Highways (Financing) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Lewell. Let us see if we can rise to the Minister’s challenge of maintaining this morning’s quality of debate.

Amendment 49, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, essentially requires the ORR to review each licence at least every five years and to publish that review. The review would include compliance, user satisfaction, value for money, financial performance and resilience, toll returns and—continuing a theme of some of the amendments we discussed this morning and that flows through the entire Bill—the effects on surrounding roads off the trunk road network and the strategic road network that are the feeders to the new infrastructure: the lower Thames crossing and potentially others that the Bill enables.

I put it to the Committee and particularly to the Minister: why should a long-term licence not be subject to a mandatory review period published at least every five years, although I am open to other suggestions on the period? This is something that will impact motorists from across the whole country, particularly in the case of the lower Thames crossing. The hon. Member for Dartford has already expressed concerns about the impact on local roads. If a licence is granted for much longer than that—and I cannot see how it would not be, in order to bring realistic commercial payback under the tolling arrangements—what if it is a complete disaster? What if things do not pan out as everyone expects them to?

We do not want things to go wrong, but let us face it: sometimes they do. Often they do not go wrong due to any eventuality that has been foreseen. We would not have done it in the first place if there was a plan that saw things going wrong. But when things do go wrong, we need clear answers from those accountable to those paying the tolls on these roads, and indeed to the Government who will have set up the scheme in the first place. That goes in many respects to the conditions that the Minister spoke to in clause 6 around timely notice.

I gently say to the Minister: yes, it is important for an operator to get timely notice of any change, whether that is termination of a licence as it comes up to its expiration or an extension, but what is missing in clause 6 is anything that addresses the point about things going wrong. What if the Government need to step in and salvage a pretty horrendous situation that we might conceive of in future?

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a good case; clearly, things need to run well in the interests of road users, the infrastructure provider and local residents. However, clause 11 already provides for the modification of the licence after the grant, which surely includes most of the things he is calling for—that is, an ability to issue a notice and to say that the licence needs to be modified for some reason to do with the operation of the infrastructure.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right that there are measures in clause 11 that would address that issue, but we are currently discussing clauses 5 and 6, and the Minister’s comments reflected the fact that clause 6 only refers to extensions of a licence as opposed to reviews of a licence.

I cannot imagine that any of us, whatever walk of political life we find ourselves in at any one moment, would not want to have a statutory review period, so that all of us can question whether a contract is working as well as we want it to. Frankly, there are many projects I can think of that I wish we had had review periods for in the past, because we might have been able to pick up things that were going the wrong way.

If the Minister and the Government do not wish to have a five-year review period, I would welcome suggestions about what sort of review period would be acceptable to them. If they do not want a review period at all, there needs to be a pretty good case for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I would say that she is making my case for me: we need to keep up with important changes and risk in the cyber-security world. That is why keeping the Bill as technology-neutral as possible is important, because we simply do not know what will be coming next. Giving operators the flexibility to be able to determine what technology is used is an important part of cyber-security moving forward.

Amendment 53 would insert specific consultation requirements into the Bill before a toll can be set. I agree that local communities and those who use the tolls should have a voice. The question is not whether they should have a voice, but how best to secure that engagement within the Bill’s framework of independent regulation. As it stands, the framework places responsibility with the regulator to set tolling requirements through its code and licence conditions, and to enforce compliance. Consultation requirements should sit within those arrangements, rather than be prescriptive in the Bill.

In exercising its functions, the ORR must have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency, and keep the interests of users at the heart of its decision making. That is an important safeguard in the Bill, and I hope that it addresses some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. He will know that the Bill establishes a stakeholder group that will directly advise the ORR. Again, I hope that will address the point about the voices of users being heard in this process. I do not believe that the amendment would improve engagement. Instead, it would constrain the regulator’s discretion to determine how best to take forward individual users’ voices, so I ask the Member not to press it.

[Jim Dickson]

Without wishing to prolong proceedings, it is very important that the exact level and differential of tolls between the Dartford crossing and the lower Thames crossing—this legislation is being used to construct the lower Thames crossing—is properly considered. My constituents are particularly keen that there should not be a differential between the two crossings so that a financial incentive is created to use one rather than the other, somewhat negating the fact that we have the new infrastructure in place. We need to try to balance the traffic between the two crossings, and tolling will obviously be an important part of that. Would the Minister note that? Perhaps we can ensure collectively that that is in the thinking of the licence holder going forward.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I hear and understand the points that the Minister has made, but the key word he used in his response was “risk”. Although I accept that such risk can exist, I cannot and do not accept that it cannot be mitigated or worked through. The most powerful question all of us have to ask, particularly when Members find themselves in a ministerial position and wanting to make progress on manifesto commitments or on other things the country needs—and that the Government perceive the country needs—is not one about procedure. We must ask: how? How do we make this happen without a hybrid process? How do we make this happen in the fastest possible way?

From the research I have done, though the risk exists that some would argue that a hybrid process would be the only way forward, I can see that there are pathways to doing it as more straightforward legislation, with a usual Second Reading, Bill Committee, Report and Third Reading before we get to the other place. Therefore, we will press this amendment to a vote. We want to show our commitment to building the lower Thames crossing but not write a blank cheque for other schemes.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Greg Smith]

I certainly will. I am always happy to give way and have a discussion on these matters—that is fundamentally what we are here to do in line-by-line scrutiny.

[Jim Dickson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The Minister has made it clear that it is incredibly important that the mechanism we are setting up today not only works to get the lower Thames crossing constructed but integrates the work at the Dartford crossing, so that tolling is equalised and traffic is hopefully distributed properly across both crossings. The lower Thames crossing is there to take the pressure off the Dartford crossing, which is a single point of failure that leads to costs not only for the economy but for my residents in delays, air quality and all sorts of adverse life consequences. Does the hon. Member not understand that, if we limit the Bill to the lower Thames crossing, there is a possibility that we will not be able to undertake the integration between the two entities, and that the point of what we are doing in this Bill Committee will therefore be lost?

[Greg Smith]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. In theory, it is in exchanges like this that we—the four of us from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the crowds from the Government side, as fits our current Parliament—can work to improve the Bill, if there is a willingness to do so. I understand his point, and I would be very open to something that connects things by limiting the scope to the lower Thames crossing and the existing Dartford crossing, which affects his constituents so considerably. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman in other debates on that point.

The wider point still stands. The Bill is writing an open-ended, unpredictable future under this model, beyond the projects that all of us can get behind and support and that our constituents will understand. No matter where they are in the country, many people wish to get down to Kent, perhaps to Dover to get on a ferry and go to France, and they will find themselves behind the wheel—worse still, with the kids in the back screaming—because of the delays getting to the Dartford crossing. Therefore, everyone can get behind the need to get this project done, but let us restrict it to this project, albeit with—I state this for the record very clearly—integration with the existing infrastructure for the Dartford crossing. The very worst thing we could create with any new project, of which the lower Thames crossing is a good example, is an unintended impact on existing road networks, crossings, tunnels and so on.

The integration has to be there, and I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point on that. However, the core principle of this amendment—it will be no surprise that we fully expect to lose the vote given the current parliamentary maths—is to put down a marker of our support for the lower Thames crossing but also our scepticism about the way this model could be applied to other unnamed schemes in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

In this group I wish to speak to amendments 47, 48 and 68, tabled in my name. I will also speak to amendment 37, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.

His Majesty’s official Opposition have considerable sympathy with amendment 37. The unintended consequences that we sometimes see from infrastructure projects must not be brushed to one side; they must be taken seriously. I was in a small hamlet in my constituency at the weekend. The unintended consequence of something as simple as a road diversion in Oxfordshire—I have to say it, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, is an Oxfordshire MP—forced a considerable volume of traffic through that small hamlet, causing considerable distress in narrow rural lanes. The same could happen from any major infrastructure scheme.

We have heard in the oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading about the concerns that traffic displacement immediately surrounding the lower Thames crossing can be a serious problem for communities and for people trying to get their kids to school, get to work and go about their daily lives. Those local roads are the very veins that flow the traffic to the newer infrastructure projects as they are built. They are the roads off which people predominantly live—nobody lives on a motorway, on a bridge or in a tunnel. Therefore, without due regard for how we ensure vehicle movement through those roads from people’s houses, businesses, schools, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries to those new major infrastructure projects, such as the lower Thames crossing, nothing will work. This is almost the very definition of needing joined-up Government, joined-up planning and joined-up approaches to anything that we build in this country, including the lower Thames crossing and the other potential future unnamed projects that the Bill would allow for. The official Opposition have considerable sympathy with amendment 37. If the Liberal Democrats push it to a Division, the Conservatives will vote for it.

Moving on to the other amendments in group 2, amendment 47 would remove the Office of Rail and Road’s duty to have regard to contributing to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Bill. The amendment is not an attack on the environment or anything like that; it is about getting the balance right between getting infrastructure built and doing it at the lowest possible cost. We saw in the oral evidence sessions, and I have certainly seen in my research, that one of the things wrapped up in sustainability is—through separate order but fundamentally coming back to the wording in clause 1—the banning of the use of diesel plant in construction. White diesel runs between 20p and 25p a litre cheaper than hydrotreated vegetable oil, which is the current primary alternative that can be used instead of diesel plant—although, it has to be said, it is not a drop-in fuel; it requires mechanical changes to fuel filters and other parts of the vehicle to be operational. Banning the use of diesel plant will just drive up the cost, which ultimately be borne by payers of tolls.

[Jim Dickson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will in one second; I will finish my point. The hon. Gentleman knows I will always give way where I can. The cost will ultimately be borne by toll payers on the lower Thames crossing and in any other scheme that could be built under the Bill. That is a position that I do not think any of us really want to see. We know from other debates that there seems to be either an unwillingness or an inability to name what the toll on the lower Thames crossing will cost, but we can be sure that the clauses on sustainable development and the duty for sustainable development that the Opposition are seeking to remove, such as clause 1, can only possibly drive the cost up.

[Jim Dickson]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and it is absolutely in the interests of my constituents for tolls to be as low as possible, and therefore for cost to be controlled through the project. However, is he mindful of the evidence that the National Highways executive director for the project, Mr Palmer, gave when the Committee spoke to him on Thursday? He said that the cost of HVO and electric plant together was comparable with that of continuing with diesel, and that in any event, that element of the project cost is extremely marginal to the overall cost of delivering the lower Thames crossing. Attempts to prevent measures that will make the project sustainable and

“the greenest road ever built”,

which my constituents care about, are therefore pretty futile, given the overall size of the project.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to hear that we will not find consensus on that point. I accept that Mr Palmer gave us his view of the world, which was that there was no differential in price. However, any simple look at the market prices of white diesel and HVO shows that the differential very much exists. That is not even a point of debate; it is in the market price. Also, later in the Committee’s oral evidence session, we heard evidence that the building of the road pales into slight insignificance compared with everything that will use the road. Operational vehicles powered by either petroleum or diesel will still be the vast majority of vehicles using the lower Thames crossing, which clearly has not been taken into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

It is clearly incredibly important to all users of this future infrastructure and the present Dartford crossing that the ORR is as capable and fully equipped as it can be to carry out its duties. Up to now, the ORR has been more equipped on rail than on road, even though it has considerable responsibilities for roads at the moment. A recent report commissioned by the Department for Business and Trade indicated that the ORR needed to increase its skills and capacity in order to do this work. Will the Minister reassure my constituents and all other future users of the infrastructure that the ORR will be fully equipped, have full capability and be able to discharge its duties under the Bill?

[Justin Madders]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is vital that the duties set out in clause 1 can be delivered to the best of the ORR’s ability. The whole purpose of the RAB model is that we have a functioning and effective regulator, so resourcing it is vital.

Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q I guess you could step in and increase the costs and have them earning more to try to keep them on a sustainable footing.

Will Godfrey: At certain points it is possible that a regulator could introduce things like cost limits, beyond which there was then a redetermination of a price allowance, but not necessarily one that was a simple “costs have overrun by CX, therefore tolls increase by the same amount.” It would not be an automatic pass-through; it would be subject to that efficiency and economy test.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Q One of the things that has come through from other witnesses today is the need for pace on this project—the status quo is appalling for my residents but every bad for the economy and for various sectors. Matt, would you say that the need for us to pass some legislation, then have an equity competition and then appoint the funders is slowing down your work to make sure that the project continues and completes on time—and hopefully on budget and on spec as well?

Matt Palmer: We are moving at pace. The Chancellor at the last autumn Budget—not this one—announced funding to get us to private finance, and we are well into that. We are moving at pace. There is a misunderstanding that we have not started. We have very definitely started: 2,000 people are on site, we have 14 sq km of land and there is a lot of mud at the moment, I am afraid. We are moving well and at pace. Our target is to get a tunnel boring machine, which will be the largest in the world at the time, in the ground in 2028, which will line up roughly with when we go to private finance. All of that is contingent on the fact that we need the legislation through to allow us to get the equity to move on thereafter.

[Jim Dickson]

Q Is this largely the result of having had considerable allocation of Treasury funding already, in order to be able to make a start and, essentially, mobilise and begin the project in the way described?

Matt Palmer: The logic is that the economic benefit of the scheme is great. Not only does it solve the problem in the local area; it is a national-level project, so we move at pace, we start the construction and we take a lot of the difficult, time-consuming activities like land assembly—putting plots of land together—and that is what we are doing at the moment. All of that enables a much more stable platform for investors to come in.

[Alison Griffiths]

Q I want to come back to the question of hydrotreated vegetable oil. Mr Palmer, you suggested that there was parity/comparability in costs between white diesel and HVO. I have spent a little time in the last few minutes looking at Google, Claude and ChatGPT, and not one of those sources suggests that is the case unless you count HVO being 10% to 30% more expensive as comparable. So I want to push back and ask you to be more precise on the additional cost base of using HVO in construction across the course of this project, both to date and in your estimates going forward.

Matt Palmer: In construction in the UK, about two thirds of our constructors use HVO as standard. For a project, you will find that a number of constructors bid with HVO—it is just in the costs. That is the case with lower Thames crossing. Two thirds of our contractors bid with HVO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

Q Can anything in how the relationships are built with the procurement teams be changed to shift that?

Roger Forsdyke: I think so. If you have gateways where you build the price through detailed submissions, you can then control it. You do not want uncontrollable cost and excellent quality, but you need to create some gateways through the process so that you can control the quality as you go through. That is my experience. Those sorts of two-stage processes create the best outcomes.

You then have to make sure there is no undefined scope. As you cross the line to secured and the responsibility moves to the contractor, you do not want any change. That is sometimes very hard to achieve, but it is a really important step. It is often, “Oh, we just need to get started,” and the pressure of starting often means that the project will start prematurely, before the scope is defined. That is where the optimism bias goes in—the provisional sum might be light or whatever—and then you end up with escalation, notwithstanding the delays to resolving the issues themselves.

Andrew Truscott: I do not have a huge amount to add, because Roger has put it beautifully. I will just say one thing, and he can kick me under the table: contracting is a hard business. They do billions of pounds-worth of revenue for 2%, 3% or 4% margins—it is hard—and there is therefore little scope in their business models for mistakes. They will always enter into these sorts of projects with an expectation that mistakes do not land at their desk, because otherwise they go bust, and they have done globally.

Again, credit to the way LTC is being procured. I think separating church and state a little bit—separating equity and financing from contracting, rather than having one single proposal—is arguably a way of getting more certainty around deliverability than amalgamating all those elements into one. Where we have seen material cost overruns, it tends to be in the big projects where one single solution is given to a customer. We have been looking at a lot of US projects recently in the road space where single projects— equity, traffic and revenue, as well as construction—are lumped into one big unit and presented to a customer, who then tries to aggregate and always aggregates to lowest cost, and that is not always the right solution.

I am giving my previous panellists an awful lot of credit today, which is wonderful. I think disaggregating elements could be a way of managing that risk and that cost and delay overrun quite well.

[Jim Dickson]

Q I agree with your earlier point that it is really important that the tolls are kept affordable in every way, not only for the haulage industry but for motorists and other vehicles. Presumably one aspect of that will be this being an attractive project for which lots of interest is generated in the market, and therefore we get lots of potential bidders—

Andrew Truscott: Hopefully not.

[Jim Dickson]

In terms of investor attractiveness, how would you rank the scheme globally against other schemes of similar size, or other comparable schemes? Do you think we are set to have a competitive and very interested set of players looking to bid?

Andrew Truscott: It is a really good question. I will try to keep my answer brief, because I could bore you for about a month on this.

The short answer is that the big attention for the main global contractors—of which there are, let us be honest, a handful—is currently on the US. The US is undergoing a big programme of what they are calling managed lanes projects, which are about upgrading existing roadways to be either tolled or semi-tolled or managed. I am sure you have not seen Ferrovial or Cintra—all the big Spanish contractors are very focused on the US. Australia is sporadic but yes, there are some large projects—not necessarily transportation projects—that are attracting interest from investors and contractors in Australia. In Europe, you can count it on the fingers of one hand. Actually, that is where LTC may get more attention, as a consequence of the lack of other available opportunities.

However, this is a big project. This is a big equity cheque and there will be an awful lot of investors who say—well, I am certainly yet to meet the investor who will be able to write a single cheque for the entire amount. My guess is that this will come down to pools of consortium of capital, very much like those that ended up being on Thames Tideway, who come together because the amount of capital required is just so huge.

Do I expect it to be competitive? Unfortunately, yes. Do I expect you to have 10 to 15 single-asset bidders all vying to buy 100% of the equity? Not in the slightest.

[Jim Dickson]

That is very helpful.

[Douglas Lumsden]

Q Andrew, I think you said earlier that one of the issues was uncapped cost overruns for the contractor. What is the consequence of that? Does it scare some contractors away?

Andrew Truscott: Not for the contractor; for the investor. Sorry—if I said “contractor”, I meant “investor”. Apologies. I do not care about the contractors. [Laughter.]

It is not because we do not understand and price risk; that is what we do for a living. It is just that I cannot go to my investment committee and, when asked, “Okay, Andrew, what is the maximum amount of equity you are going to put into this project and therefore what is the return you are expecting to get on it?”, give the answer, “I don’t know.” That is not a conversation—well, it could be a conversation, but it would be the last conversation I have with my investment committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful.

[Jim Dickson]

Q I am a very strong supporter of the Bill, because it enables major projects such as the lower Thames crossing to be funded, but the tolling issue is important. We cannot talk about individual toll levels, but we can talk about mechanisms by which reasonable—hopefully affordable—tolls will be set for both industry and individual motorists. Could the Minister enlarge a bit on how the ORR, with the legislation designed and passed by Parliament, will ensure that tolls fit the definition of “affordable” as far as possible?

Justin Madders: I understand why you ask that question. The Bill sets the framework for the RAB model, and that will establish the independent regulator. Its remit is clear, and it is there in the first few clauses of the Bill: to take account of the interests of road users. There will be fair pricing, transparency and long-term sustainability as a result of that. You will also be aware that there will be a stakeholder group in which users will have the opportunity to feed in. We have a pretty robust set of reassurances that I hope will satisfy you and your constituents.

[Olly Glover]

Q A witness said that one of my questions was best aimed at Government, so it would be churlish of me not to avail myself of the opportunity to ask it to you, Minister. What metrics should the Government use to determine whether alternative financing arrangements deliver better value for money for road infrastructure projects than direct Treasury funding? How are the Government thinking about that question?

Justin Madders: First, as it made clear, the Treasury will not fund the totality of the project, so we have to look at other models. There are different views about how that would work. If we want to compare it to the private finance initiative, which has been the major funding source for a number of crossings in recent years, costs under the RAB model tend to be lower.

Clearly, we have an independent regulator that will, as I have explained and you have heard in evidence, be able to limit cost recovery, to make sure it is economic and efficient. There will be regular requirements set out to review that under the licence. Ultimately, the Government will not be left, as they would be under PFI, with repaying a debt over many years. That might be off the balance sheet, but it still ends up coming to the taxpayer.

Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Olly Glover]

Let me make a brief comment. On your point about some of the things that are dependent on the Bill, such as the licence, not yet being specified, we had a similar debate during the passage of the Railways Bill through the Commons. I think the Government ultimately decided to at least start publishing some of those things alongside it, so I hope the Minister might give some thought to that.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here. You will not be surprised to know that, as the Member of Parliament for Dartford, I have residents who are hugely inconvenienced by the overcapacity of the current Dartford crossing every day and who really welcome the plans, which have been advanced very well under this Government, to build the lower Thames crossing.

One concern for them is that there might be perverse incentives via the tolling to use one crossing rather than another. Do you have views about how we could make sure that does not happen and what the ORR would need to do in negotiation with the licence holder? Do you have any views about local resident discount schemes, including how well they have worked elsewhere and whether they should be a necessary part of any future arrangement, although that may not be in the Bill?

Edmund King: Those are all relevant questions, even down to the time that the toll applies—is it 24 hours a day or 6 am to 10 pm, as it is currently? Are motorcycles free? What is the resident discount? Could there be a resident discount? We believe that there should be, because frequent users, such as those who live on one side of the crossing and work on the other, are already paying motoring tax in other ways, but is this a tax on jobs? Those issues are vital. It is also vital to get the support of local people, whether they be businesses or drivers. Giving those concessions would help win that support, particularly when we know that the construction period will cause a lot of congestion and adverse effects. Those are all valid points.

Steve Gooding: All I would add is that this is one of the challenges with creating an overarching framework in the Bill rather than something specific to the Dartford and lower Thames crossings. I do not doubt that in the Secretary of State’s guidance to the ORR, there will be explicit reference to the need not to create the sort of problems that you envisage and to set toll levels in such a way that manages the traffic flow between the two crossings, but we have not yet seen that.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

Q I want to clarify something, because it is important that we do not speculate. To deliver a scheme under the regulated asset base model, it has to have a certain scale and it needs to be developed with that in mind. You said that the model could be used for other schemes. What other projects under development in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline are you referencing?

Steve Gooding: I cannot point to anything else in the Government’s programme that specifically lends itself to that case. I have found myself wondering whether, having been announced and dis-announced many times, the Stonehenge tunnel might reappear under something like it as another key link on a longer arterial route, but I do not have a list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

Q This is predominantly for Mr Whelan, but Ben and Declan, if you wish to weigh in, please do. For the M6, have the economic and operational outcomes that have been delivered over the last 20 years been what was envisaged? On the role of the ORR, does the regulation outlined in the Bill provide sufficient certainty for private investors?

Michael Whelan: In terms of economic benefits, the best way to look at the M6 toll is to consider the fact that 50,000 vehicles use it every day. If it was not there, the M6 and surrounding network would be quite a mess. As a result of the M6 toll, we have seen significant investment into the region. Numerous businesses have invested in logistics sites up and down that corridor—for example, there is a massive Amazon site near us. That also creates jobs for the region. I will not go through it all; please refer to the pre-reading that I know you all have.

In terms of part 7 of the Bill, which we are specifically interested in, as we see it, as it is an existing road, the ORR regulations do not apply. If they were to apply, that would have a significant impact on our concession agreement, on investors and, in particular, on lenders, who have all invested into the roads. Having this conversation is important, but for us it is a separate issue.

Declan Pang: On the RAB model in particular, we are supportive of any measures that will be brought forward to increase road building and capacity, and efforts in that regard. We think that RAB gives some certainty to the market around providing investment opportunities.

In addition to my comments around the stakeholder group, the ORR has been heavily weighted towards rail regulation and currently has a much smaller role in highways monitoring. As a proportion of what it does as an organisation, its role from a roads perspective is smaller than the rail element, and that is probably reflected in its level of engagement with the sector as it stands. The Bill would reflect quite a significant change in its level of responsibility, and we would want to be sure about the capability and capacity for it to take on that responsibility.

Ben Garratt: I want to expand on something Michael said about the wider benefits. Understandably, the logistics sector invests where there is transport capacity and junctions, from where it can then access the rest of the country. Particular parts of the road and rail network have a lot of logistics clustered around them. It is also about having good journey times between large conurbations.

We can definitely see, in other parts of the country, what we would say is artificially less logistics investment than there should have been, because of transport constraints in parts of the network. It particularly affects the north-west, where it is more of a rail issue. A lack of capacity on the west coast main line leads to more modern logistics being clustered further south than maybe it otherwise would be. There is a real economic benefit for the country in getting the capacity right.

[Jim Dickson]

Q Ben and Declan, you have set out very clearly the effect on your sector of the Dartford crossing being hugely over capacity. I have talked about how it affects hugely my residents’ quality of life and air quality. It has been suggested by some that we do not need the project and should look at modal shift instead of, rather than alongside, the solution of the lower Thames crossing. What do you think would happen if the lower Thames crossing was not built—what is your scenario over the next decade?

Ben Garratt: I think it would inhibit economic growth. Thinking about the modal shift piece, using the right modes for the right kind of journeys in our logistics system is really important, but it is not simply about getting more off congested roads and more on to rail. Rail can play a particularly strong role, as you would understand, where there are railway tracks that connect to ports and are bringing in containers. As this area gets congested, I do not think that would automatically lead to the logistics sector switching to rail, because of the lack of rail connectivity.

It could, over time, lead to less use of the short straits and more use of container shipping but, really, those dynamics are shaped by where the goods are coming from in the world. It would largely just be a bottleneck. It would increase the costs, over time, of exporters connecting to new markets. The current situation will invariably be inhibiting businesses from thinking about going to export, because it has an effect on the costs. We want to see that resolved. In short, it would be bad for the economy if it did not happen.

Declan Pang: We are very much behind it and we are grateful for your efforts in campaigning for it. We are pleased to see that the development consent order was approved. It is already having a significant impact on the economy, given the level of congestion. It is vital that we get it delivered.

[Jim Dickson]

Q It has been suggested that the requirement to sign in separately to use each tolled arrangement in the UK—the Mersey tunnels, the Tyne tunnel, the M6 and elsewhere—is a burden on a whole variety of road users. Mr Whelan, what do you think of the opportunity to create interoperability among tolled arrangements, thereby making it better for the logistics industry and consumers who use multiple tolled arrangements?

Michael Whelan: We fully support that and are looking at it as an industry—some operators of toll roads have come together to discuss that. Having one account makes a lot of sense, particularly for freight and logistics organisations. On top of that, interoperability can be expanded into other things, such as signage. Anywhere else in the world, toll roads will have a unique colour or symbol. That is important, because it helps to make sure there is some consistency and knowledge for the customer of what they are approaching, such as about when to pay. When it comes to free-flow tolling, it is important that people understand in advance what the rules are. Hence, we fully support part 7, with some minor amendments that we would like to see to clauses 92 to 94. Those are outlined in the pre-reading, but I think we might have run out of time to go through them now.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Q Mr Whelan, we heard from the previous panel about the potential to offer discounts to local residents. Does M6 toll do that at present? How would that work?

Michael Whelan: We have done that. About two and a half years ago we put in place a new toll system—we spent £20 million on it—and that enabled us to introduce new toll pricing. We reduced prices for locals to £4, and we have held that there for the two and a half years. We have not increased it. That is something we are conscious of and have actively looked at, as well as having new products, some with discounts and some without. Interestingly, the account product that does not have a discount is our most popular one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Reader]

Q For as long as I have known of LTC, although the previous Government perhaps suggested that it would be delivered by public funds, it was always assumed that it would end up going down a public-private partnership route. Surely, this model delivers cheaper finance and better certainty for investors. Therefore, under a specific RAB model for the lower Thames crossing, what you suggested about investor uncertainty may not be true.

Ralph Smyth: On investor certainty, the problem is that that assumes that traffic will keep growing, but, as I covered in the written evidence TAN submitted to the Committee, the latest ONS forecasts say that from about 2055, the population of the UK will be going down. I heard the Minister say that demand will only increase, but if demand starts to go down, it is a very different picture. That will mean that each user will have to pay more per journey, so it could lock you into higher, unaffordable charges.

[Jim Dickson]

Q Thank you very much for being here to give evidence. The Transport Action Network is on record as being against the lower Thames crossing, under any circumstances and however it is funded. Do you recognise that, as the Committee heard in evidence this morning from the logistics lobby, and as I have heard from my residents, there are not many other ways to deal with the congestion? Are you still against the scheme? What is your alternative to deal with the manifest problems that the Committee has heard about, and that I hear about every day?

Ralph Smyth: I may struggle to persuade you on this within the 15 minutes allotted.

[Jim Dickson]

Give us a summary.

Ralph Smyth: I was interested to hear other witnesses say that if it was not built, it might mean a shift in some of the trade routes to help to rebalance away from the overheated south-east. If you want to read more, there is a report by TAN on what the alternatives are. I would be happy to send that to the Committee, if it would be helpful.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions from Members, I thank Mr Smyth for his evidence. That brings us to the end of this morning’s sitting.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Wheeler.)

Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for the way in which he introduced the debate. Like other Members, I must declare an interest: I am the proud owner of a cat called Millie. She is over three years old now, but she is still a baby to me. I got her from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Balerno in my constituency before I was elected. She came to me both chipped and neutered.

When I first got Millie, my friend Denise said that I should not have got a cat because it would just climb up my curtains. Millie did do that when she was a kitten and it was incredibly cute. My wife, Mrs Arthur, was less sure about the situation. She picked Millie’s name because she promised that the cat would become a millstone around our necks. The other piece of advice we got was that one day we would let the cat out and it would not return. That is the focus of this debate: so many cats are let out and do not return because they are hit by a car, crawl off under a hedge or a bush and are never found.

To millions of households across the UK, cats are deeply loved family members and constant companions. Yet, under current law, if a driver hits a cat they can simply drive away—I know that not all do. That is not the case for collisions with dogs, which must be reported; I and many other cat owners throughout the country believe that that is an outdated distinction that no longer reflects the way we live. Each year in the UK an estimated 230,000 cats are hit by cars. I find that number absolutely incredible; I had to triple-check it. It works out at roughly one cat—and one family who have lost that cat—in every constituency in the UK every day.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

On the point about families losing cats, a constituent of mine lost her cat shortly before Christmas 2024 after he was run over and killed on Alkerden Lane. The cat was a huge part of her life and she felt very lost without him. Despite an eyewitness urging the car driver to stop they did not. My constituent cannot understand why the driver was under no obligation to do so; I urge Ministers to address that. Does my hon. Friend agree that in such a situation it is simply right and proper for the driver to stop regardless of whether the law obliges them to do so?

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. A few years ago, we looked after my daughter’s cat for a short period—three years, it turned out. It was a fantastic cat, and its pastime was chasing foxes, but one day it was in the garden and then darted across the road, almost getting run over, so I get that it is not always—or even seldom—the driver’s fault. I like to think that if it happened to me, I would stop and perhaps explain what had happened.

Lost cat signs have become common on lamp posts right across the UK. They are almost so common that we hardly see them at all now. Only last month, a constituent contacted my office, deeply distressed after a driver tragically killed her two-year-old kitten. She was left searching for answers and completely bewildered as to why the police could not intervene or help clarify what had happened. This is not about criminalising drivers; it is about compassion and accountability. Leaving an injured cat on the roadside deprives it of potentially lifesaving veterinary care and leaves owners in agonising uncertainty.

I am very proud to have a People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals hospital in my constituency. I visited it a few months ago. Two cats I saw had had had operations after they had suffered some kind of trauma, and the assumption was that that was being hit by a car. That is just two cats on one day in that one hospital. I thank the PDSA for its fantastic work to support people on low incomes being able to access excellent veterinary treatment.

Updating the legislation would not place an inordinate burden on drivers or the police. With microchipping now compulsory in England—and needed in Scotland, as we heard earlier—identifying the owner and offering closure is easier and faster than ever before. The petition shows a very real public mandate for a change that people demand. At the same time, I recognise that some voices in the animal welfare sector are concerned that amending the Road Traffic Act to include cats might have the unintended consequences of imposing criminal and civil liability on owners of cats involved in collisions. Of course, it is the job of this place to consider unintended consequences and to ensure that they are absolutely minimised or, we hope, do not happen at all. I urge the Government to explore how to update the Act in a manner that will protect owners while giving the same basic duty of care to cats that we extend to dogs. We heard that Gibraltar and Jersey already have some such provisions. They are places with close connections to the UK and I am sure we can learn lots from how they approached the problem.

Finally, as a Scottish MP, I have to acknowledge that this is a devolved matter; I appreciate that in Scotland it falls under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. I very much hope for progress at a UK level, but we can also speak to colleagues in Scotland, perhaps at the same time talking about mandating chipping in Scotland and—something else I am passionate about—heavily regulating people who choose to breed cats at home for a profit, which involves at least a lot of distress for the cats. That needs to be addressed north and south of the border.

Highways (Financing) Bill

Jim Dickson Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

East Midland Railway Collision

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

As I alluded to in my earlier remarks, it is a complicated process to finalise the investigations on site and remove the trains from the track. Some will have to be hoisted off the track by a crane, and we will need to move overhead-line equipment to do that, which will then need to be repaired. The track will also need to be repaired before services can resume. That is why we anticipate the line between Bedford and Luton being closed for the rest of this week. As soon as I have more information on service resumption, I will ensure that Members along the line of route get that information to share with their constituents.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in sending condolences to the family of Shaun Burton, who died in the accident, in wishing those who are injured a speedy and full recovery, and in thanking the emergency services for their prompt action on Friday. It is important that we have heard from the Secretary of State that a full investigation is ongoing and that all lessons will be learned in order to avoid a repeat. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that the disruption to Thameslink services south of the Thames, arising from the partial line closure, including temporary interruption of services from Rainham through Dartford to Luton, will last no longer than is necessary for the full investigation to take place?

[Heidi Alexander]

We are obviously keen to ensure that normal service patterns can be resumed as soon as possible, but there is extensive work still to be done at the site. We need to ensure that everything is in perfect working order before we resume services. I will keep my hon. Friend updated, as I will do other hon. Members, as soon as we have more information.

Small Towns: Transport Links

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andy MacNae]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

The lack of buses disproportionately impacts people in small towns and villages, so it is crucial that we get this right. Fundamentally, we need to recognise that buses are a public service, not a commercial enterprise. I am pleased and proud that this Government have fully recognised that right from the start. The retention of the £3 bus fare cap and investment of £1 billion a year to support bus routes will benefit thousands of my constituents.

Looking forward, the Government’s commitment to empower local communities to take control of bus services, along with the requirement on local government to identify “socially necessary” routes, has the potential to deliver the joined-up services we need. But our reforms will only succeed if we address the practical barriers to delivering the day-to-day changes that our communities require. To give one example, in Edgworth near Darwen in my constituency, residents rely on healthcare, shops and schools in Bolton, yet over the years, bus services have been occasional and short-lived. This transport isolation is the single biggest issue raised with me by the community. When I spoke to a group of teenagers, they were clear that the best thing we could do to improve things for them would be simply to offer a bus into Bolton. Older residents say the same, so why have we not got one?

While there is a need for a subsidy, the fundamental issue seems to be that Bolton is in Greater Manchester, so the route would cross local authority boundaries. For years, no one seemed to want to take responsibility. Greater Manchester said it could not fund the route because residents of Blackburn with Darwen would be the beneficiaries, and Blackburn was unwilling to fund it because residents were going to spend their money in Greater Manchester—not exactly a joined-up system.

Things are changing, and I am pleased to say that a study commissioned by Blackburn with Darwen has finally recommended that the council get behind a new bus route. That is exactly the sort of thing that Government bus funding is supposed to enable; we just need to make it actually happen.

This cross-border issue is one that we face across Rossendale and Darwen. Its impact is compounded by the fact that so many of our crucial services are in other local authority areas, and that is true of so many other small towns. Solving this is a crucial test for the implementation of bus improvement policy, and I argue that it should be incumbent on existing mayoral authorities to work proactively with neighbouring councils to eliminate cross-border transport inequity.

Thirdly, I want to touch briefly on roads. Roads are an obvious and crucial connector. Many small towns are built around one or two key roads. Unlike in a city, where there are lots of options, when these roads are closed or disrupted by street works, the entire community feels it. For instance, in both Rossendale and Darwen, we have one main road that runs through the whole valley. When it is blocked or the traffic is severe, it is not just an inconvenience; it has serious impacts on local businesses and residents. Indeed, several well-established local businesses have told me they are considering leaving the area unless action is taken on congestion.

Unco-ordinated, overrunning roadworks are a constraint on small towns and must be treated as such. Councils need the powers to properly police contractors and incentivise quick completion. I welcome the Government’s support for continuing the roll-out of lane rental schemes, which are proven to reduce congestion on the busiest roads. I will call on all local authorities, including Lancashire county council, to work with the Government and act with urgency to tackle this blight on our towns.

Finally, we come to rail. For so many small towns this is a crucial connection, yet services are often patchy and unreliable—if they exist at all. There are still far too many towns without an accessible rail link, leaving them on the edges of opportunity, not through a lack of ambition but through a lack of connection.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent speech that he is making on a really important debate. My constituency, similar to his, has a range of small towns with different access to modes of transport. One of them is Swanscombe, home to the collapsed Galley Hill Road, which I have mentioned several times. Its train station is in a deep chalk cutting, and there is no accessibility. Does he agree that it is about not just having modes of transport, but making them accessible to all?

International Rail Services: Ashford

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this important debate, and I agree with every word she said while opening it.

It is also a pleasure to speak on an issue on which there is broad political agreement, with MPs across Kent and the south-east united in saying that after five years, we need international rail services back in our county. It was wonderful to hear Members from other parts of the country also recognising the importance of international rail links. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) who, since we were both elected last year, has done so much to shine a light on the issue, which is vital for the county’s economy and for the wider south-east region.

As has been said, it was more than five years ago, in the midst of the covid pandemic, that Eurostar services halted stops at Ashford and Ebbsfleet, which is in my constituency. Anyone who regularly uses Ebbsfleet International, as I do, will recognise the eerie feeling of a station designed for many more passengers than currently use it, with its substantial car parks largely empty. Ebbsfleet International was purpose-built to serve international trains and, along with Ashford International, it offers easy access to Europe for those living throughout Kent and the Thames estuary. It will also sit at the heart of a brand-new town of 15,000 homes when Ebbsfleet Garden City is completed.

Since the covid pandemic put a stop to the services, there has been an inexplicable reluctance from Eurostar to bring them back. It is welcome that other operators are now interested in running services on the line, which is currently running at only 50% capacity, and they will offer competition to Eurostar. Much will hinge on the Office of Rail and Road as to whether the Temple Mills international depot, currently used by Eurostar, can be opened up to multiple operators. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and a number of other colleagues who are present today, I visited the offices of the ORR to deliver a letter, urging them to open up Temple Mills, bring real competition to that line and accelerate a return of international rail to Kent.

Let us be clear: the return of international rail represents a transformative opportunity for Kent and the wider region. The services running through Ebbsfleet—with perhaps the innovative inclusion of Stratford International as a new departure point, attracting additional ridership from the northern part of the Thames estuary—will significantly enhance connectivity for residents, businesses and visitors. It will also relieve pressure on central London terminals and offer a further, more sustainable alternative to short-haul air travel. Resumption of the service helps support key infrastructure developments, including Ebbsfleet Garden City, the Elizabeth line and Bluewater shopping centre, which is also in my constituency.

We need the delivery of high-quality, competitively priced and frequent services, using newly designed rolling stock. Bringing that together with the new digital platform for seamless ticketing and journey planning, which is currently under development for Dartford and Gravesham, provides a huge opportunity for interconnectivity of these services with local transport options.

The economic, environmental and social case for restoring and expanding international rail links from Kent and east London is substantial and, in my view, unanswerable. The people of Kent, the south-east and the Thames estuary want it; London St Pancras Highspeed, the track operator, supports it; businesses and local government have argued strongly for it; and all the MPs in this room and across the region are desperate to see it.

I look forward to the ORR decision on depot capacity, which I hope will come this month, and following that, to further concrete plans from the interested parties. I also hope that the Minister, when he sums up, will take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s support for international rail returning to Kent, and the importance for the regional economy of the stops at Ebbsfleet and Ashford.

When I travel next month to Strasbourg on the Eurostar to see Crystal Palace play only their second-ever competitive away fixture in Europe, I should be getting on the train at Ebbsfleet, not St Pancras. Please, Government, ORR and train operators: make it happen for my fellow Crystal Palace fans and me in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

Labour mayors across the country are putting in orders for UK-manufactured buses, as we support bus travel in our towns and cities. The Scottish people will be asking questions about why the Mayor of Greater Manchester has managed to buy almost four times as many buses from Scotland as the SNP Scottish Government have. My officials and I are in close contact with Ministers and representatives from the Scottish Government, the Department for Business and Trade, the NFI Group—the owner of Alexander Dennis—and Scottish Enterprise to explore avenues of support.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to improve the condition of the road network.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

Potholes and poor road surfaces are a nuisance for drivers, cause damage to vehicles and can pose a real danger to road users. To tackle the poor state of our roads following a decade of decline, this Government will provide £24 billion of capital funding over the spending review period to maintain and improve local roads and motorways across the country, delivering faster, safer and more reliable journeys.

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the Minister for her answer, and for reassuring residents in Swanscombe and the surrounding areas that, two years after the collapse of Galley Hill Road, hope for a solution is in sight, thanks to the structures fund announced as part of the comprehensive spending review. Can the Minister confirm the likely timescale for the structures fund being up and running and open for bids? Will she undertake to ensure that her officials in the Department are working closely with Kent county council to maximise the chances of a successful bid to the structures fund, as I am sure she will for other parts of the country?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his steadfast advocacy for people and businesses in his constituency, which I know has been blighted by the collapse of the A226 at Galley Hill. It was visiting places such as Galley Hill that led us to invest £1 billion to enhance the road network, and create a new structures fund that will repair rundown bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels. Details on how that fund will be allocated will be announced in due course.