Highways (Financing) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Olly Glover]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. Amendment 41 would introduce a requirement for blue badge holder discounts on any toll road. It would close a major loophole in clause 25 by making toll exemptions for blue badge holders mandatory rather than optional.

Clause 25 states that a tolling scheme must specify exemptions, leaving it entirely to operator discretion whether any exemptions are offered at all. Although people in the private sector sometimes do the right thing, they are not always necessarily wholly motivated to do so of their own accord. They may therefore need a little encouragement or requirement.

Disabled drivers rely on private vehicles for essential mobility and must not be subjected to commercial toll charges when accessing healthcare, work or local services. Why does clause 25 leave exemptions for disabled drivers, and indeed emergency services, to corporate discretion rather than enshrining them as mandatory rights in primary legislation?

Amendment 42 would establish a statutory right to discounted toll rates for local residents living in close proximity to a toll highway. Local residents who are near major crossings such as the Dartford crossing or lower Thames crossing bear the daily brunt of construction, disruption, air pollution and localised traffic gridlocks. As Edmund King of the AA pointed out in his public evidence to the Committee, frequent local users who cross toll structures for work or daily life face an unfair tax on jobs without dedicated resident discounts. Michael Whelan, the general manager of M6toll, told us that M6toll had introduced a local resident discount, holding local trips to £4, demonstrating that resident schemes are practical and commercially viable. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I have a couple of brief remarks to make on the amendments tabled by the third party.

On the point about blue badge holders receiving a discount in statute, of course we all want to see those in society who find themselves in need of a blue badge, with whatever disability they might have, being treated fairly and supported in getting about and living their life. I am not certain, however, that the blue badge system is the correct mechanism for linking that to any tolling regime, as amendment 41 seeks. His Majesty’s official Opposition are not sold on that point.

With amendment 42, however, we have considerably more sympathy. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out the impact on residents near any toll road—in this case, predominantly the lower Thames crossing—who probably have to use it quite regularly to get to and from their homes, businesses, children’s places of education or whatever it might be. Critically, that phase of construction can be incredibly disruptive to somebody’s life. Believe me, Mr Wishart, I know the pain of that from the many infrastructure projects in my own constituency.

The payback for putting up with years of construction— or with some projects, potentially decades—must surely be some fair recognition in legislation. In this case, that could be a discount on any toll for residents within a set geographic distance from the new road as it is built under the licence given to any operator under this proposed legislation. I am looking briefly to the hon. Member for Dartford, who I am sure would want his residents to receive such a discount for using the lower Thames crossing, as I think any of us would if we saw new infrastructure of that type being built in the vicinity of our constituency. It is surely a matter of fairness that those who live near a new scheme and put up with its construction, and who by definition will probably have to use it for access more than most, should receive that discount.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I will speak to both amendments.

Currently, Dartford residents who use the Dartford crossing are able to do so at a considerable discount. The definition covers residents within the Dartford borough council area, who either pay £25 a year to use the crossing as many times as they like or pay £12.50 a year for 50 crossings. That represents good value for Dartford residents and gives them some compensation for having to live next to a crossing that takes all the burden of traffic crossing the Thames outside London and that therefore causes huge congestion and significant problems with air quality.

I imagine that when the lower Thames crossing is opened, residents of Gravesham or in the area around and north of the crossing will also want a resident discount, to compensate them for living near a busy crossing. The Dartford crossing and the lower Thames crossing will both still be busy, albeit that traffic will be much better distributed between the two, which will certainly be a blessing for Dartford residents.

I totally understand why the Minister does not want this set out in the Bill; I am sure he will say that such things should be dealt with by the regulator and the licence holder. However, I hope he will give Dartford residents some assurance that that conversation will be had at the right moment, as we expect, so they can have confidence that they will continue to benefit from the current concessions and maybe even see them extended to both crossings, as might be the case for Gravesham residents using the Dartford crossing in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I understand the Minister’s argument, but it is predicated on good will. As his words will be taken into account in any future analysis or interpretation of legislation, can he confirm that he believes that it is at least right in principle that residents in an area near any new road get a discount not just for living close to it and using it, but as a form of compensation or recognition for having lived through construction?

[Justin Madders]

I absolutely understand the shadow Minister’s point. The whole point of this work is to make life easier for local residents. There will of course be some disruption during construction but, in the case of the lower Thames crossing, the local road network is quite a long way from the majority of the works. The powers of the regulator, the opportunity for guidance to be given to stakeholder groups and the overriding duties of the ORR are sufficient to give us confidence that the intentions that I have espoused today will be delivered.

My amendment 5 is intended to put beyond doubt that the penalty charge referred to in clause 25 relates to a failure to pay the toll. I hope hon. Members will agree that it is a straightforward amendment made for the purposes of clarity.

Clause 25, as amended, will set out the information that a licence holder must include in its tolling scheme. The scheme must clearly identify the highway where tolls will apply and explain when drivers will have to pay. It must set out which vehicle types will be charged, the amount of the toll and any exemptions or reduced rates. It must explain how and when tolls must be paid and how the licence holder will record and collect payments. It must describe the information that will be used to decide whether a toll is due or has been paid. It must also explain what might happen if a toll is not paid, including the level of any penalty or other charge. Importantly, the scheme must explain how a driver can challenge a toll.

The clause will allow different tolls to apply in different circumstances. For example, charges may vary by time of day, distance travelled, type or use of vehicle or method of payment. The licence holder must publish the scheme in a way that brings it to the attention of people likely to be affected. It must also provide a copy to anyone who asks.

The clause will therefore ensure that drivers can understand when tolls apply, how much they must pay and what rights they have if they wish to challenge a charge. I hope that hon. Members can see the logic of setting that out in the Bill. I commend clause 25, as amended, to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I will address clause 26, which requires the ORR to publish a code on how tolls should be charged. The code will set out the principles and standards that tolling arrangements should meet. Its purpose is to ensure that tolls are charged fairly and transparently for road users. The ORR may update or replace the code at any time, and any updated or replacement code must also be published. The ORR may leave out information if publishing it would be likely to harm a person’s commercial interests.

Clause 26 therefore provides clear and independent oversight of how licence holders charge tolls, while protecting genuinely sensitive commercial information, and I commend it to the Committee. I will respond to the Opposition amendment once I have heard what the shadow Minister has to say.

[Greg Smith]

I wish to speak to amendment 69, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. There is a recurring theme in this Bill, and in plenty of other legislation debated in this and the previous Session: we are being asked to trust—throughout all the stages of the Bill, including here in Committee this morning—that something will be produced that is material and intrinsic to the legislation that we are debating and voting on. I could almost describe it as an “It’ll Be Alright on the Night” principle: “It’ll be fine—it’ll be published at some later date. Pass the legislation, then we can judge what the code actually says once the Bill has received Royal Assent and become an Act.” That opens up many questions for this Committee, for the wider House and, most importantly, for all the travelling public across the country.

Amendment 69 is, I would have thought, relatively straightforward. It would prevent any measure in this Act from coming into force until the ORR has published its code relating to the charging of tolls. It cannot possibly be unreasonable that the principles and rules—not the pounds and pence—must be known and clear to all those who may at some point need to pay those tolls, be they a private motorist or members of our incredible logistics sector and road hauliers across the country. It cannot be unreasonable that, when they are making their business plans, they ought to be clear what those rules will be. The regulator’s toll charging code is absolutely central to how motorists will be treated.

I simply put a few questions to the Minister, who I suspect will be resistant to the amendment—I suspect we will hear similar arguments to those he has given on similar amendments to different parts of the Bill previously. If the Government are to resist the amendment, will the Minister answer whether the code will explain the principles of setting tolls, payment transparency and the treatment of road users and toll payers? How far in advance will the code be published in draft and subject to consultation?

What consultation will any such code be subject to? Will that consultation be meaningful, or will it be the sort of consultation that we have become all too familiar with in recent years? Within the confines of that consultation, how will motorists and operators be able to understand with detail and clarity what any such code will actually mean for them? In the real world and in the lived experience of all of us across all sorts of different sectors, we often get these sorts of codes and principles published, and they are not very clear. They are open to a lot of interpretation. If we do not have it set out as clearly as possible now, how will the real users of the roads be able to contribute to the way that code is shaped and get the answers that they deserve—before they find themselves trapped on camera, with a penalty charge notice through the post, trying to understand what on earth went wrong in the first place?

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for reminding us all of Denis Norden and “It’ll be Alright on the Night”. I am not sure I can give him that level of wisdom today, but I will attempt to answer his questions.

The shadow Minister has of course correctly predicted that we will not be accepting the amendment. I hope he is going to give us the lottery numbers for Saturday night as well—his powers of prediction are very strong; he may even anticipate what I am going to say. The amendment would force the ORR to publish a tolling code in the abstract before the Act has commenced and therefore before the licensing authority could actually consult on the licence, which is required under clause 4 of the Bill. That could slow down or delay the delivery of the lower Thames crossing.

The tolling code will set out the principles and constraints that the licence holder must follow when proposing, setting and implementing tolls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

We will come to that issue later in the Bill, so if my hon. Friend bears with me, I will address it then. In summary, clause 27 provides a clear framework for dealing with unpaid tolls, while ensuring that the detailed rules and penalty rates are set through regulations or by the ORR within that regulatory framework.

Amendments 11 and 12 extend the scope of the offences under clause 28(3) to cases where a person seeks to avoid payment of a penalty charge for non-payment of a toll, as well as to those seeking to avoid payment of the toll itself. It is plain to me that those offences, principally for fraudulently seeking to avoid payment, should apply equally in relation to a penalty charge as to a toll.

Amendment 13 creates a new offence within clause 28 for the unlawful removal of a penalty charge. This is standard in relation to the issuance of penalty charges and is principally there to discourage anyone other than the person for whom the charge is intended from removing the notice from the vehicle. That ensures that the intended recipient gets proper notice.

Clause 28, as it will be amended, deals with deliberate attempts to avoid paying tolls, as well as the unauthorised charging of tolls. It makes it an offence to deliberately interfere with tolling equipment or obscure a vehicle registration plate to avoid paying a toll or being identified for non-payment. It is also an offence to deliberately use false information or documents to seek to avoid payment of a toll or a penalty charge. Those offences can result in an unlimited fine, imprisonment or both.

The clause also sets out that it is an offence for anyone not authorised to do so to remove a notification of a penalty charge from a vehicle. That can attract a fine of up to £500. The clause also protects road users by making it an offence to charge or collect tolls without complying with the Bill’s requirements, or without being authorised to do so. That can attract a fine of up to £1,000. A person carrying out tolling functions on behalf of the licence holder under clause 31 is not caught by that restriction. Clause 28 therefore provides sanctions against deliberate toll and penalty charge evasion, while also protecting road users from unauthorised toll collection.

Government new clause 1 gives regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor to make regulations about the imposition and enforcement of penalty charges related to a specified list of additional matters related to tolling. The list includes matters such as the release of a vehicle from an immobilisation device and, where certain equipment or documentation is required as part of a tolling scheme, a failure to carry them. Those are charges that the holder of a licence could conceivably need to levy, but they would be conferred only as needed. As is the case for penalty charges related to non-payment of tolls, the clause would allow for the rates to be set either by the Secretary of State or by the Office of Rail and Road as the independent regulator.

As with the other penalty charges in the Bill, the new clause includes two offences. First, it is an offence to make false representations, including by using a false document, with intent to avoid paying a penalty charge or being identified as having failed to pay one. On summary conviction, that carries imprisonment up to the maximum term for summary offences, a fine or both. Mere non-payment is not itself the offence; an unpaid charge is recoverable as a civil debt.

Secondly, it is an offence to remove a penalty charge notice fixed to a vehicle unless the person is its registered keeper, is using it with the keeper’s authority, or acts with the authority of either such person or the licence holder. That protects proper notification while allowing authorised removal. On summary conviction, the offence carries a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale. I commend these provisions to the Committee, and will respond to the shadow Minister’s amendments in closing.

[Greg Smith]

This is indeed a mega grouping. Before I come to our amendments, I will speak to the Government amendments, most of which are tidying. We do not have an issue with the majority of them, but Government amendment 13 confuses me. I appreciate that there are provisions later in the Bill that may address some of my issues, but the amendment talks about removing penalty charge notices “fixed” to vehicles. Now, that opens up a very big question. How, on a moving highway, as someone uses a toll road, could a penalty charge notice ever become “fixed” to a vehicle in the first place?

This is not a parking charge ticket of the kind that those workers out there who have a higher social standing than us politicians—traffic wardens—fix to windscreens, although even that is becoming less commonplace as enforcement has moved to automatic number plate recognition systems. I wonder how the Minister thinks that on a moving highway—the lower Thames crossing, the M6 toll or the Mersey tunnel—a ticket would ever find itself fixed with that immovable glue to someone’s windscreen in the first place.

The rest of the Government amendments are tidying. I wonder why the provisions were not thought through when the Bill was first published, but that is a debate we could have time and again.

We will come to this later in the Bill, but I have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket about the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in at the moment, where in many parts of the country Royal Mail delays are extreme to the point that people receive things like penalty charge notices or medical appointment letters too late to meet the initial payment window or attend the appointment. That is a fact of life today. We all want to see it improve and get back to a postal system that we can all fully and totally rely on. I ask the Minister to reflect on that practical fact of life right now as he considers the points raised about the issuing of penalty charge notices.

Amendments 52, 59 and 71 are all applicable to clauses 27 and 28. Amendment 52 caps a penalty charge for failure to pay a toll at £100, amendment 59 would ensure that regulations about penalty charges were subject to the affirmative procedure, and amendment 71 would delay commencement until the Secretary of State has published the penalty charge policy.

I put to the Committee that a penalty charge must always be proportionate. When it comes to the use of a toll road, I do not see a good argument for not putting a clear £100 limit on a penalty charge notice on the face of the Bill. It could be increased over time through statutory instruments subject to the affirmative procedure, which we will come to in a moment, but not without the consent of the House. Of course, costs go up and there might be reasons to put it up in the future, but something as fundamental as certainty and proportionality when it comes to any penalty charge notice for the private citizen or business operator using a road should be a decision for Parliament.

I come to this debate with a clear view of the world. Save maybe one or two—a number of people that could be counted on the fingers of one hand—I do not think anybody out there ever deliberately sets out to avoid paying a £5, £6, £7, £8 or £10 toll to use the M6 toll or the Mersey tunnel, or will do in the case of the lower Thames crossing of the future. I just do not think we are in the realms of deliberate avoidance—certainly not with an ANPR enforcement regime where everybody knows there is nowhere to hide and number plates will have been captured.

Therefore, we are not talking about gross dishonesty or grand criminality; we are talking about normal people—any of us in this room—taking a journey and perhaps, for whatever reason, forgetting to pay. There are too many stresses of the day. The kids are screaming in the back, asking to go to every fast food joint they see at every service station advertised in large letters on the motorway. It slips your mind. It can happen to any of us. I therefore suggest a simple cap that gives people the confidence that, if they admit they have made a mistake and forgotten to pay, the penalty will not be an extortionate amount of money, but will instead, as amendment 52 suggests, have a ceiling of £100. This will affect many people on a daily basis, and I believe it should be proportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I have a question for the Conservatives on their amendment 52. They seem to have been on a rather rapid journey, having had a significant change of mind on the principle of caps since the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill Committee. Then, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton delivered a withering and scathing speech on one of our amendments, which proposed a cap on airport drop-off fees. She argued that it would create a moral hazard and encourage everyone to charge the maximum, yet their amendment 52 tries to set a cap at £100 for failure to pay a toll. Perhaps Conservative Members could address why they feel that is not a moral hazard.

[Greg Smith]

There is a fundamental difference between a fee to do something and a penalty for having forgotten to do something. I therefore think the two positions are entirely compatible. We have a very clear view on airport drop-off charges, but it is nothing to do with this Bill. They are a hindrance to airport users, but there is a fundamental difference between a charge to use a toll road or to drop someone off at an airport and a penalty for failing to do so.

[Olly Glover]

We could no doubt carry on and have an interesting discussion about economic theory and behavioural incentives, but I gently suggest that the principle is the same. Amendment 52 could encourage every private operator automatically to set their penalty charge at £100 rather than £10, £25 or £50, in the hope of making more money. I feel that the argument made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is relevant to this, but I will leave it there and allow the Conservatives to address that further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am a generous man.

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Gentleman is a generous man.

There are discounts available for early payment in most of these schemes anyway, which I think would speak to the impassioned plea he made about people who innocently contravene the regulations. It is important that such a change is made in regulations and not primary legislation for reasons I will go on to explain.

I do not believe fixing a cap in primary legislation would be the right approach. Penalty charges vary across the country depending on local conditions. For example, the Tyne tunnel has an initial penalty charge of £30 plus the toll, while for the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels the full charge is £180. The levels of PCNs and the structure of payments need to be appropriate and proportionate to the specific scheme. The Bill already allows penalty charges to be set through regulations, and that responsibility is to be delegated to the Office of Rail and Road acting in accordance with its statutory duties, which we have covered several times already. That of course gives it the flexibility to keep charges under review.

One of the problems with setting a fixed price cap in legislation is that it will erode in real terms with inflation. Hopefully, we will not see rising inflation over the coming years, but of course it is inevitable that, as time goes on, the value of the cap will decrease. For a good example of why fixing these caps in legislation is a bad idea, I refer the shadow Minister to the saga of the Swinford toll bridge, which I am sure he is familiar with: the 10p fee was set in 1760—I believe that is a little time before the hon. Member was actively engaged in politics—and because it was fixed in primary legislation, it has unfortunately not moved on because of the difficulty in changing it. That is a good example of why setting these figures in primary legislation is inappropriate.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The situation under the Bill gives the regulator the power to deal with those kinds of instances. If licence conditions are not being complied with, which is the sort of situation to which he has referred, the Bill gives the regulator the power to intervene. That strengthens the position for people in those instances, although hopefully we will not have too many such instances.

Amendment 59 concerns the use of regulations. It is the case that using the negative procedure for this type of regulation follows an established precedent set in the Transport Act 2000. The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 were made under the procedure, and they are comparable with the regulations that we would expect to make under the Bill. They implement the detailed machinery needed to enable the charging authorities to impose and enforce civil penalties, including adjudication and, subject to safeguards, vehicle examination or search, immobilisation and removal.

The negative procedure provides an appropriate balance between parliamentary scrutiny and the flexibility required to ensure that the penalty charge regime remains effective, proportionate and capable of adapting to future operational requirements, without the need for further primary legislation. As explained in the delegated powers memorandum, published alongside the Bill, those regulations will set out the detailed enforcement framework to confer powers. As with many things that concern operational matters, this needs to remain flexible, hence why regulations were chosen as the mechanism for setting out the detail. I invite the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire not to press amendment 59 to a vote.

Amendment 71 would prevent the Bill from coming into force until after the publication of a report on the policy regarding penalty charges. Unfortunately, this would also slow and frustrate the progress that we want to make on the lower Thames crossing. Clause 27 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about the very thing that this amendment asks for: a report before commencement.

It is already the case that Parliament will need to see details of the enforcement regime by way of the regulations made under clause 27 before any enforcement regime would come into effect. Blocking commencement of the rest of the Bill until a report had been issued would mean Parliament being asked to look at the same thing twice—once in a Government publication, and again when it scrutinises regulations. That is the kind of bureaucracy and slowing of progress that we want to avoid. Again, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire not to press amendment 71 to a vote.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendments made: 7, in clause 27, page 19, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.

Amendment 8, in clause 27, page 19, line 28, leave out paragraph (e).

This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.

Amendment 9, in clause 27, page 19, line 38, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the imposition of a penalty charge must specify whether the charge is payable in addition to the toll in respect of which the charge is payable or instead of it.”

This amendment ensures that a requirement to pay a toll may remain in force (and therefore be recoverable as a civil debt under clause 24) even where a penalty charge is imposed in respect of the toll.

Amendment 10, in clause 27, page 19, line 38, at end insert—

“(6B) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations about the notification and enforcement of penalty charges.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment provides that regulations about the notification and enforcement of a penalty charge in respect of a toll are to be made by the Lord Chancellor (instead of by the Secretary of State).

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Non-payment of tolls and unauthorised charging of tolls

Amendments made: 11, in clause 28, page 20, line 17, after “toll” insert

“or of a penalty charge imposed in accordance with regulations under section 27(1)”

This amendment and amendment 12 widen the offence under clause 28(3) to cases where a person seeks to avoid payment of a penalty charge for non-payment of a toll.

Amendment 12, in clause 28, page 20, line 18, after “toll” insert

“or a penalty charge mentioned in paragraph (a)”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 11.

Amendment 13, in clause 28, page 20, line 23, at end insert—

“(4A) A person commits an offence if the person removes a notice of a penalty charge imposed in accordance with regulations under section 27(1) which has been fixed to a road vehicle in accordance with regulations under section 27(6B) unless—

(a) the person is the registered keeper of the vehicle or a person using the vehicle with the registered keeper’s authority, or

(b) the person does so under the authority of the registered keeper or such a person or of the holder of a licence.

(4B) A person who commits an offence under subsection (4A) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.”—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment creates an offence where a person removes a notice of a penalty charge from a vehicle without lawful authority.

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Examination, entry, search and seizure

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 29, page 20, line 34, leave out “holder of a licence” and insert “police.”

This amendment would ensure that powers for examining a road vehicle rested with the police, rather than the licence holder.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 56, in clause 29, page 21, line 11, leave out “holder of a licence” and insert “police.”

This amendment would ensure that powers for entering a road vehicle rested with the police, rather than the licence holder.

Amendment 88, in clause 29, page 21, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not authorise a person to enter or search a road vehicle, or seize items therefrom, except—

(a) under the authority of a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace; or

(b) in the presence and under the direction of a police constable.”

This amendment aligns enforcement powers with standard civil debt procedure under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 by ensuring that private toll operators or contracted enforcement agents cannot enter or search private vehicles without a judicial warrant issued by a magistrate or police oversight.

Amendment 57, in clause 29, page 21, line 31, leave out “holder of a licence” and insert “police.”

This amendment would ensure that powers for seizing anything from a road vehicle rested with the police, rather than the licence holder.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 60, in clause 100, page 66, line 32, at end insert—

“(f) regulations under section 29(1) (powers to examine a road vehicle).”

This amendment would ensure that regulations about examining a road vehicle were subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 61, in clause 100, page 66, line 32, at end insert—

“(f) regulations under section 29(2) (powers to enter a road vehicle).”

This amendment would ensure that regulations about entering a road vehicle were subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 62, in clause 100, page 66, line 32, at end insert—

“(f) regulations under section 29(5) (powers of seizure).”

This amendment would ensure that regulations about seizing evidence from a road vehicle were subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 74, in clause 103, page 67, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert

“after the Secretary of State has published guidance about how the powers in section 29 and section 30 will be exercised by licence holders.”

This amendment would prevent the Act from coming into force until the Secretary of State has published guidance about the exercise of the powers in sections 29 and 30 of this Act.

[Greg Smith]

There are quite a few amendments in the group, but they largely speak to very similar themes. Amendment 55 would ensure that the powers for examining a road vehicle rest with the police, rather than any licence holder, and amendments 56 and 57 would do the same. Amendment 60 is slightly different but also comes back to a debate that we had in the previous group. It would ensure that regulations on examining a vehicle were subject to the affirmative procedure, so I will not repeat those arguments, and the same applies to amendments 61 and 62. Similar again to the previous group, amendment 74 would prevent commencement of the Act, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, until the Secretary of State has published guidance about the exercise of the powers in clauses 29 and 30.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Lumsden]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should remove the threat of equipment being required in vehicles for people to use tolls? We argued previously that ANPR would be the sensible way forward. I have heard today that ANPR will be used for fines, so why can it not be used for tolls? The Government should remove the requirement for equipment to be installed in vehicles, thereby removing the possibility of operators going into vehicles to check that the equipment is working.

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend strengthens the argument considerably. It all comes back to this point of proportionality and fairness, and the system that most of us—certainly the vast majority of our constituents—thought we were operating under already, which such intrusive powers would drive a coach and horses through.

[Alison Griffiths]

To build on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South just made, by putting such equipment into vehicles, we are exponentially increasing the cyber-threat and the attack surface for state actors to come in and paralyse not just our state but our communities.

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, given the number of vehicles on our roads that have been so heavily subsidised by the Chinese state, I suspect that horse has already bolted.

If I may briefly speak to amendment 88 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, without stealing his thunder—

[Olly Glover]

Steal away.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Member seems happy with that, but I do not particularly wish to steal. Amendment 88 potentially offers a useful off-ramp for the Minister—and perhaps a halfway house in ensuring that the rights of the private citizen and the property owner are protected within this—by preventing enforcement officers from entering or searching private vehicles without either a judicial warrant issued by a magistrate or police oversight. That is commonplace for any other search or seizure in our country, with some notable, very extreme exceptions. Therefore, before the hon. Gentleman speaks to his amendment 88, I simply put on the record that the official Opposition has considerable sympathy with that approach and, if he presses it to a Division, we will support it.

I urge the Minister to seriously reflect on the implications from this part of the Bill for accepted norms and precedents within our society, and what enabling a licensee to enter, search and seize—as opposed to the established bodies that we already accept in this country have the legitimate authority, power and trust to do so—would mean for the entire social contract within the country.

[Olly Glover]

I will say a little about amendment 88, which the shadow Minister has started off, and then make some brief comments about the Conservatives’ amendments as a whole.

Amendment 88 would strengthen the safeguards around vehicle searches in the Bill by restricting private enforcement powers under clause 29 and requiring a judicial warrant issued by a magistrate, or a police presence, before entering or searching a vehicle. Under standard civil enforcement rules in schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, court bailiffs recovering civil debts cannot enter or search vehicles without a judicial warrant of control. In that context, clause 29 creates an extraordinary anomaly whereby private toll contractors would enjoy broader, unmonitored powers of search and entry than certificated court bailiffs. The clause, as drafted, looks to give huge, potentially unintended powers to private contractors. Users of these roads should be given more protection to prevent infringement of their civil liberties with little oversight. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider amendment 88.

Most of the Conservatives’ amendments in this group seem sensible, and we are inclined to support them, but I have a—“philosophical” is perhaps overly generous—vaguely political-philosophical question about them. A lot of their amendments tend to take two routes. The first is requiring various things to be published before the Bill comes into force. We understand that route and are inclined to support it; it is a similar argument to what we heard about the ORR code. The other route is requiring the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. The challenge with amendments that would require more use of the affirmative procedure is finding the right balance between holding a Government to account and not making virtually every change subject to a House of Commons vote.

At some point, could the shadow Minister say a little bit about the Conservatives’ thought process and criteria for what should be subject to the affirmative procedure? They are asking for a lot of things to be subject to the affirmative procedure. In principle, that could mean a very large number of things coming to the Commons for a Division after consideration by a Delegated Legislation Committee, but perhaps I have misunderstood and he can clarify.

[Justin Madders]

I will have a bit of banter and answer the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s question about the Conservative approach to delegated legislation. He need only look at their 14 years in power to see that they were very fond of the negative procedure and delegated legislation.

[Greg Smith]

We are under new management.

[Justin Madders]

Well, we can rehearse that argument, but I am delighted that the shadow Minister has found a new interest in championing the need for the role of Parliament, and I assure him that his fears are misplaced.

I will turn to amendments 55 to 57 tabled by the shadow Minister. He has raised the spectre of individuals prodding around in private property and has, rightly, asked what safeguards there will be. It might be helpful if I explain that the broad framework in this Bill follows the approach of the Transport Act 2000, which has detailed safeguards that have been set out in regulations. I believe that those regulations are the right place to specify how these powers may be exercised and the protections that must accompany them.

I need to be clear about what the regulations are and are not. They do not allow for any person to be authorised to pull over vehicles on a highway, and they do not enable any person to interfere with a vehicle on private property. The powers are about enabling the licence holder to determine whether tolling conditions have been complied with or an offence has occurred. They will be conferred only if strictly necessary, and in the case of entry into a vehicle or seizure of evidence, I state quite happily on the record that I envisage a role for a constable in those circumstances.

The question is therefore not whether safeguards are needed, because I think we agree on that, but how best to provide them. We should also make sure that the licence holder has the tools they need to safeguard their significant investment from nefarious characters. The shadow Minister referred to pressures on the police; I wonder whether his shadow Home Office colleagues have considered the impact his amendment would have for resource burden on the police. I recognise his concern, but police should not be enforcing debts owed to private operators.

Enforcement powers should remain with the licence holder, with police oversight to ensure that those powers are not used in an intrusive manner. I can confirm that our intention is to make regulations to require the powers of entry and seizure to be exercised only in the presence of a constable. I favour setting out detailed arrangements in regulations to make sure that the right safeguards are attributed to the right place with the correct detail, rather than prescribing a blunt tool in the Bill. Hopefully that gives the shadow Minister some assurance.

I now turn to amendment 88. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for his contribution. Again, I think that he and I agree on the need for proper safeguards for the existence of enforcement powers, but I believe that the approach he suggests follows the wrong precedent and would result in an overly burdensome and ineffective enforcement process. The precedent he cites relates to the enforcement of court orders designed for the recovery of charges, but clause 29 is about ascertaining whether an offence has occurred in the first place. Our view is that it would be inappropriate to seek a judicial warrant before it has been determined whether an offence has been committed.

On that basis, it is right that we follow the precedent set out in the Transport Act 2000, but the hon. Member again has my assurance that regulations made under this power will have the significant safeguards he has described. I agree that it would be unacceptable to give unfettered rights to private operators to enter the vehicles without sufficient oversight, so I invite him not to press the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I think the hon. Member misunderstands the purpose of the clause. This not about requiring equipment to be put into particular vehicles. I will describe what clause 29 will actually do. It will give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to provide limited enforcement powers in relation to vehicles. Those can be used to check whether required documents are displayed and whether tolling equipment is fitted and working properly—that is to say, that it has not been interfered with in a manner that might trigger the offences outlined in clause 28.

Regulations may also allow entry into a vehicle where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that equipment has been deliberately interfered with or that a false document is being used to avoid paying a toll or being identified. This may allow items to be seized and kept as evidence of an offence under clause 28. These powers will be subject to clear limits. Examination of or entry into a vehicle will be authorised only while a vehicle is on the highway. Intentionally obstructing someone lawfully exercising a power of entry will be an offence, and could be subject to a fine or imprisonment. Clause 29 will therefore provide the tools needed to investigate deliberate toll evasion, with the detail and safeguards set through regulations. I commend it to the Committee.

I turn to amendments 61 and 62, tabled by the shadow Minister. As explained in a delegated powers memorandum published alongside the Bill, these regulations will set out the details of the enforcement framework to confer powers. As with many things that concern operational matters, there is a need to remain flexible, hence why regulations were chosen as the mechanism for setting out the detail. The negative procedure for this type of regulation follows the precedent set in the Transport Act 2000. The negative procedure provides an appropriate balance between parliamentary scrutiny and the flexibility required to ensure that the penalty charge regime remains effective, proportionate and capable of adapting to future operational requirements without the need for further primary legislation. I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendments.

On amendment 74, we have had this debate on a number of occasions already. We believe that it is an unnecessary amendment that would have the effect of frustrating Parliament and slowing down delivery of projects under the regulated asset base model. Clause 29 will already allow the Secretary of State to make regulations about the very thing that this amendment asks for. Before commencement, this amendment would lead to Parliament being asked to look at the same thing twice: once as a Government publication and again when regulations were published. We believe that that is an unnecessary bureaucratic approach, and we cannot support it.

[Greg Smith]

I really do not want a long tit-for-tat session between me and the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

[Justin Madders]

Oh, go on.

[Greg Smith]

That is for another time. For the representative of a party that literally has the word “Democrats” in its name to make an argument against this House following the affirmative procedure when it comes to setting regulations and for finding a “balance” that just goes with the negative procedure a number of times is really quite hard to stomach. We know that with the demise of the “Orange Book” tribe in that party, they are no longer at least classically liberal; now, it turns out that they are also arguing against democracy. Trading Standards may well be called in when it comes to the titling of the third party.

[Olly Glover]

How generous of the shadow Minister to give way. He is usually quite a mature, thoughtful fellow—I put it to him that he might be being slightly juvenile in his comments now. He will know full well that my remarks earlier were not criticising his amendments; they were asking for his thoughts on the principles he was using in relation to use of the affirmative procedure. To take his argument to the extreme, we could have literally everything subject to the affirmative procedure. Without doubt, we would then spend our entire life having Divisions in the House of Commons, which we all love, but there is a balance. As for changes to the nature of party names, I suggest to him that abandoning the commitment to climate change and human rights is not very conservative either.

[Greg Smith]

I think we are getting off topic.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

You started it!

[The Chair]

Order.

[Greg Smith]

To get back to the amendment and the use of the affirmative procedure, my considered view is that our constituents sent us here to make such decisions. If we are honest about it, the only direct power that any of us actually has as a Member of Parliament is when the Division bell goes or the Chair signals a Division in Committee, and we choose whether to vote aye or no, or not to cast a vote. That is incumbent on us. Whenever we debate something that will affect any of our constituents—in this case, intrusion into their private vehicles—I think that they would expect us not just to talk about it, but to put our vote to the side of the argument that we feel best represents their interests. In direct answer to the question of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, those are my thoughts. Where our constituents are affected, they expect us to have stood up for them, to have argued what we consider to be the best outcome that protects them and enables them to prosper in life, and to put our vote where we think it best serves.

I heard the arguments that the Minister put back. As I have said on other groupings, we do not want to frustrate the core aims and principles of the Bill; we do want to see the lower Thames crossing built and people able to use it, but that does not mean a blank cheque for every provision in the Bill. Something as fundamental to private property rights as the intrusion into a private car does, I think, warrant that additional scrutiny.

I accept that a number of amendments in the grouping fundamentally try to do the same thing, and I can see the numbers in the Committee this afternoon. Therefore, if it helps, Mr Wishart, as we move towards the end of the debate on the grouping, I am happy to confirm that we will test the principle with the lead, amendment 55, but we will be content to withdraw the others on the inclusion of limiting the power to just the police. We will test the core principle once, but I assure the Committee that the Opposition will return to the issue on Report. We will also test the principle in amendment 61 on the affirmative procedure, but I will be content not to press the others in my name.

Question put, That the amendment be made.