Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Justin Madders

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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 (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Justin Madders

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- 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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Olly Glover and Justin Madders

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Justin Madders

Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Olly Glover and Justin Madders

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.

--- 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.