for long-distance traffic.

In that context, while the lower Thames crossing has merit in that it will relieve the existing Thames crossings, the Government appear to be repeating the mistake of many past Labour and Conservative Governments by seeing road building as the sole answer and neglecting rail infrastructure. The channel tunnel is one of the engineering wonders of the world, yet it continues to be under-utilised, especially for rail freight—in fact, largely the rail freight does not exist, beyond lorries going on LeShuttle or whatever it is called this week. Channel tunnel use charges are one of the barriers; another is the capabilities of the UK rail network within Kent. There are well-developed plans for upgrades to the Kent conventional rail network to accommodate W12 loading gauge freight trains, and intentions to create a freight hub served by High Speed 1 at Barking, which would benefit from acceleration.

As drafted, the Bill would also give the Government significant powers to impose road tolls and charges on major roads. Introducing a new financing model for the strategic road network, while the local roads that make up 99% of the country’s roads in terms of length are facing an £18 billion repairs backlog, is an interesting choice by the Government, but let us engage directly with that choice.

There are examples of the concept of tolls and charges working well both here and abroad. Many choose to use the M6 toll road instead of the M6 despite there being a fee to pay, because it reduces some of the “road to hell” experience that the M6 often is for many. In France, motorway tolls are common, if not universal, and many European countries use a vignette system, where a driver pays for a sticker, or a digital version of that, to go on their vehicle, which enables them to use motorways and trunk roads. The advantage is that people who want to use motorways and trunk roads pay a little bit more for those roads, but people who use their car only for very local purposes do not have to pay that cost.

[Mr Holden]

Would the hon. Member accept that the Bill allows for exactly what we see in France, which is toll roads across the entire strategic road network?

[Olly Glover]

Not all French motorways are tolled. Certain sections of them are—often the busiest sections. I will come to what the right hon. Gentleman said about what the Bill does and does not do.

The Liberal Democrats’ position is that there needs to be close attention to the detail and scrutiny of the way in which charges and tolls—like those in Europe and on the M6, which I mentioned—are implemented. However, the Bill leaves all of those questions of operation, management, oversight and regulation of tolls and charges largely undefined; they are often relegated to secondary legislation. The Government must ensure that road users are not held to ransom by licence holders, who must be properly regulated. We have seen disastrous effects in other sectors when these things have been got wrong.

The Minister and the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) gave good examples of how a regulated asset base approach, and indeed private finance initiatives, can be used for good, but of course there are many bad examples as well. I am not sure whether too many people believe that the water industry’s use of the regulated asset base approach has been enormously successful. We certainly need regulation of private investors and to ensure that the triggers for the special administration regime defined in the legislation are not too weak. Of course, there are also many examples of public private partnerships and private finance initiatives that have not ended well, particularly with hospitals and the London underground.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Member is making a very thoughtful speech. I was recently on a private holiday in Texas, being driven by a friend. In that state, there is a number of toll roads, so people have a chip attached to the windscreen that allows them to transition from public roads, as it were, to toll roads and back again, with that chip recording what they have to pay as they go from one to the other. The technology to do this already exists—I saw it with my own eyes. We are just a bit worried that the Government might be a bit too keen to adopt it.

[Olly Glover]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that if we are to go down that road, it needs to be transparent and done in a way that gives confidence to consumers. Car drivers and road users are consumers, and we should think of them in the same way we do customers on the railway or on planes. If such a thing is to be done, it must be done with great care and thought. That is why we need to scrutinise the legislation carefully.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Such schemes are hardly new: in London, we have had the congestion charge for many years now—[Interruption.] We have it elsewhere, too; drivers in and around our major cities are used to a charge they have to include in their budgets.

[Olly Glover]

Yes, London is another example of where some of these things are already happening, but the fact that they have been controversial at times is exactly why they need to be done with thought and, ideally, in a manner that avoids some of the interminable cultural wars that we must always have on every topic these days. Instead, they should be done with consensus and based on sound reason and analysis.

We are not satisfied that the Bill as drafted provides that transparency and accountability, so we will not take a view on it as a whole today. We hope that the Government will be more receptive to some of our ideas to improving the Bill at later Commons stages than perhaps they have been hitherto.