Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Griffiths]

I used to work at RAC.

Steve Gooding: As somebody who worked there, I think there are two key things: one is independence, and the other is capability. We are talking specifically about growing and making sure that the ORR has the requisite capability to undertake the tricky and, in a way, very public task of setting that. It would need to build that up. As you say, a lot of the expertise in the ORR today is on railways. Yes, that is engineering, construction and all that, but I would certainly like to see a significant strengthening in the capability of the ORR around some of the specific things about this project and its relationship with the existing crossing.

Edmund King: I agree. I believe the ORR is looking to bring in new skills, particularly in economic regulation and the broader issues, which will be needed. There are similarities between road and rail, but there are also differences and some of the consequences in regulation are quite different, so it will need to be beefed up.

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

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I have two questions. First, the Bill looks specifically at the crossing, but there are other infrastructure upgrades—as an MP in north Kent, my example is the A229 Blue Bell Hill upgrade. There are key junctions where congestion is a problem. In your view, does the Bill take into account the other, wider infrastructure upgrades that might be necessary?

Secondly, this week, the Public Accounts Committee, which I sit on, released a report on the RAB model for Sizewell, which there are concerns about. Do you have a view on that model? I appreciate that you have indicated that the model will not be used elsewhere, but is there an educated view on whether an alternative model might have worked better?

Steve Gooding: On the first point, the Bill is not specific even to the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, so I do not think that it takes account of the other schemes we have talked about per se, other than in the general duty for the Secretary of State and ORR to consider the network as a whole. That has already been raised, but the Committee might want to probe it a bit further.

As for the RAB model, I can certainly see the logic, but one has to start with a decision that the Chancellor does not wish to borrow the money himself. If that is the case, in these circumstances, given where National Highways has got to already with contracting for the construction of the tunnel, this appears to be a sensible model, provided that lessons are learnt from past RAB projects. One of those is about the ability and capability of the regulator to do what it is being relied on to do.

Edmund King: One of the features of the RAB model that is quite hard to get your head around is that it is open ended. There is no finish date. On the M6 toll I know that it is a different private finance model, but it was given a 53-year concession. Under this model, in effect, the concession could be 100 or 120 years unless the licence is revoked. That is quite difficult to get your head around at first, because when you look at the Dartford crossing and the tolls going to the Treasury, this is totally changing the model. We have to be sure that the safeguards are there and built into the model. That is why I think toughening up and strengthening the Office of Rail and Road and bringing in a greater degree of independence is increasingly vital.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Q I am the MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket in Suffolk, where we have a lot of problems with our roads and no motorways. I think the general public are anxious about the price and what it is going to cost for them to take their vehicles through this new tunnel. On what you said earlier about there being very little choice—people will use this tunnel if it is there—there is a fear that the public will be held to ransom. That is the problem. How are we going to deal with that? What do you anticipate the price of taking my car through this tunnel will be when it opens?

Steve Gooding: I hesitate to say what the price is going to be. I suspect it is going to be whatever it costs today to go across the Dartford crossing and some more. Given the anxiety that people quite rightly feel at the moment when looking at the cost of the lower Thames crossing, there must be a question whether it has to cost quite that much. Whatever further pressure can be applied, everything is going to flow from that initial estimate. How the RAB is valued over time will flow from the question of what it costs to build this thing. That is why it is so important at the outset that as much pressure is put on National Highways to keep the costs under control and preferably drive them down. That is what will affect things. Subsequently, some quite big bills will come in for the refurbishment and renewal of the existing bridge and tunnels. Keeping pressure on those is important and that is why, as we keep saying, the pressure from the regulator to press for the efficient cost is so important to the structure working.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

Q I will build on some of what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, said about tipping points. My question is to both of you, so please feel free to answer in whichever order you prefer. The shadow Minister was referring to things such as fuel duty, I am acutely conscious that the cost base of the lower Thames crossing project is going up and is as yet unknown, and we do not know what the toll will be.

In a situation such as we have at the moment, where diesel is at £2 a litre and the sustainable version another 50p on top of that, costs are going right up not only for the build, but for the corporate budgets of the haulage companies and for everyday individuals, who have to manage their household budgets. If the cost goes up to a level beyond the right balance of pricing that is commercially viable for the operator, or absorbable for the family or the business, what happens?

At the moment, I am worried about a white elephant across the Thames. In such circumstances, in the end all the costs would get absorbed by the taxpayer and this model goes up in smoke. I am keen to hear from you how concerned I should be about that and what alternative models there are elsewhere.

Ben Hopkinson: The ultimate backstop is the Exchequer. Already the Exchequer has had to bear the cost of bringing the lower Thames crossing through planning. I think it is expected to spend about £3.1 billion on the lower Thames crossing even before private investment is brought in. If we have a circumstance where the toll is not paying back what is necessary and the private body that has financed the road falls into difficulty, the Bill states that the Exchequer is able to top up or provide payments, guarantees or low-cost loans. The backstop is therefore ultimately the taxpayer, combined with higher charges for motorists on the road.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)]

Q It has been really clear today that cost control is a crucial element in the success of this project. Should there be safeguards for motorists within the regulatory framework where, for example, unexpected charges arise or costs are excessive?

Will Godfrey: At the heart of the regulator’s responsibilities would be furthering the interests of current and future users. Those are exactly the kind of considerations that would be at the heart of how you approach the regulation, how you set up the instruments—I am referring specifically to the licence—and how you then hold the company to account against that licence.

For the first control period, in the case of the lower Thames crossing, the licence would be awarded by the Department, so the particular tolling structure and the level of tolls would be set through that competition for the first licence. Thereafter, the way that the ORR operates is that the code that the ORR would be responsible for creating on the approach to tolling arrangements will clearly be important once you are past that first point.

My feeling is that the arrangements necessary to provide protections to end users around, for example, tolling and toll shocks and so on feel about right to me in the enabling legislation. What is really important is what goes into the licence and what we put into the code, and then how the company responds. I hope there will be a virtuous circle, in which there is a clear signal of what is expected, we hold the company to account, it delivers and implements it, and we then take the feedback from the market. I do not know if you were anticipating a different concern, but I will pause there in case I have not answered your question.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Alison Griffiths]

Q I want to go back to comments that both of you have made. Andrew, you said that you can count on one hand the number of projects that finish on time and on budget, and that is despite the extensive experience that you both have. Roger, you said that cost overruns come from uncertainty. I had a 30-year private sector career. One experience I had negotiating contracts was that when the customer was creating unrealistic expectations or poor procurement was taking place, where you had a competitive environment and people were trying to win the contract was where you ended up with cost and time overruns. Are there any lessons the Government should be learning about how we procure these types of contract so that we get the best possible outcome at the best possible price, but without cost and time overruns?

Roger Forsdyke: It is really interesting that you say that from your experience it is the commercial pressure. The most important thing in the tendering process is to have measurables beyond just the cost. If it is first past the post, you are destined to push the price down to the lowest-quality bid, which often creates the problems you are describing and that we described earlier. You have to look at how you will measure the quality of the tenders in real terms, beyond the cost of the lowest bid. I do not think that is regularly done effectively, so you end up with cheap materials, optimistic programming, optimistic budgeting and all those things just to get to a price that is probably optimistic in the first place. That echoes what Andrew said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristan Osborne]

Q I have a question on the ORR. My line of questioning is about whether the regulator is ready. Obviously we had the independent report last month. I challenged on one particular finding of that. Is the ORR ready for this challenge? Is the regulatory landscape in a firm place where we can solicit investor interest next year?

Again, speaking to the investor spokesperson today, they said that regulatory certainty was absolutely critical for them. I want to understand the operational capabilities, the engagement between the DFT and the ORR, and whether or not we will have that structure and that robust regulatory regime in place, and how confident you are about that.

Justin Madders: I am confident about that, because that is what the Bill intends to do. It sets it out very clearly. We have heard from the investors that that certainty will be a very attractive opportunity for the long-term investment we are seeking to deliver. There will be a need for some additional capability and capacity in the ORR, but I was very impressed with the evidence we heard today. It is very much on top of this, but there is much more to be done, and the Bill will enable it to do that.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q Minister, we heard from the last person who gave evidence, the investor, that he would not be able to invest because of the uncapped cost overrun risks. You heard that as well. Would you look at it again to make changes to ensure investors are not so scared away by that risk?

Justin Madders: I am not too familiar with the factors he takes into account when investing, but my advice from officials is that the soft market testing that has been taking place has shown a lot of interest in this. He also said in his response that there would be quite a lot of people who would be looking to invest in this. That conversation is ongoing.

Having the legislation on the statute book will actually help give more certainty to investors. Clearly one of the reasons why the project has already started is to de-risk it to some extent. All the indicators I am getting are that we are putting this in a strong position to attract investment.

Highways (Financing) Bill

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a real pleasure to speak alongside Kent colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), to see my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) in her place, and to hear from Members from across south Essex, whose constituents will directly benefit from the lower Thames crossing. Anyone who has travelled down that stretch will know that the lower Thames crossing will be a vital part of the north Kent infrastructure. When there are problems with the Dartford bridge, disruption can spread all the way down into south-east London and Kent, including into Medway, which I represent.

I want to speak to four elements of the Bill: first, the benefits of the new crossing, including the direct investment it could bring to Essex and Medway, in my local area, and why that is so critical; secondly, the vehicle that will be used by the Government to deliver the project, learning from the National Audit Office review of the Sizewell programme and others about some of the cost considerations of which we need to be mindful; thirdly, the Opposition amendment; and, lastly, the importance and necessity of delivering the project on time.

As many hon. Members will be aware, the Dartford crossing was originally conceived to cater for 136,000 vehicle movements, but it is currently catering for over 150,000. We know from projections that freight movements are due to increase over the next 15 years. As has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), we are due to see an expansion in population across all of the south Essex and north Kent corridor over the next 15 years as part of the urban sprawl that is moving east of London. He mentioned capacity issues on many road networks. In my area, there are issues on the A229, which crosses from Maidstone into Medway, and with the Medway tunnel—a particular focus that I will come to. We know that there are also constraints on some of the roads connecting Gravesham and Dartford, particularly around Galley Hill.

[Mr Francois]

For the record, I am completely opposed to the urban sprawl. The Government are trying to impose far too many houses on south Essex. The figure of 100,000 homes that I mentioned is nearly 7% of their entire target of 1.5 million homes—and that is in one half of one county. Nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman will believe that I am being honest in arguing on behalf of my constituents, I am prepared to believe that he is being honest in arguing on behalf of his.

[Tristan Osborne]

Housing targets are not unique to this Government—indeed, they have existed in previous iterations throughout the last several decades. Housing has been built in south Essex under the previous Government, and I am sure that permissions were given under Conservative-controlled councils. Similarly, in my area, the then Conservative-led Medway council delivered housing projects. We have to be realistic, because infrastructure is needed to cater for these future developments.

The crossing is necessary because of the capacity issues that have just been raised. The impacts of a blocked crossing have profound implications, including for people trying to get to health appointments and inconvenienced residents. Town centres are blocked, in the case of Dartford and Thurrock. There are also implications for the freight and logistics industry, which have been so eloquently expressed by colleagues from around the country, because the south-east is the key link to European trade.

I am very proud that this Department, led by the current Secretary of State, sought on day one of taking office to give the consent order for this programme. That clearly shows the direction of travel and the focus of a Government to deliver some of these really big infrastructure projects. Alongside Sizewell C and other Government programmes, we know that private investment, working with the Government, can deliver significant projects going forward. We know that projects that cost around £10 billion are Government mega-project schemes, so I ask that this scheme be considered on the Government programme of mega-projects. There has been deliberation about whether HS2 is a mega-project, which has caused some delays, especially around the Euston development site; that was covered in the NAO report.

I know that tolls are a sensitive topic. I agree with my colleagues that there needs to be some consideration of whether those who live in the direct surrounds of not only Dartford and Thurrock, but around the new site in Gravesham and Medway, and on the other side in south Essex, should be considered for toll relief to ensure that they get a fair discount.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Gravesham will bear one part of the length of the tunnel, so it is important that the people who will be the most affected are able to hold to account toll regulators. There must be accountability for ensuring that toll roads are properly cared for and enhanced for local residents.

[Tristan Osborne]

I absolutely agree. I know that a number of points have been made to the Minister today about what the tolls might look like, the duration of the programme and the finance involved. Ensuring that there is parity with the Dartford crossing so that people can make a market choice will have to be considered in the round, and I look forward to future representations on that matter.

My residents can see the massive investment benefits of a new crossing: new businesses opening, new residents having potential connections with HS1 through Essex, and the creation of some form of corridor between the Medway towns and Southend. Previously, we overlooked each other on different sides of the river, but the connection will allow us potentially to get to each other’s conurbations in 10 to 15 minutes—those journeys would previously have taken 45 minutes to an hour. The relationship between businesses, including small businesses, has not been discussed today, but this connection has the potential to be a significant multiplier for a lot of businesses across south Essex and north Kent.

I accept that the Bill protects those who will use the road. The Office of Rail and Road will become the independent regulator, and I understand that it needs to be given robust powers around licence conditions. From HS2, we know that previous regulatory regimes have not necessarily been that efficient, so I ask that the Minister learn from some of the NAO reports, which have highlighted where some regimes have failed in the past. The licence holder must share information with the regulator and the Secretary of State. If the company behind the road ever gets into financial trouble, a special administration regime should and must keep the highway running. That means investors would get the certainty they need to commit the capital, and drivers would get a regulator watching over what is built and what is charged. Given some of the high-profile issues with major Government programmes previously, I believe that transparency is absolutely necessary.

There are practical measures in this Bill too. For example, it allows barrierless charging on toll roads. Remote payments mean smoother journeys—I can testify to that for many roads around the country—as well as less congestion at Dartford. However, we need to see continued improvements to the M2, including at junctions around the A229, particularly at Blue Bell Hill; I know that Kent county council has made that representation.

I turn to the reasoned amendment. It starts by recognising the “urgent need” to deliver the crossing after 14 years of numerous development consent orders and court appeals, dither and delay. It has taken this Government to make progress and get the spades in the ground. However, the reasoned amendment asks the House to deny a Second Reading to the one piece of legislation that provides a funding route, questioning whether the project can be delivered

“on time and on budget”.

Many Opposition Members have raised that question this afternoon. I point Members to the structure of the Bill, which puts the independent regulator in charge of scrutinising the costs, and I encourage them to pick up some of these issues in Committee if they do not believe that the Government have a robust understanding. However, rejecting the Bill on the basis set out in the reasoned amendment would cause the delays that Opposition Members are complaining might occur.

It would be remiss of me to not mention that there are other crossings nearby that could be subject to considerable congestion as a result of this project. The Medway tunnel, a key crossing in the Medway conurbation, is putting in a bid to the structures fund to ensure support for its 150,000 crossings per day through increased investment. It was constructed privately through KCC and the Rochester Bridge Trust—an historical anomaly; ownership was transferred to the council some 15 years ago. I encourage Ministers to look closely at the Medway tunnel’s bid, because any impact on the second crossing will have profound consequences for other crossings in Medway. If we do not get Department for Transport funding for improvements to the Medway tunnel, that could cause significant problems for the three MPs who represent that area.

Lastly, the lower Thames crossing has a long and chequered history. As has been said, previous Conservative Governments opened parts of it, and Labour Governments are now progressing with the next stage of it. However, we should all be proud that this is a great British project that could deliver jobs and opportunities for many thousands of my residents, and there could be knock-on benefits for tens of thousands of people across the rest of the country. Every delay to this legislation moves the date of those benefits back for families who have already waited too long, and for people who own homes and businesses in the area and are looking forward to this infrastructure project getting started. I urge the House to reject the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition, and give the Bill its Second Reading. Let’s get on with building this crossing.

Blue Badge Eligibility

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my colleague, friend and constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for securing this critical debate, and Kent colleagues of all parties—Liberal, Labour and Conservative—who have come together to support this initiative. There are colleagues in the Chamber from other areas where this problem is manifest. It is a concern across the country.

I also thank residents who have stepped forward to articulate their position. Going to a newspaper and putting their names out there is a brave thing to do, and they are setting in train something that could change the rules for millions of other people in this country. I say to them, “Believe you me, the work that you have done is making those changes. You are sitting in the Public Gallery today because of your efforts and your diligence.” I thank Bev, Sandy and all the others who have written to us and are getting involved in the campaign.

This campaign is personal to me. Like, I suspect, many others in the room, I have had a life-changing health issue. At 38, I had what became a pulmonary embolism due to a heart attack, at a very young age, and was completely unexpectedly taken into hospital. The post-recovery period lasted 12 weeks, for six of which I was almost unable to move without support and help—at the age of 38. It was a traumatising and scary personal experience, and there are many such stories around the country from people who have broken limbs, suffered trauma or had cancer treatment. We need a scheme that takes into account the different scenarios of people’s everyday lives. The scheme needs to change.

As a Labour Government, we have a proud legacy on this issue, because it was Labour that introduced the scheme and a Labour Government that modernised it to support people who face serious barriers in their daily mobility. It allows them to park closer to essential services, to visit GPs to get treatment, or simply to collect shopping—to many, that would seem a simple act, but to those with these disabilities it is extremely frustrating and difficult.

I respect the Department for Transport but, like others, I have had quite formulaic responses from it, saying that people need to demonstrate an enduring, substantial disability. I know from colleagues that it is difficult to do that in a written piece of correspondence and without an in-person interview. The Department’s response does not take into account the fact that people have different levels of fluency in English, might not have medical knowledge and might be unable to articulate their exact position.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I have constituents who are helping to support their children through cancer treatment. They applied for a blue badge; only after the child’s treatment was, thankfully, successful did the application come back with a no or yes. The focus should be on getting well, not battling a system. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) for securing this debate.

[Tristan Osborne]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we all have to work within systems, but this one seems heartless and a bit cold. I think that is the general experience of many, that it seems to take a “computer says no” approach if someone does not have one of those specific physical mobility issues.

I fully accept that we need a system, otherwise there might be people who choose to exploit the scheme. However, there must also be a point where we accept that people’s health is not linear. It is not a case of someone having something life-altering and therefore they can get the badge, and no other conditions exist, because most people’s health will change.

In recent years, there have been changes to extend the scheme to non-visible conditions, so we have made concessions previously—autism and mental health challenges can be taken into account. However, those with debilitating illnesses and temporary conditions are the focus this afternoon. We know from the media that this issue is not just confined to Kent. The excellent work of Kent Online is helping to highlight this case, but it is happening across the country.

In other places, we have seen cases where people experiencing side effects from cancer have been refused, and where people in severe pain—who can prove that they are in severe pain—have been refused access because they are told their condition is not enduring enough. That is unacceptable. If someone can prove that their condition exists and that they are engaged in medical treatment, anyone would think that that was enough evidence.

People may concurrently suffer from mental health issues, fatigue and other challenges as a result of not securing this support. Some are recovering from major surgery that leaves them barely able to walk, yet they are refused this service, which seems completely counterintuitive.

I can tell hon. Members from experience, as others can, that a six-month recovery, when someone knows that they will recover, which I fortunately had, is still an uphill struggle, because it involves dealing with the consequences. I ask that any scheme, especially this one, be a mechanism rather than an obstacle course. It feels as if we are on an obstacle course and, certainly in residents’ views, that is the case.

I thank Kent Online and residents for raising this campaign, and I hope that, with the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling and others, we can bring this issue into the public domain on a cross-party basis. As a relatively inexperienced MP, I have learned many lessons about how to run campaigns properly, and I salute the work of the hon. Member across the aisle on this—because we can genuinely get some positive change.

This is also a sign of local leadership. I am pleased that the council in Medway has stepped up and is open to having this conversation. I hope that we can work to get Kent county council in the room, because it covers the large majority of constituents across Kent. I believe the work we are doing can lead to change and I am passionate about the outcomes.

I have some questions for the Minister. First, is there positive work going on in the Department to review the blue badge scheme? Could that conclude that we can extend eligibility? Secondly, has any guidance been provided to local councils about local schemes—using best practice from, say, some of the London councils—and could we extend that principle? There is a bit of inconsistency between councils in terms of examples of where this works well in practice.

Thirdly, I understand that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting the NHS through extra investment in our hospitals and frontline services—that is extremely welcome. Could cross-departmental work be done with the Department of Health and Social Care to facilitate blue badges for those leaving hospital as part of their discharge regimen? Could they get an automatic letter that can be submitted to a public body, allowing for a seamless service, rather than having to go through a regimented application process? We could use a bit of common sense across Departments so that people do not have to go through a bureaucratic process to apply for a blue badge. I am quietly confident that we can see change, working with campaigners on a cross-party basis. I thank everyone for coming this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

As I said, a decision is ultimately a matter for the regulator. Open access can provide benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers, but it can also increase costs to taxpayers and create additional performance pressures on an already constrained network. The Department will always look at applications on a case-by-case basis and feed into the regulator’s decision.

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

15. What recent progress her Department has made on constructing the lower Thames crossing.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

In March, we took the decision to approve National Highways’ planning application for the lower Thames crossing, which is a big step forward for the project and ends decades of inaction by previous Governments. Ahead of construction, my officials and National Highways are exploring all funding options, including private finance. As with all capital projects, spending decisions are subject to the spending review process.

[Tristan Osborne]

I welcome that response, the certainty the decision has provided to people living in the Thames estuary, and the visit yesterday to supply-chain businesses by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Will the Secretary of State for Transport confirm that she will meet me and a delegation of Kent and south-east London MPs to discuss how we can ensure that investment and skills are secured for local supply chains and the development of further education colleges?

[Heidi Alexander]

I would be very happy to have that meeting with my hon. Friend and his colleagues.

Road Safety: Schools

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for securing this debate. It is such an important topic, and the data has cross-country significance. She gave a powerful testimony about her own constituent and the impact on their family. That situation is replicated for many of us across our constituencies.

It is deeply depressing that according to Department for Transport statistics, 14% of child fatalities on Great Britain’s roads occur during the morning school run between 7 and 9 o’clock, and 23% happen after school between 3 and 5 o’clock. Even insurance companies are now taking that account. With a 43% reduction in road collisions during the school holidays, we know that it is a significant factor impacting our constituents.

I am a former teacher. The schools I have visited in my constituency, including St Katherine’s school in Snodland, Aylesford school and Walderslade grammar school, have all expressed, through their youth voice, concerns about the dangers associated with getting to school. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned safety, but there are broader concerns around the school run. I want to talk briefly about them, but also about some of the solutions that my council has looked at.

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is absolutely correct. Speed is a concern around schools, and I wholly endorse the 20 mph speed limit. We have introduced that around many of our urban schools across Medway, and we have seen a significant reduction in accidents. However, it is not just about speeding. It is also about the conduct of parents when they are picking up and dropping off their children. In some cases, the conduct of those picking up their children is below the standard that would be expected in any other situation, which has led to other safety concerns about, for example, vehicles mounting the pavements and aggression shown towards staff in many schools, with parking assistants sent to resolve the issue. That is an increasing concern, as is the amount of pollution outside schools.

Medway council has looked at a couple of schemes related to the safer streets initiative that was introduced under the previous Government. The council won £300,000 to introduce a school streets initiative. That initiative has not yet been mentioned, but in short, it restricts access to school streets completely during pick-up and drop-off times by using automatic number plate recognition camera technology, which reduces the volume of traffic to only the residents and businesses using that street. It dramatically improves road safety, reduces pollution and encourages active transport, so it serves as a real boon to getting kids out of the car and into a more active transport mode.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for her work on this important issue, and I offer my condolences to the family of her constituent. My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and there are examples of such schemes around the country. There are several in Reading, and we have certainly benefited from exactly that type of measure. However, I gently suggest that the wider area needs to be considered. There can sometimes be a build-up of traffic on the edge of the school streets zone. My experience of the Reading examples is that integrating such schemes with other measures, such as the 20 mph zone, can help to reduce the risk of accidents and pollution. Does my hon. Friend agree with that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristan Osborne]

I absolutely agree. In fact, the next part of the school streets programme is about increasing awareness and education within schools to ensure that they are aware that the scheme is not just about moving traffic to somewhere else, but part of an active transport strategy.

Medway has introduced that initiative, which has worked very well among 12 primary schools. Kent county council has introduced a similar scheme to promote education. It encourages cycling awareness and the use of high-visibility key fobs and other items for cyclists to wear. Again, increasing education is critical.

This is an important issue for many schools. I have been working with schools in my constituency to promote their knowledge and awareness of the school streets initiative, so that they can apply to the council and ask for involvement. Will the Minister make some of those examples and case studies of school streets more widely known about to encourage our local councils to pursue that agenda so that we can see a significant reduction in accidents? Would the Minister also be keen to promote the ideas of many of our leading councils around the country about education and cycling provision, and some of the benefits of those programmes, to ensure that our children are not getting in the car every morning when they go to school?

Bus Franchising

Tristan Osborne Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I absolutely agree that rural bus routes and rural communities must be carefully considered. The best people to take that consideration are local leaders, which is why we are determined to allow local leaders to take back control of their bus services.

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

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. Villages in my constituency, such as Eccles, Burham and Wouldham, have suffered from 14 years of Conservative cuts and a reduction to the 155 bus service, which many elderly people rely on. Will the Minister assure councils such as Medway council and Kent county council that they can now join forces and collaborate on bus routes, so that we see an improvement to bus services for all our residents, including those in rural, isolated communities?

[Simon Lightwood]

The plan makes it possible for all local transport authorities to take back control of their buses. There is also the option of enhanced partnerships and municipal ownership. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to achieve his objectives.