Highways (Financing) Bill
Thursday 15th October 2026
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 76 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Mr Richard Holden has been selected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I realise that the Bill may seem rather dry at first glance, as it primarily covers how we finance major road building. Financial frameworks, licences and regulators might not get the hearts of the public—or, dare I say, even of hon. Members—racing, so I hope the House will allow me to start with why all this matters, not just for the future of this Government’s second largest infrastructure asset, but for the future of the country. Members from across the House will, I am sure, know the importance of the strategic road network—4,500 miles of highways that frankly punch above their weight. It represents less than 3% of our road network by length, and carries a third of motor vehicle miles and two thirds of lorry miles. If trade is the lifeblood of our economy, the strategic network represents our national arteries, transporting almost all the goods that we rely on for our way of life. Indeed, it does even more, by unlocking house building, connecting people with opportunity, and underpinning the integrated transport network that we want to build.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Minister mentioned roads unlocking house building. Labour wants to build 100,000 houses in south Essex, from Grays to Shoeburyness, so why did it cancel the widening of the A12 some months ago? Last week, it cancelled upgrades to the A127, too. It makes no sense to build all those houses, but if we are going to do that, it is insane to cancel the road upgrades that we need to accommodate that building. Why did Labour do that? None of this is joined up, is it?
Justin Madders
I will happily address why certain schemes have been cancelled. It is because the Conservative party put far more schemes into the programme than it put in funding for, so any understandable frustration ought to be directed at the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. Much of the strategic network is over 45 years old.
Mr Francois
I am sorry, but the Minister cannot get away with that. Labour cancelled the widening of the A12, which had been planned for years, and it cancelled the upgrades to the A127. Please answer my question. How can Labour propose building 100,000 houses while cancelling strategic road programmes? It does not make sense.
Justin Madders
The bottom line is that the previous Government committed to far more schemes than there was funding for, so we had to evaluate which were the least value for money and the least advanced. It is nothing more than that. The right hon. Member may be frustrated, but perhaps the previous Government should not have made promises that could not be delivered.
Demand will only go in one direction. Road vehicle mileage is set to rise on the strategic road network by 12% over the nine years to 2035. Climate change continues to bare its teeth across our transport infrastructure, and our strategic roads are no exception. All those challenges bear down on a network that holds up our economy every day. That is why I am proud that the Government published the third road investment strategy earlier this year. It committed not only £27 billion to future-proofing our roads, and to resurfacing a quarter of our entire network, but to three major enhancement schemes in the north of England, on which it will work even closer with local leaders. It proved to MPs like me that road investment can address regional inequalities, and is compatible with our promise of greater devolution. When we talk about growth and power in every postcode, that is exactly what we mean.
That is the context in which I present the Bill. I have mentioned what we have already delivered, but in truth, much more needs to be done. Delivering the roads this country needs to connect our ports, our major cities and our communities requires substantial investment over many years, and across several Parliaments. Public investment will, of course, continue to play a vital role, but we can go further when private investment is harnessed to meet public goals. When Government and the private sector come together in partnership, and when we balance certainty for private investors with safeguards for the public interest, we give ourselves more tools to build the modern infrastructure that Britain needs. The Bill creates such a tool, and does so in two ways.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome the measures in the Bill to invest in our road system, but will the Minister comment on the technological advances to vehicles over the next decades? Most vehicles will eventually become self-driving. That will mean much less congestion, and vehicles will communicate with each other, so there will be much simpler junctions and fewer accidents. What account are the Government taking of the technical changes to vehicles?
Justin Madders
We are working on projections and what we know about the road network now, and overcapacity at Dartford in particular needs to be addressed. On whether automated vehicles reduce congestion, we need to see what happens in practice.
The regulated asset base model will be applied to trunk roads in England. That model is not new—it was used to fund the Thames tideway tunnel and Sizewell C—but this is the first time it will be used on a road network. For our roads, it starts by granting a licence for a specific highway project to a private investor. The framework for that licence is set in this Parliament. The framework starts with construction and goes through to operation and maintenance. Any infrastructure project under this model will therefore start as it should, with a sound legal and regulatory foundation.
The Office of Rail and Road will then act as the independent economic regulator. It will have a wide range of powers in the public interest, including monitoring performance, obtaining information, issuing penalties and, if necessary, taking enforcement action and revoking a licence. These public interest safeguards are vital and will never be compromised. There can also be no disparity between the operation of a privately funded highway and one managed by National Highways, so I can assure the House that the Bill means that roads operated under the new licensing regime can be held to the same standards as the rest of the strategic road network. Even when difficulties arise, the framework ensures that road users are protected and there is continuity of service on the network.
Finally, the Bill allows a private operator to make a regulated return on their investment. Any charges or tolls will be levied under strict conditions set out by the Office of Rail and Road, which will be required to consider the interests of road users. Let me be crystal clear: the Bill is not and will never be national road pricing by the back door, and it is not and will never be a way to charge motorists across the wider network. The provisions in the Bill apply only to roads brought in under the financial and legal framework that we are debating today.
Let me be clear: that framework is not open ended. Licences may only be issued for new road projects, capacity enhancing improvements or the continued operation of a previously licensed road, and any road specified in a licence must be a trunk road in England. This is about strategically important routes, not minor improvements to the road network. Government policy is that tolling will normally be used only for costly river and estuarial crossings, and nothing in the Bill is set to change that.
I will now turn to the second major feature of the Bill. Some of the legislation governing toll collection dates back to the 18th century. It is high time that was updated, so that we can unleash the benefits of modern technology on our roads. Many of us have at some point experienced long queues at toll booths. It adds unnecessary delay to journeys, and drivers will rightly wonder when regulations will catch up with technology. Free-flowing tolling systems do not require vehicles to stop at traditional booths, and by allowing payment after use, they ease congestion and shorten journey times. The Bill does not mandate a certain approach to toll collection, but simply allows new technologies to be adopted and creates a modern statutory framework for enforcement practices. I have little doubt that drivers will welcome measures that can remove friction from their journeys.
It is no secret that our desire to push forward with this legislation stems from the lower Thames crossing. That crossing will almost double road capacity across the Thames to the east of London. It will improve journey times and it will tackle chronic congestion at Dartford, which is bursting at the seams. Its 2.6-mile dual tunnels under the Thames will be the longest road tunnels in the country, and the largest in Europe by diameter, and it will set the standard for carbon-neutral construction. In short, it is exactly the sort of ambitious and world-leading infrastructure project that Britain should be building.
We have been clear that the regulated asset base model is our preferred financial approach for the lower Thames crossing, but the Bill is not about the lower Thames crossing’s design, nor does it grant development consent. That work has already been done. It simply creates the financial framework that can deliver the lower Thames crossing, as well as appropriate future road projects.
I finish by reminding colleagues what lies at the heart of the Bill: recognition that too many people, in too many places, remain held back by poor connectivity, and a recognition that each congested road and every delayed journey stifle productivity. The Bill does not ask the House to choose between public and private finance as a matter of ideology, but it puts another tool at our disposal for delivering the infrastructure that Britain needs. This financial model will not be used in every case, but it does set out one practical approach, guided by a financial framework set by Government. There will be a compliance regime enforced by an independent regulator. Private capital is provided by investors, and public safeguards are protected at every stage. That is the balanced model that this Bill will deliver, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while recognising the urgent need to deliver the Lower Thames Crossing, declines to give a Second Reading to the Highways (Financing) Bill, because it has no confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver the project on time and on budget, given its record of cancelling major road schemes across the country; believes that, without withdrawing from the Aarhus Convention, the costs of the Lower Thames Crossing, and therefore potential costs to its users under this Bill, risk spiralling further out of control; further believes the scope of the Bill should be strictly limited to financing the construction of the Lower Thames Crossing, and rejects the sweeping powers the Bill would grant Ministers to impose new road-charging schemes across England through secondary legislation; and also believes that the Government should not be permitted to introduce additional road-charging schemes across England without parliamentary approval and corresponding reductions in fuel duty to offset those charges.”
We are here today primarily to debate the measures to deliver the lower Thames crossing, an infrastructure project that, I think it is right to say, has support from Members across the House. It will deliver the jobs, growth and economic opportunities that local communities in the region, including my own constituency of Basildon and Billericay, are crying out for. However, I am afraid that that is not all that we are here to debate. Labour could have brought a project-specific piece of legislation to the House that would get this project over the line, but instead we are here partially to challenge this Labour Government as they open the door to a road charging scheme to hammer motorists.
The Minister has said that the Bill concerns only existing big toll roads, but we say that that is obviously not the case. In fact, motorists all over the country could be forced to stomach another blow to their wallets and to fork out their hard-earned cash, as the Bill’s sweeping powers mean that anything new on the road—a new smart motorway camera, perhaps, to replace one of those that currently does not work on 400 miles of our road network—can be swiftly followed up with a new toll. The Minister said that the Bill applies only to trunk roads, but clause 81 allows the Minister the “power to direct” any road to be made a trunk road, which opens up the entire road network of the country.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible for the three London bridges that are in disrepair to be designated as trunk roads, so that they could be repaired under the provisions of this legislation?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes an important point. My understanding is that in relation to other legislation put forward by the Government concerning those projects, the local councils told the Government that the funding that they were putting forward under their own schemes—not including this legislation—was not suitable, particularly for the Hammersmith project. There are lots of options available, and my hon. Friend raises an important one, given the importance of those river crossings to the people of London and the wider country.
In truth, we all know that Labour does not care about motorists. If it did, the Secretary of State would be in her place. Where on earth is the Secretary of State? We are discussing legislation that will enable the biggest road infrastructure project that this country has done in decades, but where is she today? Too busy to bother about motorists.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify where the Conservative Government were over the past 14 years when it came to building this project? People in my constituency have been on tenterhooks for years and have suffered the uncertainty of being told that it will happen, and then that it will not.
Mr Francois
As a south Essex MP, I had my first briefing on the lower Thames crossing about a decade ago. The estimated cost at that time was between £2 billion and £2.5 billion. After, I think, five rounds of consultation, partly at the behest of environmental activists, which have delayed the whole thing for years, we now have a bill of between £9 billion and £10 billion. Under the first plans, the project would have been paid for by the state, but now Government policy is that 90% of it will be paid for by the private sector. I have asked the Transport Secretary three times which banks or companies will pay for it. Does my right hon. Friend know, because she will not tell me?
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We do not yet know who will fund the project. Would the Minister like to intervene on me to say if any companies have been lined up and who is looking forward to funding this project under the proposed legislation? He does not want to at the moment, so I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will be getting an answer to his question today.
Mr Holden
I have just given way several times, so let me make a little progress before I give way again.
The Secretary of State is too busy to bother about motorists until they become useful cash cows for Labour’s ballooning welfare budget, which shows no sign of changing under the new Prime Minister, no matter how many pints he poses with. The Transport Secretary could not even be bothered to mention fuel in her speech at the Labour party conference, even though diesel has just hit £2 a litre for the first time ever. To be fair, she did mention drivers once, but only to tell us that railways are the drivers of change—whatever that means.
Make no mistake: Labour does not care about Britain’s motorists, unless it is making a tax, a charge, a new fine or a new yellow box junction. Labour—its Government, its Back Benchers and its councillors—will never stop trying to fleece motorists. This Bill proves that in spades with its open-ended approach to what could happen. There are new sweeping powers in the Bill for road charging right across England, with next to no future parliamentary approval. It is not even as if the Secretary of State has been out there banging the drum for Britain’s automotive sector; otherwise, we would have seen the changes to the zero emission vehicle mandate that so many in the industry, and some Labour Back Benchers, are demanding. In fact, we have seen Labour turn the screw on this issue even further since it came to power.
We know that some Labour Ministers—such as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who is a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade—are on the side of motorists. However, the Department for Transport has shown absolutely no indication that it is on the side of Britain’s car industry or those who work in it in good jobs, often with trade union representation, up and down the country. It is not on the side of those who go out and drive for work or for leisure day after day.
What have this Government done? They have been busy merrily cooking up a story with the Treasury and pressing ahead with plans to put an extra 6p per litre on fuel in the new year. They have been busily slicing out road scheme after road scheme and road upgrade after road upgrade. So much for the road investment strategy that the Minister talks about! Under this Government, how can we have any confidence that they will deliver the scheme at all? We have just seen the A303, the Blyth relief road, the A31, the A10, the A12, the A17, the A454 and the A127 growth corridor cancelled, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) just mentioned, as well as many more. The Government have cancelled their own growth corridor!
The Transport Secretary—although she is not here—expects us to swallow the idea that the Government will suddenly be on the side of motorists and road users with this new scheme, which opens the entire road network to potential road charging. As soon as any new enhancement is put in—it may be a central reservation enhancement—it can be opened up to potential road charging.
I read the other day, to my amazement, that National Highways has banned diesel from construction sites on the lower Thames crossing. Are this Government absolutely mad? Are they trying to keep the costs of this project down?
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend makes a good point.
The Government have devised a new cunning plan. They are not just banning diesel—oh no; they are banning hydrotreated vegetable oil. You heard that right, Madam Deputy Speaker: they are going to wipe out vegetable oils being repurposed as diesel from the sites. The sites will have to be all electric. How much cost will they ram through on to this scheme? In the end, who will pay for that? It will not be the private company that runs the scheme; it will be everybody who crosses the Thames. That is what the Government are doing: driving in costs from day one. This is the biggest road scheme that this country has done in decades, and the Secretary of State is not even here to talk about it.
Jim Dickson
The shadow Secretary of State keeps mentioning the fact that the Secretary of State is not here. Is he aware that one of the first things she did on assuming her role was to agree the development consent order for the lower Thames crossing? The last Government failed to do that over 14 years, because they were not prepared to stand up to the environmental groups who slowed the thing down and allowed dither and delay.
Mr Holden
The last Government fought tooth and nail through the courts to deliver the scheme and get the planning consents all the way through. I think the hon. Member should take note of that. This is not something that this Government have dreamed up overnight and delivered. They are ramming costs right into the heart of the scheme, and it is his constituents who will pay for it in the years to come, because of the way in which it will be constructed.
This is neither the time nor the place for one of Baldrick’s cunning plans. Does the Minister know how much this scheme is going to cost? If not, why not? Why on earth will any private sector company look at investing in the scheme if it has an open-ended cost? The Government say that they want to deliver growth, but instead they spend their days screwing over motorists, cancelling road schemes and calling Heathrow expansion a “hypothetical” or “a matter for London”.
Labour is not a serious party intent on delivering growth. They are only fit to whack up the welfare budget and leave the rest of us to pay for it. My party has set out a clear plan to tackle some of the costs of infrastructure, including leaving the Aarhus convention, which we discussed at the Conservative party conference.
Dr Prinsley
Is the shadow Secretary of State opposed in principle to the concept of tolls for any of these projects?
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member—my occasional squash partner—for asking that question; he often beats me at squash. We are not opposed to tolls, per se—we have had them on the existing lower Thames crossing at Dartford for years—but we took them away on the Severn bridge, which is important for our connectivity to Wales. We are totally against opening up the entire strategic road network to charging, which is what this piece of legislation does.
Mr Francois
For the record, the first Dartford tunnel opened in 1963, under a Conservative Government, and the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Thurrock opened in 1991, under a Conservative Government. Is not the risk that if the lower Thames crossing is 90% funded by private finance, which I am not opposed to in principle, the toll charges could be so ruinous that it will be very difficult for ordinary motorists to afford it? We would have some confidence if we knew who was going to fund the scheme, but until we know that, we are going to be worried, aren’t we?
Mr Holden
Nowhere in this legislation is there any talk of the exact price that people will have to pay to cross the river. There is no idea of who is going to build the crossing, the cost of it or how much people will have to pay to cross. Huge numbers of open-ended questions are left by this piece of legislation.
As I was saying, my party has outlined plans for how we will reduce the cost of infrastructure, including leaving the Aarhus convention, so that we can tackle the rules that allow costly or protracted legal challenges. The Minister smirks, but that is costing his Department hundreds of millions of pounds a year. If his Government pulled out of the convention, they could deliver some of the road projects that they have just cancelled. That is exactly what we should be doing. At the moment, every man and his dog can challenge the Government on any important piece of road infrastructure being built in the country—or, in Jolyon Maugham’s case, every man and his fox—and use those rules to delay projects and cost the taxpayer. Costs are capped at £5,000 for an individual and at £10,000 for a campaign group, but this situation costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds a year. That is where the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) should look to save money for his constituents when they cross the road in the future, and it is why it took so long for this legislation to come forward—because it took so long for the planning to happen.
What plan have the Government set out? Is it for this country to be a world leader in greenwashing road building and making roads more expensive than anywhere else in the world? We have a Government run by a man whose only care for transport is whether it is in Manchester or not. I have no doubt that if the LTC was somewhere in Manchester, the Government would fall over themselves to get it built, rather than having no answers to the big questions that we have.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Holden
I have read the Bill. Clauses 33 and 81 could lead to road charging schemes right across the country. The Minister seems not to have read his own Bill. What safeguards are there? How much will his plans to ban diesel add to the cost of construction? Does he know? Would he like to tell us? No, he is not going to say.
The shadow Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), will take the Government to task on the Bill and go toe-to-toe in Committee, defending motorists against unlimited tolls and endless charges. That is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment that calls on the Government to see sense, keep costs for motorists down, get this project built and deliver the growth that we desperately need in this country.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
As many Members will know, I joined the industry 20 years ago as a civil engineer. Throughout my career, I have been very fortunate to work on a lot of major infrastructure projects, including the lower Thames crossing, the A303 and some of the big National Highways frameworks, such as the specialist professional and technical services framework and the regional delivery partnership—the delivery integration partner framework. I now chair the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure, so I come at this Bill as someone who has priced and bid for major contracts and has seen what happens when the money just is not there.
However, I thought I would start my contribution to this debate with a safety moment. Members who have been around the sector will know that safety culture is absolutely critical to delivering our road network and doing so safely, and a safety moment that has always stuck with me is one from National Highways. It is about a lady who I am going to call Jane. Jane had had a busy day at National Highways; she jumped in her car, was driving home, and was involved in a very low-speed traffic collision. When she hit the car in front, her airbag went off and caused her lanyard to be forced through her chest, and she ended up in hospital. That is always a good reminder—when you leave today, if you are rushing to your car to drive home, remove your lanyard, not only for your security but for your safety.
Let me now turn to why this Bill matters to Northampton. Why is an MP for Northampton talking about a scheme in Essex and Kent? Well, Northampton sits at the heart of the logistics network: some 2,640 logistics businesses operate out of Northamptonshire, and 35,000 people in my county work in haulage and logistics. Every day, goods move between warehouses in my constituency and the channel ports, many of them crossing the Thames via Dartford, and when Dartford jams up, those costs are felt in my constituency and across the midlands. I support this Bill—I think it is the right thing to do to deal with that problem—but I agree with the Road Haulage Association and many hauliers that we must also consider the cost for freight operators. When the licensing agreements come forward, we must consider the considerable business and fuel costs that many businesses in my constituency are facing.
Planning has long been the biggest barrier to building roads. In particular, the development consent order process for the lower Thames crossing has been torturous—unfortunately, I know that at first hand. The second biggest barrier, though, has often been money. The Treasury can only fund so many projects at any one time, and every project competes for the same pot. This Bill brings in the private capital to build things that would otherwise sit in the queue. I have long argued that private finance works in this sector; when the Silvertown tunnel opened last year, it showed that modern public-private partnerships can deliver for taxpayers, and I still believe that.
However, having spoken to the Minister previously responsible and now to the current Minister, I want to be straight with this House. This is an ambitious thing that we are doing. I do not believe that the regulated asset base model is used elsewhere in the world for road infrastructure; traditionally, we see it delivered through concessions or availability-based public-private partnerships. I was initially concerned, so rather than shouting at the Department about where the money is coming from, I went out and spoke to industry. Through the Global Infrastructure Investor Association and some of the big advisers to the investment community, I spoke to investors about this project, and they said that this is actually quite an exciting opportunity, particularly because it should reduce the cost of capital. Creating a regulated return reviewed by an independent regulator should deliver cheaper finance and, importantly, more competition for that finance, so it is completely right that the Department cannot say who is funding this project yet, because we need to run the competition to get that funding in the first place. The more certainty we give to the market through a model such as this one, the better our chances of securing that finance at a much lower cost.
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman has obviously spent a lot of time looking into this matter, and I commend him for that. As a result of his discussions, could he estimate when we might know who the funders will be—is it another year or two? When will it be? As he has obviously spoken to the Road Haulage Association as well, what does he think the initial toll will be for a lorry going through the tunnel?
Mike Reader
I would not want to speculate on the Government’s timetable. What is important is that the Bill goes through, and then we will go through the licensing arrangements to find the right partner to deliver this project, as well as the finance, obviously. However, the delays that happened under the previous Government—the first failed development consent order, where they completely ignored the local community, and the second DCO ending up in the courts because of challenges brought forward by the environmental lobby, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said—were not dealt with, and I am really disappointed that the Opposition are playing that card now when they campaigned against the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which brought forward many measures that would have solved the problems that the lower Thames crossing had.
The question of risk is another important one. A RAB model moves construction risk on to the people who are financing, building and delivering the scheme, but the treatment of risk in the delivery of a major infrastructure project can make the difference between success and failure. The question is: who holds that risk? The Competition and Markets Authority’s review of the civil engineering sector rightly identified that the transfer of risk from tier 1s, from financers, and into the supply chain can make a big difference to a project’s solvency and how it is delivered, particularly for major projects. We have to make sure that the licensing arrangements established by this Bill make provision for Government to require equitable risk management and risk treatment within the delivery of projects, as well as prompt payment through the supply chain, so that when billions of pounds of investment are involved, that money flows through quickly into the supply chain and does not get stuck at tier 1 level.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister to round off my speech—I am very grateful for his and his predecessor’s engagement on this Bill. The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that the process for setting tolls in the first settlement period, which would answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), would be set out as the Bill progresses. Will the Minister confirm that that is still the case? The standard licence conditions will be set by the Secretary of State without parliamentary procedure, so will the Government commit to publishing the core principles for investor returns and price reviews before any licence is granted?
The Bill puts new requirements on the Office for Rail and Road. I have had relatively good experiences with that organisation, but this is a new skill and capability that it needs to have, so what are the Government going to do to strengthen the ORR’s capability to manage these contracts effectively?
Turning to existing roads, to address the point made by the shadow Secretary of State, the Government have already confirmed in a written answer that they have no plans to use these powers to toll roads that are currently free. I welcome that, but since there is confusion, could the Minister put that question beyond doubt in his closing remarks from the Dispatch Box?
Some will say that this is a pay-per-journey model that will change Britain’s roads, but I do not believe it is. It is a way of getting the biggest schemes—the schemes that get stalled for years, if not generations—off the drawing pad and into delivery. I fully support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I start by welcoming the Minister to his place. He has been blessed with the opportunity to bring another scintillating transport Bill to this House, which has clearly excited a very large number of hon. Members.
Starting with the Minister’s comments about the lower Thames crossing, which is clearly a major reason why this legislation has been laid, he is quite right to say that there is a clear need to relieve pressure on the Dartford crossings that connect the two ends of the M25 across the Thames. However, it is interesting that we seem to be assuming that traffic growth is inevitable, which is an assumption that the Government were not quite so willing to make when they opposed passenger growth targets in the Railways Bill. I make that point purely because although we of course need to cater for future increases in road demand, there is also a lot we can do to transfer that demand—both passenger and freight—to other transport modes, particularly for long-distance traffic.
In that context, while the lower Thames crossing has merit in that it will relieve the existing Thames crossings, the Government appear to be repeating the mistake of many past Labour and Conservative Governments by seeing road building as the sole answer and neglecting rail infrastructure. The channel tunnel is one of the engineering wonders of the world, yet it continues to be under-utilised, especially for rail freight—in fact, largely the rail freight does not exist, beyond lorries going on LeShuttle or whatever it is called this week. Channel tunnel use charges are one of the barriers; another is the capabilities of the UK rail network within Kent. There are well-developed plans for upgrades to the Kent conventional rail network to accommodate W12 loading gauge freight trains, and intentions to create a freight hub served by High Speed 1 at Barking, which would benefit from acceleration.
As drafted, the Bill would also give the Government significant powers to impose road tolls and charges on major roads. Introducing a new financing model for the strategic road network, while the local roads that make up 99% of the country’s roads in terms of length are facing an £18 billion repairs backlog, is an interesting choice by the Government, but let us engage directly with that choice.
There are examples of the concept of tolls and charges working well both here and abroad. Many choose to use the M6 toll road instead of the M6 despite there being a fee to pay, because it reduces some of the “road to hell” experience that the M6 often is for many. In France, motorway tolls are common, if not universal, and many European countries use a vignette system, where a driver pays for a sticker, or a digital version of that, to go on their vehicle, which enables them to use motorways and trunk roads. The advantage is that people who want to use motorways and trunk roads pay a little bit more for those roads, but people who use their car only for very local purposes do not have to pay that cost.
Olly Glover
Not all French motorways are tolled. Certain sections of them are—often the busiest sections. I will come to what the right hon. Gentleman said about what the Bill does and does not do.
The Liberal Democrats’ position is that there needs to be close attention to the detail and scrutiny of the way in which charges and tolls—like those in Europe and on the M6, which I mentioned—are implemented. However, the Bill leaves all of those questions of operation, management, oversight and regulation of tolls and charges largely undefined; they are often relegated to secondary legislation. The Government must ensure that road users are not held to ransom by licence holders, who must be properly regulated. We have seen disastrous effects in other sectors when these things have been got wrong.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) gave good examples of how a regulated asset base approach, and indeed private finance initiatives, can be used for good, but of course there are many bad examples as well. I am not sure whether too many people believe that the water industry’s use of the regulated asset base approach has been enormously successful. We certainly need regulation of private investors and to ensure that the triggers for the special administration regime defined in the legislation are not too weak. Of course, there are also many examples of public private partnerships and private finance initiatives that have not ended well, particularly with hospitals and the London underground.
Mr Francois
The hon. Member is making a very thoughtful speech. I was recently on a private holiday in Texas, being driven by a friend. In that state, there is a number of toll roads, so people have a chip attached to the windscreen that allows them to transition from public roads, as it were, to toll roads and back again, with that chip recording what they have to pay as they go from one to the other. The technology to do this already exists—I saw it with my own eyes. We are just a bit worried that the Government might be a bit too keen to adopt it.
Olly Glover
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that if we are to go down that road, it needs to be transparent and done in a way that gives confidence to consumers. Car drivers and road users are consumers, and we should think of them in the same way we do customers on the railway or on planes. If such a thing is to be done, it must be done with great care and thought. That is why we need to scrutinise the legislation carefully.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Such schemes are hardly new: in London, we have had the congestion charge for many years now—[Interruption.] We have it elsewhere, too; drivers in and around our major cities are used to a charge they have to include in their budgets.
Olly Glover
Yes, London is another example of where some of these things are already happening, but the fact that they have been controversial at times is exactly why they need to be done with thought and, ideally, in a manner that avoids some of the interminable cultural wars that we must always have on every topic these days. Instead, they should be done with consensus and based on sound reason and analysis.
We are not satisfied that the Bill as drafted provides that transparency and accountability, so we will not take a view on it as a whole today. We hope that the Government will be more receptive to some of our ideas to improving the Bill at later Commons stages than perhaps they have been hitherto.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I have listened to the debate, and I think Opposition Members have amnesia over some things that have happened over the years. The A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme) Order 2013 and the Silvertown Tunnel Order 2018 are measures that directly impact my constituents every single day, and they happened under their watch. Conservative MPs in my part of south-east London go around campaigning, saying, “How dare you increase the Silvertown charges this year?” But it was their legislation that insisted that that happened; they really do forget what happened under their watch.
I should have started by declaring that I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for better roads and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. I also drive a Motability vehicle on behalf of my daughter, as I will refer to later.
My constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford sits less than 3 miles from the Dartford Crossing, and for businesses—particularly industrial businesses—in Crayford and Slade Green, it is an essential link. A number of those businesses are located around Thames Road in Crayford. Over 20 years ago, as Bexley’s then cabinet member for transport, I worked to ensure that funding was forthcoming from the then Labour Government and Transport for London to upgrade Thames Road in Crayford to a dual carriageway. Unfortunately, one part of the scheme was never completed, which leaves a pinch point at the Cray Mill railway bridge on Thames Road that carries the North Kent railway line. The road is constricted due to that single carriageway to pass through the bridge arches, and that pinch point can cause long queuing during busy periods. I will continue to raise that matter with both my local authority and the Government.
Similarly, a couple of miles down the road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) at the Littlebrook interchange, there are further delays for my constituents as vehicles approach the Dartford tunnel to travel north across the Thames. Those issues are resolvable through engineering, but the congestion at Dartford each day is a lot harder to resolve. The delivery of the lower Thames crossing will reduce the number of vehicles—particularly lorries that have crossed the channel and need to cross the Thames—and will therefore relieve that congestion. I warmly welcome that the lower Thames crossing will double road capacity east of Crayford.
For my businesses, the lower Thames crossing will deliver reduced costs and opportunities to grow. I am amazed that later today the Conservatives will vote on a reasoned amendment calling for the Bill not to progress, as that would leave the scheme without a funding mechanism. This afternoon, the Conservatives will actively try to stop a Bill that supports growth and investment for businesses in my constituency and across south-east London and the Thames estuary. I say to Conservative Members that if they have concerns, the time to try amendments is in Bill Committee and on Report, rather than trying to kill the Bill in its entirety this afternoon.
As the Bill progresses, issues will need to be looked at. I know that my constituents and businesses would want us to look at mechanisms in clauses 7, 8, 24, 25 and 26 to ensure consistent tolling arrangements between the lower Thames crossing and those existing ones at the Dartford crossing. In particular—I am afraid this is a mouthful—schedule 3 to the A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme) Order 2013, which was passed under the previous Government, outlines that a vehicle exempt from vehicle excise duty due to carrying disabled people does not pay the toll. That normally relates to Motability vehicles. I am clear that we need to ensure consistency in the legislation for both the Dartford and lower Thames crossings for Motability users.
We also need to look into the detail of clauses 33, 87 and 92 as the Bill progresses in order to protect consistency and the current tolling arrangements. Clauses 87 and 92 allow arrangements that would see the removal of toll booths at other toll roads and crossings, such as the M6 toll or the Mersey tunnel. I warmly welcome that, as it would relieve congestion. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) said, these removals are happening more and more in France. I had a moment of panic this year, when I was on a toll road without a toll booth, and I realised I had not paid. That is happening more and more, and there are lessons that we need to learn from our French counterparts on this matter.
Relieving congestion is of real benefit to business. The Bill is not all we need, but it can be a catalyst for beginning to look at the interoperability of toll systems. Currently, a business in Crayford that wants to cross at Dartford, then use the M6 toll and then maybe use another toll somewhere else, will have to set up several accounts across different toll roads. We have to look at the cost for businesses, including the amount of work in their internal accounting systems. We must look at the interoperability arrangements, both for businesses and for disabled people. At the moment, people need a separate Motability account on every single toll road. Dartford and Silvertown are free, but people have to register at Silvertown and do not have to register at Dartford. For the M6 toll and the Mersey tunnel, people have to register and pay an annual charge. It is hugely confusing for disabled people that different arrangements exist at each toll road.
I warmly encourage the Government to work on interoperability, both for business and for disabled people. I know that conversations are already being had between the operators of the Dartford crossing and the M6 toll road about interoperability, bringing those systems into one arrangement and encouraging that across all toll systems in the country. I am sure that businesses in Bexleyheath and Crayford would welcome those toll roads and crossings being brought together into one system, as would Motability users.
I support the Bill. It will bring benefits for my constituents through the delivery of the lower Thames crossing, and I hope it will start the conversation on interoperability, which will support Motability customers and businesses, reducing complexity for them and helping to encourage growth in our economy. I warmly welcome the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). The different varieties of charges and how they are enforced is a problem not just for people with disabilities, but for general motorists. As I understand it, almost half of the income from the current Dart charge is from penalties. That income is almost as great as the income from the charge itself. It shows the level of confusion that is caused to those who use that crossing.
I had the privilege of being the duty Minister in October 1991, when the Queen Elizabeth II bridge was opened by Her late Majesty. That was an occasion that I will never forget, with fly-pasts and the QE2 underneath the bridge. It was a great celebration of private enterprise at its best, because Members may recall that that bridge was built in only three years and two months. It cost £120 million and was delivered on time and to budget. The way it was financed was set out in the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988. In responding to this debate, I hope that the Minister will explain why a similar proposal is not being applied to the lower Thames crossing.
I checked out the remarks that I made as the Minister when the bridge opened in 1991, 35 years ago this month. In those remarks, I made reference to the fact that we were working on the lower Thames crossing. We recognised 35 years ago that there would be a need for an additional lower Thames crossing. The idea then was that the income from the tolls on the Dartford crossing would eventually be used to help fund the lower Thames crossing.
I am supportive of my party’s reasoned amendment, because it shows a certain scepticism about all these promises that are made. We should recall that, at the time of the opening of the QEII bridge, I promised—it was a repeat of a promise that had been given by a previous Conservative Minister—that the tolls would cease to be payable once the costs of the bridge had been paid for. The legislation provided that there was a maximum period of 20 years through which the tolls could be paid in order to fund the bridge.
In the end, I think the period of the tolls should have been about 12 years, because the bridge should have been paid for by then. There was then an extension of one year for tolls in order to ensure that we had sufficient income to pay for the ongoing repairs and maintenance costs. That should have been the end of the financial burden on motorists using that crossing. Of course it was not, because then the Treasury got involved and said, “No, we need to keep the income coming in from the crossing. How do we justify that?” Well, the justification was that by continuing to have tolls on the crossing, we would be able to fund the lower Thames crossing.
That continued for a bit of time, and then the Labour Government decided that they did not want to have the income from the tolls dedicated to a future road project across the Thames, and that the money would go into general taxation; we lost the allocated resources that should have been there to fund the lower Thames crossing, and the money that continues to be paid by those who use the Dartford crossing just goes into general taxation. Is it any surprise that people are sceptical about promises that are made when legislation like this Bill is being debated?
The Minister says that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle for toll roads across the country. Frankly, from my own perspective, I once argued that the best way for us to promote important highway infrastructure in this country is by building roads for prosperity. “Roads for Prosperity” was the title of a 1990 roads White Paper that led to an enormous expansion of our road network, which I was lucky enough to be involved in during my time as the Roads Minister.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend brings valuable ministerial experience to the House. I think it is fair to say that the lower Thames crossing has a very long and checkered history, just as HS2 has a very long and checkered history—in both cases, under Governments of different colours—but he is absolutely right: in south Essex, the scepticism about future tolls on the lower Thames crossing is largely based on the fact that the tolls on the QEII bridge are still in operation.
Sir Christopher Chope
I thank my right hon. Friend for that observation. That is why we need to be very sceptical about what the Government are proposing.
Let us look at the issue of the lower Thames crossing. I read that it is going to cost £10 billion, and people will ask how we are going to raise that money. It seems to me that it will not be difficult to get the capital from the private sector, if a return can be obtained on that capital. Indeed, when Sir Nigel Broackes, who was the boss of Trafalgar House, was bidding for the Dartford crossing, he obtained the capital from the Bank of America. I do not think there is any doubt that the money will be forthcoming, but what will be the cost of the whole project? Will it have a finite cost of, say, £10 billion? If so, over how long a period will the Government allow the operator and the construction vehicle to have that paid back? Will the tolls be designed to pay back the cost of the tunnel within 20 years, 30 years or 50 years? The answer to that question will determine the level of the tolls. Are they going to be affordable? My view is that it is reasonable that this infrastructure be paid for by the people who will use it. I do not have a quarrel with that.
Ruth Cadbury
It is been interesting to listen to the former Minister, who has had a distinguished career. I cannot speak about the former funding of the Dartford crossing, but does he not recognise that under this RAB model, which is overseen by the Office of Rail and Road, as are other RAB projects, funding is in effect hypothecated to the scheme? That is clear and transparent, unlike the situation that he mentioned, in which drivers did not know whether the funding that they provided was being merged with general taxation income. On how long this will last, surely that depends on the risk, and the length of time for which investors are prepared to take on the licence, when they bid to Government.
Sir Christopher Chope
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but the question I am asking is: why can we not have dedicated legislation for the lower Thames crossing, as we did for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing? In the primary legislation that went through this House, it was specified that there should be tolls only for the length of time it took to repay the costs of construction. Subsequent Governments changed that in the way that I have described, because any legislation can obviously be changed by a subsequent Parliament.
Ruth Cadbury
I appreciate the hon. Member’s response, but as this Bill makes clear, the funding through the RAB model of the lower Thames crossing and other schemes is not only for construction, but for ongoing maintenance, necessary improvements and so on. It is a long-term scheme, and is not merely for the cost of the construction.
Sir Christopher Chope
I understand that, and one of my concerns is that we may find that the tolls continue far into the distant future, when there will no longer be a need for tolls to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure. In a sense, the model espoused for the lower Thames crossing project could have exactly the same consequence for motorists, which is that they will end up paying a lot more than the cost of the tunnel. I hope that the Minister can explain why we could not have had specific, ringfenced legislation on this, instead of a general Bill. If we could have had that, we could have made a lot more progress.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is saying that we Conservatives would like to leave the Aarhus convention, because it inhibits progress on such projects. I remember all the difficulties we had with the European Union when I was the roads Minister; EU legislation was preventing the completion of the M3 through Twyford down. That environmental interference ultimately cost our economy a significant amount of money, but when anybody uses the M3, they see that it just blends into the landscape and is a really well designed project.
The question I put to my right hon. Friend, rhetorically, was: why did we not do something about the Aarhus convention when we were in government? On this, as on a lot of things, I am delighted that the leader of the Conservative party is showing herself to be a real Conservative. I fear that that we are still suffering from the hangover of a so-called Conservative Government who did not get to grips with issues such as the Aarhus convention, so I am very much with my right hon. Friend on that.
I intervened about the scope for extending the Bill to projects not currently a part of the main highway network or trunk road network. If we want to deal with the problems to do with London bridges, we will have to find some way to fund bridge repairs. I have an interest: my home in London for many years was just south of Waterloo Bridge. Recently, we heard rumours that the bridge may have to close because of cracks in it. If it is closed, that will be the third unusable central London Thames crossing. That is intolerable. Surely, we must find a way of funding the repairs and the reconstruction necessary to keep those London bridges open. My grandchildren talk about London Bridge falling down and all the rest of it, but we are not talking about London Bridge. Three other key bridges in London are either already closed or about to be closed. What are we going to do about that? I would be interested if the Minister is prepared to say, “Yes, I agree that the model set out in the Bill could be applied to the bridges in London that are in desperate need of repair.”
Daniel Francis
I hear what the hon. Member says, but the 2018 changes, made under the previous Conservative Government, introduced tolling at Blackwall and Silvertown. They were voted for by Conservative MPs who now run around south-east London blaming that on the Mayor of London. Can he assure us that if we were to take these matters forward, the Conservatives would take ownership of the changes, rather than pointing the finger at other people, as they are now doing?
Sir Christopher Chope
I cannot, obviously, make an assurance like that; it was a rhetorical question. All I can say is that I think people should take responsibility for their decisions, and we should face up to the fact that if there are costs associated with bits of infrastructure that cannot be funded out of general taxes, we should be prepared to ensure that they are funded by the users. To close down a thoroughfare across the Thames, with no solution or plan for what will happen, is totally unsatisfactory. I would like the Mayor of London to take action, because this comes within his responsibilities. He could easily use some of the income from the congestion charge or the ultra low emission zone charge to fund that. It does not seem as though that is happening, which is why I suggested that the Bill be used for this purpose.
Daniel Francis
May I seek clarity on that matter? My understanding is that not all the bridges in London are the responsibility of Transport for London. Some belong to local authorities and some belong to charities; the Mayor of London does not have direct power over them all. Can the hon. Member clarify that, for the record, given that he has just said that this is a Transport for London and Mayor of London responsibility?
Sir Christopher Chope
I am not going to try to clarify that. It sounds as though what I have said is only partially accurate, but in a sense, that reinforces my point, which is that, whoever owns the bridges or has financial responsibility for them, the financial vehicle identified in the Bill could be used to pay for their repairs and maintenance, to ensure they are brought back into use. I do not purport to be an expert on who owns which bridges. I did not know that any of them were owned by charities. The hon. Gentleman seems to say that they are; I am not going to dispute that, but I do not think that alters the principal point I was making.
I am concerned about other provisions in the Bill, and some of those concerns are identified in the reasoned amendment. It brings in massive new powers for the Office of Road and Rail, at a time when I thought the Government were rowing back on arms-length bodies being given such powers; and there are great powers under clause 99 to basically repeal any legislation retrospectively, as a consequence of the measures in the Bill. I could not understand the references to the insolvency legislation in the Bill. How would that fit into what happened with the building of the channel tunnel, for example? That was a private-investor exercise, and ultimately, the initial investors lost most of their money—but that was a result of them taking the risk. Are the Government suggesting, by taking those powers in relation to insolvency legislation, that different arrangements should operate in the future?
I am sceptical about the Bill, but frankly, when I was a Government Back-Bench MP, I proposed that we should privatise the whole of our motorway network, because that would bring good benefits to the taxpayer and ensure that the network was paid for by the people who use it. Earlier this month, I drove back with my wife from Strasbourg—Strasbourg to Christchurch is about 550 miles, and the tolls amounted to over €100. That was a contribution that I made toward the cost of the French motorway system.
If we are true radicals—this may be too radical for my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench—why can we not privatise our motorways? We cannot privatise the whole of the trunk road network because it that would mean dealing with all sorts of rights of way, bridleways and other complications, but the motorway network is set up in such a way that it could be the subject of one of the largest ever privatisations. I go back to my point about the success in the 1980s of involving private capital and entrepreneurial activity in the development of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. Why do we not extend that more widely across our road network?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), given his deep experience and interesting perspective on bringing in tolls for all our motorways. That may be what happens in certain countries, but I suspect the whole funding of their road network is somewhat different from ours, so I will go back to focusing on the Bill.
I have driven on roads in other countries, and across the bridge to Wales in the past, and it seems entirely natural to me for us to introduce a toll for the lower Thames crossing. It is parallel to the tolled Dartford crossing, and it is hardly going to be the first toll road in the UK. I welcome the Bill, which will enable the funding of the lower Thames crossing to be delivered and maintained through tunnel users paying to use it. It is the first time that a road project has used the RAB model—a model that is already used for energy, water infrastructure and Heathrow airport.
Delivering improved transport infrastructure is core to this Government’s growth mission, so I am glad that the Government are exploring a range of both tried and tested and new methods of working with private sector investors to deliver projects. Those include using RAB for the roads for the first time—as in the Bill—as well as using the community infrastructure levy and further exploring the capture of land-value uplift on new rail schemes. Some of the early private finance initiative schemes in the mid and late ’90s gave public-private funding partnerships a bad name, but I am confident that the relationship between state commissioners and long-term private capital has matured in a way that can only be mutually beneficial.
On the RAB model, however, I do have some concerns. While it provides confidence for investors and a rock-solid return—as the representative of potential investors in the lower Thames crossing told me—there is also a history of gold-plated, over-engineered schemes. Sometimes, as in the case of Heathrow airport, it can be poor value for money, as airlines and businesses that are captive tenants there tell me. All of Thames Water’s bill payers are funding the Thames Tideway tunnel—a project that provides no benefit to my constituency or the health of the River Thames in my constituency, as we are upstream of the intake of the Tideway tunnel.
While there is a regulator in the Bill—the Office of Rail and Road plays an important role—I wonder, as I do with many regulators, whether it has sufficient teeth and funding. Does it have the right powers and sufficient powers over issues such as sustainability, safety, customer focus and local communities? To look again at the example of Heathrow airport, I fear that the Civil Aviation Authority is far too weak in areas other than its core responsibilities of the economy and, of course, air safety.
There is one final issue with the lower Thames crossing that has been exercising both myself and the road haulage industry: the removal of any truck stop or motorway service area from the plans. The Transport Committee produced a report on this matter in 2022, when the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who is now on the Opposition Front Bench, was on the Committee. Our conclusions showed the critical impact of the shortage of safe, secure driver facilities around the south-east, and particularly on routes to and from Dover.
That message was repeated to the Transport Committee in March this year by the haulage industry and driver union representatives. Drivers are required to rest every 4.5 hours and need somewhere to stop and sleep in a place where they and their load are safe, yet we were told that at Medway and Thurrock services, on either side of the Thames, if a driver is not in the motorway service area by mid-afternoon, they would have to go and find an A road lay-by, meaning no toilets, no food and no safety.
Jen Craft
My hon. Friend mentioned Thurrock services. Thurrock is an area that will be heavily impacted by the lower Thames crossing, so I am very glad that she mentions the lack of a service station built into the plans. We already have significant issues with lorry drivers parking in inappropriate places on roads that are not built for that purpose, in order to get the rest that they need because they cannot get into a service station. Does my hon. Friend believe that the lack of a services facility as part of the lower Thames crossing will exacerbate that issue?
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely believe that it will exacerbate the issue, because the lower Thames crossing will significantly increase vehicle throughput, particularly of trucks and lorries, on what is already a busy part of the network.
The originally proposed MSA or truck stop—I am not sure which—has been removed from the plans, and I am told that there is no plan and no requirement to bring one back. This illustrates a national policy gap. In the French motorway system, there is a full MSA every 50 km and partial ones every 10 km. I am told that it is not too late for proposals, and I really do hope that that is the case, although there would have to be a planning application from a landowner in order to bring one in. I cannot believe that it would not be a profitable opportunity for investors to do that and then in due course to link it into the lower Thames crossing, because of course it is only just along the road from the docks, so there is bound to be demand.
The Opposition amendment says:
“this House…declines to give a Second Reading to the Highways (Financing) Bill, because it has no confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver the project on time and on budget, given its record of cancelling major road schemes across the country”
and risks costs
“spiralling further out of control”.
That is rich coming from the party that oversaw most of HS2’s lifespan. HS2 is so desperately needed by our rail system and northern cities, yet what did the Conservatives do when in government? They started construction before the design was agreed and complete, then halted it and removed about half the length of HS2, thus completely undermining the business case. I could go on.
The lower Thames crossing was commissioned because the Dartford crossing has miles-long queues leading on to it. Extra lanes have been built on the M25, and we have all-lane running on many other motorways, yet on many of them traffic still crawls along at slow speeds due to the sheer level of congestion. While there is no doubt that the lower Thames crossing will relieve pressure on the existing Thames crossings for a few years after it opens, how long will it be until the toll payers are effectively paying to park on the approach road instead to cross to the other side of the Thames?
The DFT forecasts that road traffic will grow by 12% on motorways and 10% on all other roads over the next 10 years. To ensure that our roads do not grind to a halt, I really look forward to a policy that incentivises alternative travel options so that road space is available for those journeys for which there is no choice but to drive. For instance, increasing capacity at the Ely and Haughley junctions, or any number of other rail bottlenecks, would increase rail capacity for freight and passengers at a fraction of the cost of the lower Thames crossing or of opening another lane on a UK motorway.
I do hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State can provide some assurance to me and this House. Unless there is an overarching transport strategy that supports modal shift, it will not be long before we need an even lower Thames crossing.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
My constituents will be delighted to see this piece of legislation before the House. It is, as others have said, key to unlocking new infrastructure and finally ending the traffic chaos that plagues my Dartford constituency daily. The new lower Thames crossing is planned to be the first new road project funded in this way. The Dartford crossing and the M25 motorway, which along with the A282 provides access to the crossing, cut across the heart of my constituency, providing, as has been said by others, the one crossing over the Thames east of London. This represents a single point of failure, and fail it often does.
The Dartford crossing was designed for 135,000 vehicles a day, but as the Minister has said, the crossing now averages 150,000 vehicles a day and needs to be carefully managed around the clock. When failure happens, it is the residents of Dartford who pay the highest price. When the crossing has to close, which happens regularly, it leaves the town at a complete standstill. Journeys that should take 10 minutes can take four to five hours. Children cannot get home from school, tradespeople cannot get to jobs, and medical appointments are missed. Dartford residents have been waiting for years for this to be addressed.
Earlier this year, on 23 January, an over-height lorry somehow evaded the sensors designed to detect and halt such vehicles and caused significant damage to the roof of one of the tunnels, leading to a closure of more than 30 hours and absolute chaos for residents on both sides of the crossing, as traffic backed up for miles around. Even when there is not a major issue such as a tunnel closure, most days see heavy traffic. For those heading northbound in the evening, 95% of journeys feature delays, with two thirds taking twice as long as they should.
The high amount of slow-moving traffic also has health impacts on Dartford residents, with air quality far below what we should expect. For our country more widely, delays at the crossing affect goods coming to and from ports in the south-east, and the delays are estimated to cost the UK more than £200 million every year in time lost sitting in traffic. It is therefore incredibly welcome that the building of the lower Thames crossing is now proceeding rapidly forward after moving slower than traffic over the Dartford crossing on a bad day under the last Government.
We now see a reasoned amendment to the Bill, which would decline to give it a Second Reading, because the Conservatives do not believe the Government can deliver it on time. That is quite some accusation given their record of—how can I put this kindly—glacial progress on the project. Their 14 years of dither and delay are followed by an active attempt to block progress today. That will go down really well in Dartford, and I have no doubt that Dartford Conservatives will be ecstatic at the antics of their colleagues in the House today.
The new crossing, when finished, will take away more than 10 million vehicles from Dartford, freeing up almost a full lane of traffic. It will be hugely beneficial for the local economy. Thousands of jobs will be created during construction, with half the workforce recruited locally. I hope that that will kick-start a whole generation of new careers in construction for young people across north Kent and Essex. Once built, the new road will increase access to jobs for those living on both sides of the Thames, providing crucial employment opportunities for my constituents and others living nearby.
The campaign to get this piece of infrastructure up and running has been the single biggest priority in my time as Dartford’s MP. I welcome the Bill as a crucial step forward in getting the crossing built and open. I send my thanks to residents, businesses large and small, organisations across Dartford and north Kent, national trade bodies including Logistics UK, local government representatives and colleagues across this House and in the other place for their support with the campaign. I also thank the Secretary of State for Transport and Treasury Ministers, including the previous and present Chancellors, for the planning and funding decisions that they have made.
I appreciate the time the Roads Minister took to discuss the project in the summer and hope that he will indulge me by answering just a few outstanding queries that I have about the operation of the Bill and its impact on the new crossing. Most importantly, on tolls, local residents in Dartford and Thurrock are entitled to discounted use of the Dartford crossing. Will the Minister clarify whether the Bill has any impact on the operation of a future residents’ discount scheme for both the Dartford crossing and the new crossing? It is crucial for my residents that the tolls across the two crossings are set at an equal value and remain affordable via the discount scheme. I would be grateful for any assurance that the Minister can provide on that issue. The arrangement clearly will not work if there is a financial incentive for goods vehicles to use one crossing rather than the other.
It is important to recognise that, at its core, the Bill allows private companies that are licensed by the Government to charge tolls on newly built roads—the mechanism by which we unlock capital to build much-needed new infrastructure. British motorists already pay substantial revenue to the Government through fuel and vehicle excise duties, so does the Minister agree that although it is right to use tolls on new infrastructure in certain circumstances such as this, we do not want to see new toll roads created on currently untolled highways? I am sure that the Minister will give us reassurance on that.
I have some concerns about the vulnerabilities highlighted by the Government’s final stage impact assessment with the Office of Rail and Road, which has been appointed as the independent regulator. How will Ministers address the concerns that have been raised about information asymmetry, such as the concern that in some cases, private firms bidding for and then building and operating the development may possess more detailed information about actual project delivery and operational costs than the ORR, which might allow them to inflate costs, with knock-on inflation in the charges that users will eventually pay? Some reassurance on that would be useful.
Notwithstanding those queries, which I am sure the Minister will answer, I am happy to support this very welcome Bill. I know that it is widely welcomed as the key to unlocking the critical funding needed to build such a vital piece of new infrastructure.
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.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for missing a bit of her speech? I nipped upstairs briefly to see the Children’s Parliament in action in Room 14. It is something our great friend Sir David was passionate about, so I hope the House will forgive my absence; no disrespect was intended. If it helps her, I have heard anecdotally that there is a lot of support for bringing back the Tilbury ferry—if I say that, perhaps she will forgive me.
There has been some debate about whether or not the Conservative party was committed to long-term infrastructure projects. Just for the record, in 1963, the first Dartford tunnel opened; I think Sir Alec Douglas-Home was Prime Minister at the time. In 1986, the first section of the M25 was opened by Margaret Thatcher. In 1991, the Queen Elizabeth II bridge opened, and in 1994, the channel tunnel opened, both during the premiership of John Major. We can trade historical dates, but I think those four examples show fairly conclusively that the Conservative party has been committed to major infrastructure down the decades.
On the lower Thames crossing, as I said in an earlier intervention, the truth is that this has a long and complex history. I know that it has been very controversial in Thurrock and in what is now South Basildon and East Thurrock. This really had a genesis, I think, under the Blair and then Brown Governments, so it goes back a very long way, and it is a fact that the project has been delayed by multiple consultation exercises over a period of years. But we are where we are, and because of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about the history of tolls on the QEII bridge, and whether or not they would ever be cancelled, I hope the Minister will understand that there is understandable scepticism—certainly in south Essex—about what would happen to tolls on the lower Thames crossing.
For the record, I have asked the Transport Secretary three times on the Floor of the House over the last year or so which financial institutions are now going to finance the 85% to 90% residual cost of the lower Thames crossing. I heard what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) said about the negotiations still being ongoing, but given the history of the whole project, I hope the Minister can understand in all seriousness why some people in south Essex are sceptical that the Government cannot yet tell us which companies or financial institutions would, in fact, pay for it.
When the Minister winds up, will he answer three very specific questions about the lower Thames crossing? First, given all of this complex history, what is the Government’s latest estimated year in which the crossing will open to traffic? Secondly, what is their latest estimate of the toll for a family car when the crossing opens? Thirdly, what is their latest estimate the toll for a 38-tonne lorry when the crossing opens? I would be grateful if the Minister could at least attempt to answer those three specific questions in his winding-up speech. I want the crossing to go ahead, but I want to know when, and I want to know what it is going to cost my constituents to drive through it, be they a private motorist or a lorry driver.
The Bill is about highways financing. I have dealt with the Minister before in a different context when he had a different job, and he has always struck me as a reasonable man—let’s get that on the record—but I wonder if he can understand the frustration in south Essex over the recent decision to cancel the proposed upgrades to the A127. Those upgrades included a scheme to straighten out what is now, in effect, the chicane at the old Fortune of War roundabout, and to add a third lane to the A127 in the Southend-bound direction between the Halfway House, as it is known, and the site of the old Fortune of War. Both those schemes would have increased flow and capacity on the A127. Some months ago, the incoming Labour Government cancelled the proposed widening of the A12, which had been in gestation for almost as long as the lower Thames crossing. I hope the Minister will understand why this has caused immense frustration in south Essex.
A different Department, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, wants to build 100,000 houses from Grays to Shoeburyness. That is its departmental objective. The Department of Health and Social Care has a particular challenge at Basildon hospital, which is pretty much maxed out as it is. According to the NHS’s own planning metric, it works on a basis of 2.4 additional potential patients per dwelling. The plans say there will be 28,000 additional houses in the Basildon borough, and 35,000 in Thurrock, thanks to Reform and Labour; that is 63,000 in total. When we factor in the 2.4 multiplier, that is 151,200 additional patients—at least by my maths—for a hospital in Basildon that is completely maxed out today as it is.
Mr Francois
I see the hon. Member for Thurrock nodding assent.
That hospital is rated “inadequate” by the Care Quality Commission. It is part of the Mid and South Essex foundation trust—along with Broomfield hospital in Chelmsford, and Southend hospital—which is a failing organisation. How can we build all those houses when there is no real plan of any kind to expand capacity at the hospital? Now we are cutting road programmes on the A127, which is one of the two fundamental east-west arterial roads between London and south Essex, and the A12 obviously feeds into to that area from the north.
The point that I am seeking to get across to the Minister is that none of this is joined up: one Government Department wants to build a vast number of houses; another Government Department is responsible for healthcare but has no idea whatsoever how to cater for what could be a quarter of a million extra people, if we use the NHS metric; and the Department for Transport is cancelling road upgrades that were supposed to increase capacity. At the morning and evening peaks, the A127 and the A13 are at 99% capacity as it is. I have seen the heat maps; the busier the road, the darker the red, and both those roads metaphorically glow scarlet in the morning and evening peaks. We have three different Government Departments with conflicting objectives, but my constituents in south Essex and other people who live there have to bear the consequences.
I have dealt with the Minister before on a constituency case, which I will not go into now, and he was very reasonable and listened. My plea to him this afternoon is: please accept what I am saying as true; please do not cancel anything else in Essex; and, for God’s sake—whatever you do—do not cancel the upgrade to the Fairglen interchange at Rayleigh on the A127, because if you think I am upset now, you want to see me then!
Those are the points that I wanted to make. Some are directly about the lower Thames crossing and some are about other issues, but I think my fundamental point about these key infrastructure projects is: it’s all got to be joined up. We cannot tolerate a situation where we have three Government Departments—I know the Minister is only responsible for one of them—pulling in three totally different directions. I hope that is not an unreasonable point to make in a debate of this kind. With that, I rest my case.
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.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for setting out in a clear and unambiguous fashion the nature and content of the Bill’s 104 clauses and three schedules. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be equally clear when he winds up. I also thank—very belatedly—Winston Churchill, who in 1929 provided £2.5 million for the first Mersey tunnel crossing, the Queensway crossing, which was opened by His Majesty King George V. Frankly, that was the last time that the Tories did anything worthwhile for Merseyside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), who is sitting behind me, is used to the question about the development of a Mersey crossing. There are also the two toll tunnel crossings we have had since the early ’30s and 1971. There is a history of toll roads in this country; many of them have been on Merseyside, including the two tunnels under the Mersey and the two bridges across the Mersey. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with legislation that will allow the Office of Rail and Road to be the independent regulator? What do the Tories have against that, or against providing a licence regime for construction and operation of the proposals? What problem do they have with laying out highway authorities’ functions in relation to licence holders, or with ensuring fair charges for cars and transparency in service standards? I do not see anything wrong with that at all. What about the Bill’s provision for transfer schemes, to allow property, rights and liabilities to be transferred, as well as a special administration regime and backstops? I cannot quite see what the Conservatives find wrong with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who is no longer in her place, referred to a ferry crossing. There has been a ferry across the River Mersey since 1150—a long time. King Stephen was the monarch at the time; the period was called the anarchy. The Tories know all about that; we had 14 years of anarchy under them.
I do not want to take up much of the House’s time—[Interruption.] I am listening to the Whips as well; I pay clear and unambiguous attention to the Whips. I want to ensure that when projects are introduced and developed, communities are part of that. My experience with National Highways—in relation to the A5036, for example—has not been as good as it could have been. I hope that when and if schemes are developed—whatever the nature of the scheme, be it toll or otherwise—the agencies that have a part to play in them will act with integrity, honesty and passion. If they do not, hon. Members across the House will ensure that they do.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
How we pay for infrastructure is a matter that the House needs to take extraordinarily seriously. When the Government announced that they would bring forward measures set out in the King’s Speech on using private finance to build new roads, Labour Members should not have been surprised. After all, the Prime Minister was one of the most effective defenders of PFI schemes in the NHS during his previous time in government, and as Mayor of Greater Manchester his effusive praise of the investment from Manchester City shows his willingness to back private finance. It should therefore come as little surprise that the Government are interested in how we can leverage private funding for our roads. The Minister set out in his opening remarks that this is the biggest change in this area since the 18th century. Well, the Bill does indeed once more open the back door to highway robbery.
Having reflected on the debate and listened to the contributions of hon. Members from across the House, I think that most hon. Members recognise the importance of finding innovative methods to build infrastructure. Members from across the House can look at examples of cost overruns on infrastructure—particularly on the lower Thames crossing—that has used private money and incentives to increase road capacity and improve the experience for drivers. As the Government’s own slightly outdated figures in their impact assessment set out, the vast majority of miles travelled across our country are travelled in our cars, and over two thirds of freight is transported on the strategic road network. That point shone through in many of the contributions.
We started with the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and his public service safety announcement. He was followed quickly by the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who, in true third-party style, could not muster up a speech without a European comparison. He was followed quickly by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who brought us his memories of 1991 and Her late Majesty, focused on a case of private enterprise at its very best: the QEII bridge. He then shared ideas with the House, based on his ministerial experience. His points on London’s bridges were particularly well made.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The issue with London’s bridges is highlighted by Hammersmith bridge, which has been closed since 2019. Is it not time for the Government to get a grip on Labour-run Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Labour Mayor of London, and get that bridge reopened?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Many moons ago, he and I were Conservative councillors in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. I remember in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on that council—we had a small electoral mishap, and the Labour party had taken control of the council once more—trying to call out the Labour-run council for failing to take the steps necessary to put a plan in place to fix Hammersmith bridge. Today, it remains closed to traffic. That is a bridge owned by the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham—it is Labour-run, and it is a Labour failure to get that bridge open again.
Daniel Francis
We were all very interested to hear the view of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that charging should be spread across London river crossings. What is the shadow Minister’s analysis of the proposal that the cost of river crossings be spread more widely among taxpayers in London?
Greg Smith
I think I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch put some ideas in front of the House that are not necessarily shared by the Conservative Front Benchers. However, his fundamental point—that we have London bridges closed to traffic, and Labour councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham are failing to fix them—desperately needs to be addressed in the interests of motorists in London, and in particular the residents of the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, and of Richmond.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
On the point of charging Londoners for driving, over the past two years, we have seen the Mayor of London introduce the Silvertown tunnel charge, and for the first time, there is a Blackwall tunnel charge. The price for drivers has already risen. The Government have even increased the Dartford crossing charge by around 40%.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. We will come on to those charges later. One thing that has shone through in this debate is that no one can tell us—unless the Minister pulls a rabbit from a hat in his wind-up and gives us a figure—what the charge will be to use the lower Thames crossing once it is built.
Daniel Francis
I am aware that my neighbour the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) has not been here for the debate. We have discussed the fact that the charges at Blackwall and Silvertown were introduced, as a result of the 2018 order, under the Conservative Government. The increases were made under that order, introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Can the shadow Minister confirm that all those measures were introduced not by this Government, but his?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman wants me to get on to road charging, but I do not think that the Labour party wants me to go through the record of the Labour Mayor of London; he introduced the ULEZ and hiked the congestion charge to unaffordable levels.
To move on to another London Member of Parliament, the Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) said that she wanted more powers for the ORR on sustainability, as if banning diesel and HVO in the construction of the lower Thames crossing was not bonkers enough. However, I agree with her about HGV driver facilities. I remember in the last Parliament serving alongside her on the Transport Committee when we did an important report on that and visited Thurrock services. The lorry driver was not what I would classically call delighted when the whole Select Committee was shown the shower facilities that he was using at the time to see that the tiles were falling off and everything was not fully in order.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) injected some common sense into the debate, asking serious questions steeped in the history of the project that affects his constituents. He mentioned their scepticism about the cost and the opening date of the lower Thames crossing. We also heard thoughtful contributions from the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson).
The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), raised a fundamental question during his opening remarks: is this the right type of legislation? Why on earth have the Government drafted the Bill in a way that could feasibly allow charges be to be imposed simply for using roads beyond the tolls? Why is that a concern? Well, to quote clause 3 of the Bill:
“A licensing authority may grant a licence to a person authorising the person to charge tolls in respect of the use or keeping of road vehicles on a highway specified in the licence, in return for the person securing works involving…the maintenance, operation or improvement of a highway specified in the licence which has been…constructed in pursuance of the licence or another licence under this section”.
I fear we risk smuggling in charges on drivers through the back door, and are opening the door to the tolling of the M25 and beyond.
At a time when drivers are getting squeezed at the pump and the Government are cancelling multiple schemes, we must be completely clear that the Bill as it stands is not acceptable. That is why my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State tabled our sensible reasoned amendment. We cannot pass a Bill that could impose costs on drivers without a requirement to deliver significantly increased capacity and new schemes.
The Government say that only new big roads will be included, but they have failed to explain why the Bill allows new infrastructure to fall within the scope of tolling. The use of the term “infrastructure” may paint a picture of an entirely new road scheme, but what is there to stop it being something as small as a new set of smart motorway cameras? The Government may protest that that is unfeasible. If so, why will they not amend the Bill to make that abundantly clear? They should put it on the face of the Bill.
By going well beyond the scope of the lower Thames crossing, the legislation puts in place a scheme that is not fit for purpose. If we do not limit its scope, I fear that the words of the president of the AA will be ringing in the ears of drivers. He has said that drivers already pay for roads through £34 billion in fuel duty and road taxes, so extra charges across the road network would be a “toll too far”. As I said earlier, no one can tell us what the tolls for private motorists and HGV drivers will be.
We want the Government to bear down on the costs of building, which make such projects so expensive. That is why we announced at the Conservative party conference that we would leave the Aarhus convention and tackle the rules that allow costly and protracted legal challenges. If we want to achieve low toll prices for drivers and incentivise private investment to build the project at a lower cost, we must reduce the regulatory burden on those involved, as opposed to imposing burdens such as banning diesel machinery. We should use equipment that is cost-effective to get the best deal for motorists, rather than trying to achieve ideological purity.
It is not merely the costs that we have to consider; there is also the structure of the scheme. As has been noted, the RAB model used by the Government will be dependent on the work of the Office of Rail and Road. At a time when the Government are trying to restrict the powers available to the ORR to uphold competition in rail, the organisation that will regulate the scheme will have to have regard to matters including efficiency and economy, the ability of licence holders to finance their licensed activities, safety, impacts on the wider strategic road network, sustainable development, competition and regulatory best practice. It is one rule for road and another for rail, with no consistency from this Government. That really matters.
As the Government’s own impact assessment sets out, using the RAB model for the strategic road network would be a new application of the model. In the literature about the scheme, one of the central principles is the need for a regulator that can control costs and serve drivers. The ORR may be able to achieve that, but we are going in blind. We need complete clarity from the Government about how the scheme will actually work, in addition to answers to the fair questions that have been raised by Members from across the House about the tolling regime. We cannot treat drivers like a piggy bank.
At the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister told the country that people “need breathing space now”, and that he was “determined to provide it.” If Labour MPs want to follow the Prime Minister’s words, they must send a clear message back: unless this Bill clearly prohibits charging drivers for using existing roads, it cannot be allowed to pass through this House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to today’s debate. The House has heard a range of views this afternoon. Some Members have spoken about the opportunities that the Bill presents, and others have rightly pressed the Government on how users will be protected, how local communities will be treated, and how we can ensure that major infrastructure is delivered in a way that provides value for money.
Before I turn to some of the specific points, I want to return to the more fundamental question: why is the Bill needed? The answer is straightforward: the Government believe that we should have a wide range of tools to deliver nationally significant infrastructure, and that we should avail ourselves of those tools to offer the best deal for taxpayers and to help us provide the connectivity that our economy needs. The immediate context for this legislation is the lower Thames crossing, and the House knows the importance of that project. Dartford is operating well beyond the volumes that it was designed to carry. It has become a critical pinch point on the strategic road network, affecting commuters, businesses, supply chains and communities across large parts of the country. The lower Thames crossing will provide additional capacity, greater resilience and a new strategic connection across the Thames.
Simon Lightwood
I have a lot to get through, and I have heard a lot from the right hon. Member already. [Interruption.]
The Bill provides the statutory framework needed to support the Government’s preferred financing approach for delivering this project. It does not grant development consent—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The right hon. Member knows very well that it is at the Minister’s discretion whether he gives way.
Simon Lightwood
The right hon. Member had numerous opportunities to intervene, which were accommodated by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders).
As I was saying, the Bill does not grant development consent, alter planning requirements or remove scrutiny; it provides a financing framework for delivery. However, this Bill is not simply about one project. At its heart, it is about ensuring that the Government have another option available when that is the right solution for delivering nationally important infrastructure. This infrastructure very likely could not exist without this new mechanism or something like it.
It is worth remembering what this Bill is and is not. The Bill does not create the concept of privately financed toll roads. Parliament has already provided a route for private companies to finance, construct and operate toll roads through the concession arrangements under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. That route remains available today, and in the right circumstances it can work effectively. The M6 toll is an example of that approach. The principle that private capital can play a major role in road infrastructure is therefore not being invented by this Bill, but the Bill creates a different model.
For some roads, a concession arrangement may be entirely appropriate. Where users have clear alternatives, commercial incentives can play an important role in protecting users’ interests and encouraging good performance. Some infrastructure, however, performs a very different function. Some roads are nationally significant strategic assets that form critical trade corridors and support economic activity far beyond the communities through which they pass, and for many users there may be limited practical alternatives. In those circumstances, the Government believe there is a strong case for independent regulation sitting alongside private investment.
That is why the Bill places the Office of Rail and Road at the heart of that framework. The ORR will oversee performance, scrutinise costs, protect users’ interests, monitor financial resilience and hold operators to account. It will have substantial enforcement powers, including to intervene where performance is inadequate. The Bill also provides important safeguards to ensure continuity of service if a licence holder encounters serious financial difficulties. The purpose of the Bill is not to enable private charging where none has existed before; it is about expanding the Government’s toolkit to better address the range of possible circumstances.
Furthermore, the Bill will help modernise the way tolls are collected and enforced on existing toll roads. Some operators have already moved on free-flow tolling, but the legislative framework has not kept pace. In some cases, existing arrangements are not working as effectively as they should, while in others the necessary powers simply do not exist to enable such a transition. It is right that the law keeps pace with advances in technology, and this Bill provides a clear route for operators to move to a modern tolling system while ensuring that enforcement remains effective.
That brings me to the predominant theme in this debate. Today we have heard just how important local services are to communities across our nation. This Government back local people to make the right decisions for their communities, and we are striving forward with ambitious plans for devolution that will drive growth in every postcode. Fundamentally, this Bill is designed so that users make a contribution towards the costs of major infrastructure from which they derive substantial benefits. Toll revenue should meet the efficient costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure for which users are being charged. It would not be right to expand this proposition to a form of centrally imposed local taxation.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan). The Prime Minister has personally committed the assistance of No. 10 North to the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham to find a suitable way to bring back the Tilbury-Gravesend ferry, and we remain open to working with local leaders on similar issues.
The clear theme in this debate has been whether this framework will provide regulation strong enough to protect users and avoid the failings seen in other sectors, including the water sector. We have learned those lessons and the Bill equips the ORR to be a strong and effective regulator from the outset. The ORR already has substantial experience of overseeing road and rail. Its new chief executive, Paul Smith, brings extensive regulatory experience from the UK’s aviation, energy and payment sectors, as well as from senior regulatory roles in Australia. Under this framework, the ORR will monitor licence holders’ financial resilience and long-term performance closely, and the regime will incentivise the right behaviour. Where an operator falls short, there will be meaningful consequences. Ultimately, the ORR will have the ability to suspend tolling while issues are resolved. The Bill also provides a clear backstop for this nationally important infrastructure where necessary.
Dr Lauren Sullivan
Gravesham will be one half of the centre point. Yes, it is a nationally significant infrastructure project, but the people of Gravesham need to ensure that there is accountability, so that the things we saw and learned in Dartford do not happen there. Will there be local representation and local voice, so that the ORR can look at what can make it work better?
Simon Lightwood
There will indeed be a stakeholder group and opportunities for people to feed into that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, was right that transport works best when there is a clear sense of direction and purpose. The Government are committed to providing that through a coherent programme of investment, reform and delivery that will create a more reliable, integrated and sustainable transport network. Indeed, that is exactly why we published our “Better Connected” strategy in April, which set out for the first time a single vision of how roads, rail, buses and active travel should work together to serve the people and places across England.
I want to address directly the reasoned amendment before the House, because it goes to the heart of what the Bill is and what it is not. To be honest, it is as if the Opposition have pleaded with ChatGPT to find any conceivable reason why they could disagree with the Bill. The first thing to note is that while the immediate context for the Bill is, of course, to aid the delivery of the lower Thames crossing, the Bill is about far more than that, so I will not be talking about the budget or project timelines. I will not dwell on the frankly shocking hypocrisy of the Conservative party, which oversaw ballooning costs to HS2, lecturing this Government on financial management. There are other times and places for that kind of discussion. Let me simply say this: the project is progressing, with construction activity already under way. Decisions on the project continue to be subject to rigorous scrutiny, with value for money remaining at the heart of decision making. The project already has its necessary planning approvals, which included the approval to charge tolls for use. In bringing forward the Bill, Parliament is not changing that approved scheme; it will just be providing another option in a suite of tools that the Government have to fund major road projects.
I am confused, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I do not understand why the Opposition want to withdraw from the Aarhus convention at this stage of the process for the lower Thames crossing. The main thing the convention does is to allow public participation in the planning process and ensure that environmental information is made available. It protects public access to reasoning and decision making during the planning process. That stage has already passed in the case of the lower Thames crossing. Withdrawing from the convention now, on behalf of the lower Thames crossing, would do absolutely nothing. The environmental information has already been produced. It has already been scrutinised publicly and published. That stage has passed, so it would not save money now.
The third thing to note is that, as I have just explained, there are already Acts that have been approved by this place that allow the Secretary of State, and indeed local government, to introduce new road schemes that involve charging or tolling without recourse to parliamentary approval.
Finally and most importantly, I must address what can only be described as misunderstandings contained in the reasoned amendment. It is important that this House takes its responsibilities for clear and fair communication with the public seriously, and I want to address that head-on. The Bill provides a mechanism for new infrastructure to be funded through future tolls in a way that regulates the potential impact on road users and provides certainty for investors. It also allows for existing physical tolls to be replaced by free-flowing virtual toll systems. The Opposition support both those measures as far as I understand. There is nothing else in the Bill: it has got nothing to say about applying new tolls on existing roads; nothing to say about wider road-user charging; nothing to say about low-traffic neighbourhoods, 15-minute cites or who shot JFK! There are no conspiracies here. I know the Opposition like to whip up the culture wars whenever they see the opportunity, but their rantings and ravings about the war on motorists, in this place and outside it, are obviously wide of the mark.
What sensible hon. Members will see in the Bill is a common-sense approach to managing our road infrastructure, now and in the future—nothing more; nothing less. Frankly, our constituents would be better served if we scrutinised what was in the Bill, rather than harping on about things that are not. Ultimately, the debate comes down to a simple question: should the Government have another tool to help deliver nationally significant infrastructure; a tool that enables practical partnership with the private sector that, in the right circumstances, can offer a good deal for taxpayers and users, and that comes with a strong regulatory protection. I believe that the Government should have that tool.
The Bill does not require the Government to use that model in every case, it does not place private finance above public finance, and nor does it ask the House to make an ideological choice between the two. It simply ensures that where private investment can help deliver nationally important infrastructure, with strong, independent regulation and robust safeguards for users, the Government have the option. That is pragmatic, proportionate and, above all, focused on delivery. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.