Highways (Financing) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Wishart, and to welcome you back to the Committee. I am glad to see that most of us have made it back after the excitement of last week; I hope we will continue to have some very thought-provoking debates.

I turn to the interesting amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. Amendment 41 would make it a statutory requirement for any licensed highway to include a discount for blue badge holders. We all recognise the importance of ensuring affordability and the need for specific groups to be taken into account. I can confirm that the existing scheme for exempting vehicles used by or for people with disabilities that is already in place in Dartford will continue to apply for the first control period, which is nine years from the date of the transaction. That would also be extended to the lower Thames crossing. I am happy to make that commitment on the record today.

Beyond the first control period, the hon. Member and I are aligned in the view that the needs of individual groups must be considered in the setting of tolls, and that suitable discounts or exemptions should continue to apply. However, my view is that that is already captured by the regime set out in the Bill. A fundamental tenet of the duty on the Office of Rail and Road is that it must act at all times in the manner

“best calculated to further the interests of users”,

which of course means all users.

There is an established precedent that toll operators offer toll concessions for disabled users. Our issue with the amendment is that generally those schemes are tied to eligibility for exemptions from vehicle excise duty, as is the case with the current Dart charge. That exemption recognises the additional mobility needs and costs faced by people whose disability significantly affects their ability to move around.

As a public sector body, the ORR is already bound in legislation to advance equality of opportunity for people with protected characteristics, through the public sector equality duty. That will be supplemented by a duty to further the interests of users. Both duties will apply in the setting of tolling conditions and the ORR’s tolling code. Additionally, the Government will be able to issue guidance to the ORR on the exercise of its tolling functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Jim Dickson]

While we are dealing with the administration of tolling and charges that result from non-payment, I want to mention that the operator that administers the Dart charge in Dartford changed in 2023, and during the transition there were numerous problems: people being charged for cars that were said to have used the crossing when they had not; people whose resident discounts disappeared from their accounts and who were then charged the full amount; and other problems with the way in which the administration was done. Could the Minister give some reassurance that such administrative errors around both charging and penalties, if they occur in the future, either on the lower Thames crossing or with the Dart charge, will be subject to the regulator’s intervention to ensure that the licence holder performed their responsibilities properly?

[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