Highways (Financing) Bill

Richard Quigley Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to this Bill and to talk in particular about its primary focus on the financing of the lower Thames crossing. My constituency will be one of the two areas most impacted by both the operation and the construction of the lower Thames crossing. I will not spend too long dwelling on the question of the road itself. I have been quite vocal in my reservations about the wider scheme—the two Ministers on the Front Bench are nodding along—but that decision has long been taken, and with £1 billion of public money already invested in the scheme, it seems unlikely that it will be reversed. However, the finance mechanisms in the Bill will provide much-needed clarity for the many thousands of people who will be directly impacted by the lower Thames crossing that the project will go ahead. After decades of uncertainty, a number of my constituents will find that most welcome.

I am determined that my constituents will benefit in as many ways as possible from the construction of one of the most significant national infrastructure projects in a generation on their doorstep. However, I seek the Minister’s reassurance on certain aspects of the regulated asset base model that the Bill provides for, particularly how the model allows for an operator to recoup the costs of construction and maintenance via a toll mechanism—mitigating the financial and construction risk of an operator building the lower Thames crossing in a kind of private-public partnership. That potentially creates a natural monopoly, which the Office of Rail and Road, as the regulator, will oversee.

My constituents and I have some probably fairly justifiable concerns about a private enterprise levying tolls, particularly via the use of automatic number plate recognition at tollbooths. Many have had experiences with the current Dartford crossing toll operator in which, when things go wrong, it is hard to get redress. Owing to faulty ANPR, a not insignificant number of drivers have found themselves accruing hefty fines, sometimes into the thousands of pounds, for journeys they have not even undertaken. They can find it very difficult to get redress or to get the fines cancelled or written off. When I attempted to contact the operator of the scheme, I discovered that it was an offshore entity—operating, I think, out of the United States—and it was all but impossible to see transparently who was running the tolls or hold them to account. I would therefore be grateful for the Minister’s assurances around the transparency and accountability of any toll operator for a future Thames crossing, particularly as to how we get redress if things go wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised the Office of Rail and Road’s potential lack of teeth. We all know the difficulties that Ofwat has had in regulating the water industry; rightly, there is now a national outcry about the effectiveness of that regulator in holding private companies to account. It is fair to question whether the Office of Rail and Road is sufficiently equipped to hold to account a private toll operator for the lower Thames, particularly when it comes to redress, or to look at how the tolls are operated.

I also seek reassurance around congestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) spoke about the congestion caused by the Dartford crossing. Believe you me, I know that all too well. I am a lifelong resident of the place that I have the honour of representing, Thurrock, and the congestion at the Dartford crossing—or, as we affectionately know it in my patch, the bridge—is legendary. It causes misery for people, particularly when they are crossing from the Kent side to the Essex side. Every day, the tunnels create a back-up of up to four hours for motorists. When something goes wrong, it does not just prevent people from crossing; it causes congestion around my whole constituency. I know of people spending eight hours making a 10-minute journey. People spend hours trying to get home from school because they are stuck in traffic for hours on end. It is complete and utter misery. I am concerned about whether the lower Thames crossing will mitigate that congestion.

My other concern relates to the tolls levied. If there is a disparity between the charge for using the lower Thames crossing and that for using the Dartford crossing, it is fairly obvious which one most people will use. My predecessor, the former Labour Member of Parliament for Thurrock, Andrew MacKinlay, was instrumental in getting a discount for the Dartford crossing for residents of Dartford and Thurrock. That has proved invaluable, and is an acknowledgment of the fact that we probably bear the brunt of the journeys made on the crossing. When it comes to a residents’ discount for the lower Thames crossing, there should be equal consideration given to the impact that the crossing will have on my constituents. I am concerned that people may opt to use the Dartford crossing if it is cheaper than the lower Thames crossing. That would exacerbate a number of the issues we face.

There are wider issues with the Thurrock road network. Junction 31 of the M25, which leads directly on to the Dartford crossing, is a key part of national road infrastructure. When it goes wrong, it absolutely messes with our logistics industry and people travelling to and from work. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) asked why he should be talking about something that affects a constituency in the east of England. The truth is that the traffic backs up all the way to the midlands, around the south and around the east of England. It is such a tiny junction—it has so much potential to go wrong.

Recently, before the recess, someone spilt a large quantity of oil at junction 31 in the early hours of the morning while we were experiencing a heatwave. That took National Highways close to, I believe, 20 hours to address. The road remained shut for the entire time, and the congestion it caused in my patch was completely insurmountable. I discussed with National Highways and the police afterwards what we can do to properly get to grips with the fact that when this crucial bit of infrastructure goes wrong, it impacts so many people in my patch. One of the things they suggested, which I would be grateful to discuss with the Roads Minister, is potentially having a dedicated traffic police force for the Dartford crossing. I imagine that it would cover the lower Thames crossing as well given its proximity to many crucial parts of our industry.

It is only right that my constituents, who will be most impacted by the lower Thames crossing, must be those who benefit most from it. I would like to flag a few places where the lower Thames crossing project is currently falling short in some of its commitments to ensuring social value in the most impacted communities. I do not believe that these difficulties are insurmountable.

There is a commitment to employ a significant amount of local people in the build and construction of the lower Thames crossing. However, the geographical area for that is far too broad. It encompasses most of the Greater London area. My constituents, who are a small proportion of people within that area, will struggle to get a look in. I would like the geographical area for local jobs to be restricted to those constituencies that are most impacted, namely Thurrock, Gravesham and Dartford.

Similarly, there is a commitment to use and involve small and medium-sized enterprises in its construction. However, a number of small businesses in my patch, including Labour Base Solutions, have been unable to engage with the project so far, despite trying on numerous occasions. They have instead seen that national contractors seem to be getting priority. I would be grateful to discuss with the Minister what he can do to help change that, because this is enterprise, money, industry and growth that should be coming to my area, given that we will be the most impacted.

I believe that the Bill has the potential to go further and to deliver something that is completely key for transport in my constituency: the return of the Tilbury ferry. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) were here, she would call it the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry, but in my patch we know what it is properly called. This ferry has been running for the best part of 600 years, having been given the charter by Henry VIII to provide a river service. It was, up until its closure—

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have no skin in the game on the ferry’s name, but I could not let the mention of ferries pass without intervening—I am sure the whole House would be angry with me if I did not. She makes an important point that those of us who have to travel by water feel that ferry travel is not part of integrated transport. Does she agree that it should be, especially in her situation?

[Jen Craft]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a bit like “Beetlejuice”—you mention ferries and he appears; it summons him. He is absolutely correct that ferries should prove a vital part of public transport infrastructure.

Let me turn to the huge and important role that the Tilbury ferry played in our public transport infrastructure locally. It ran continually until 2022 when, unfortunately, due to historic bankruptcy by the then Conservative council, it was unable to pay the subsidy needed to keep the ferry running, and it came to a close. That was an absolute tragedy for my area. Not only did the ferry provide a vital commuter route for a number of people, but a number of my constituents used it to attend schools in Kent, for example—they are now having to make a journey that is about an hour and a half each way, and they are encountering problems at the Dartford crossing that could have been avoided by a quick 10-minute hop across the water.

Gravesend High Street in Gravesham used to lead directly on to the ferry terminal, and those businesses have been hit so hard by the loss of this vital transport link. In my patch, there are fond memories of the ferry, not just for myself and my family but for so many of my constituents. I put a call out for people to share their memories of the Tilbury ferry and to sign my petition, and the numbers hit the thousands within a couple of days. People are desperate to see it return.

The main issue with the return of the ferry is the cost of the subsidy for running it. There is public will to get it back, and there is will from businesses in the area—the Port of Tilbury, Forth Ports, DP World and a whole host of others really want to see it, because they know it provides that link and enables them to encourage people to come and work for them from both sides of the river. Furthermore, if we are trying to get people off our road networks, a large number of people who use the Dartford crossing are projected to use the lower Thames crossing for short hops either side of the river, and the ferry would allow them an alternative, so that they could make that journey in a much more sustainable way, which is much better than adding to the congestion that already exists. It is a much greener way of travelling.

I ask the Minister to seriously consider putting aside a very small proportion of the tolls to be paid on the lower Thames crossing—I am talking about 0.01%, which is less than a penny—to enable the Tilbury ferry to be funded in perpetuity. There is precedent: the Dartford crossing used to fund the subsidy for the Tilbury ferry, until that was given over to the two local authorities at the time, Kent county council and Thurrock council. A levy on the lower Thames crossing would allow the Tilbury ferry to be insulated from potential shocks, such as we saw with the bankruptcy of Thurrock council. It would allow the ferry to keep running well into the future, so that it can serve my children and my grandchildren. It would take people off the already overloaded road network. It would bring life back to Gravesend High Street. It would make sure that people on my side of the river can visit their relatives, go to their hospital appointments, go to work, go to school and just enjoy a really nice day out, and it would prove to people in my patch that we can have nice things and we do deserve them.

This ferry is a crucial part of our infrastructure, and given that people in my patch will be bearing the brunt of the construction and operation of the lower Thames crossing, I believe that they deserve this. I ask the Minister to seriously consider allowing this piece of infrastructure to fund a critical part of the local transport infrastructure and to help me bring back the Tilbury ferry for good.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Richard Quigley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I challenge anyone who has listened to the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) not to think, “What a time to be alive.” We also have three castles on the Isle of Wight, one of which imprisoned Charles I, and it also has a donkey that powers a wheel to draw water from its well. I have no idea what use that is to this debate, but I felt very much left out.

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this important Bill, which not only reaffirms the UK’s commitment to advancing space travel and exploration but ensures that that progress is built on a foundation of safety, accessibility and innovation. At a time when the global space sector is increasingly dominated by billionaire-led ventures, the Bill sends a clear message that the UK remains dedicated to a space industry that is both pioneering and responsible—one that prioritises safety, fosters innovation and creates opportunity for all.

I am proud to say that the Isle of Wight has a fantastic history of supporting and growing the UK’s space industry—it gives colleagues a break from hearing me talk about ferries. As in many other areas, we punch above our weight in this regard. In 1955, Saunders-Roe, based in East Cowes, began developing the Black Knight research ballistic missile. Over the course of its programme, Black Knight achieved 22 successful launches without a single major failure, a remarkable feat that showcased British engineering excellence. That legacy highlights the Isle of Wight’s pivotal role in the history of British space exploration and technological innovation, demonstrating its potential to contribute to the UK’s modern space ambitions.

However, we want to be not just a part of space history, but a part of space future. One of the biggest barriers to growth in the UK space industry has been the issue of liability. At present, the Government risk unlimited liability when launching satellites or conducting spaceflight operations. That uncertainty discourages investment, as insurers and financial backers are unwilling to support projects with unpredictable risks. The Bill before us is a simple, but crucial, fix: it will ensure that all spaceflight licences set a clear limit on operator liability, bringing us in line with international standards. That change is particularly important for smaller, emerging space companies, many of which could see the Isle of Wight as a viable location for future space-related ventures.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I am really pleased to hear my hon. Friend mention small businesses. Does he agree that start-up and scale-up small businesses are vital for our economies up and down the country?

[Mr Quigley]

I do indeed agree that small businesses are going to be the way forward when it comes to space technology. The Isle of Wight is a viable location for future space-related ventures, whether in satellite manufacturing, research or launch support services.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Quigley]

Indeed I will—I am quite enjoying this.

[Alex Ballinger]

My hon. Friend mentioned satellites. Does he recognise the massive benefits that satellites bring to the UK—everything from contactless transactions to supporting our defence and national security?

[Mr Quigley]

Bearing in mind the last Bill we were debating, I am not sure how much we can say about the benefits that satellites have brought, but yes, I do appreciate that.

We on the Isle of Wight already have the infrastructure to build on, with our skilled workforce, proximity to the south coast’s aerospace sector, and strategic location for maritime and aerospace testing. We are well placed to benefit from the fairer, clearer regulatory framework that we will create by passing this Bill. Not only are we strengthening the UK’s position in the global space industry, but we are opening up new opportunities for regions such as the Isle of Wight. Let us ensure that our island and the UK as a whole remains at the forefront of space innovation. I urge colleagues to support the change of two words that this Bill would effect, for the sake of not only our commitment to the growth agenda, but this country’s commitment to the future.

Rail Performance

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

Again, the current fragmentation of the network means that we have dozens of different types of rolling stock across the network, all procured by different operators at different times, which are not interoperable between operators and cannot be moved around the network precisely when there are issues such as those that the hon. Gentleman described. With the establishment of Great British Railways and a long-term rolling stock strategy, we can procure fewer types of trains and start to move them around. I will take away the specific issue of short-form trains on Great Western Railway and write to him about what action can be taken.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Richard Quigley, can you confirm that you were here at the beginning of the Secretary of State’s statement?

[Mr Quigley]

No, I was not.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and particularly the sentiment about putting passengers first and getting a grip. Those who are served by Great Western, which runs to south Wales as well as down the main line to Penzance in my constituency—Great Western has already been heavily criticised this afternoon—will be aware that we are getting none of the benefits of HS2 but a lot of the disruption as a result of the work at Old Oak Common. Will the Secretary of State meet those Members of Parliament who are worried about the prospect of six years of sometimes severe disruption to their services to see whether we can minimise the impact?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Richard Quigley—honesty goes a long way.

[Mr Quigley]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I truly am grateful. I was going to say that my train was late, but that would not actually be true. [Laughter.]

Speaking of my right hon. Friend being a heroine, finding a solution to the Isle of Wight ferries issue would result in our erecting a bronze statue on the seafront in Cowes. Does she agree that the Conservatives’ failed experiment with rail privatisation has caused passengers misery and cost millions? What will she do to make things better?

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing my hon. Friend to ask a question. I thought he would mention the ferries as well—he also texts me often about the ferries. I am grateful for his point. The new model will deliver not only better services for passengers but a far better settlement for taxpayers, who have been ripped off under the previous model for far too long.