Highways (Financing) Bill

Daniel Francis Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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]

No, I am finishing my speech.

What on earth are the Government doing? Where are the safeguards against higher charges for motorists? The Minister does not know.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.