Highways (Financing) Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I realise that the Bill may seem rather dry at first glance, as it primarily covers how we finance major road building. Financial frameworks, licences and regulators might not get the hearts of the public—or, dare I say, even of hon. Members—racing, so I hope the House will allow me to start with why all this matters, not just for the future of this Government’s second largest infrastructure asset, but for the future of the country. Members from across the House will, I am sure, know the importance of the strategic road network—4,500 miles of highways that frankly punch above their weight. It represents less than 3% of our road network by length, and carries a third of motor vehicle miles and two thirds of lorry miles. If trade is the lifeblood of our economy, the strategic network represents our national arteries, transporting almost all the goods that we rely on for our way of life. Indeed, it does even more, by unlocking house building, connecting people with opportunity, and underpinning the integrated transport network that we want to build.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The Minister mentioned roads unlocking house building. Labour wants to build 100,000 houses in south Essex, from Grays to Shoeburyness, so why did it cancel the widening of the A12 some months ago? Last week, it cancelled upgrades to the A127, too. It makes no sense to build all those houses, but if we are going to do that, it is insane to cancel the road upgrades that we need to accommodate that building. Why did Labour do that? None of this is joined up, is it?

[Justin Madders]

I will happily address why certain schemes have been cancelled. It is because the Conservative party put far more schemes into the programme than it put in funding for, so any understandable frustration ought to be directed at the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. Much of the strategic network is over 45 years old.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry, but the Minister cannot get away with that. Labour cancelled the widening of the A12, which had been planned for years, and it cancelled the upgrades to the A127. Please answer my question. How can Labour propose building 100,000 houses while cancelling strategic road programmes? It does not make sense.

[Justin Madders]

The bottom line is that the previous Government committed to far more schemes than there was funding for, so we had to evaluate which were the least value for money and the least advanced. It is nothing more than that. The right hon. Member may be frustrated, but perhaps the previous Government should not have made promises that could not be delivered.

Demand will only go in one direction. Road vehicle mileage is set to rise on the strategic road network by 12% over the nine years to 2035. Climate change continues to bare its teeth across our transport infrastructure, and our strategic roads are no exception. All those challenges bear down on a network that holds up our economy every day. That is why I am proud that the Government published the third road investment strategy earlier this year. It committed not only £27 billion to future-proofing our roads, and to resurfacing a quarter of our entire network, but to three major enhancement schemes in the north of England, on which it will work even closer with local leaders. It proved to MPs like me that road investment can address regional inequalities, and is compatible with our promise of greater devolution. When we talk about growth and power in every postcode, that is exactly what we mean.

That is the context in which I present the Bill. I have mentioned what we have already delivered, but in truth, much more needs to be done. Delivering the roads this country needs to connect our ports, our major cities and our communities requires substantial investment over many years, and across several Parliaments. Public investment will, of course, continue to play a vital role, but we can go further when private investment is harnessed to meet public goals. When Government and the private sector come together in partnership, and when we balance certainty for private investors with safeguards for the public interest, we give ourselves more tools to build the modern infrastructure that Britain needs. The Bill creates such a tool, and does so in two ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but the Minister has already contradicted her. She should have listened to his speech.

[Mr Francois]

As a south Essex MP, I had my first briefing on the lower Thames crossing about a decade ago. The estimated cost at that time was between £2 billion and £2.5 billion. After, I think, five rounds of consultation, partly at the behest of environmental activists, which have delayed the whole thing for years, we now have a bill of between £9 billion and £10 billion. Under the first plans, the project would have been paid for by the state, but now Government policy is that 90% of it will be paid for by the private sector. I have asked the Transport Secretary three times which banks or companies will pay for it. Does my right hon. Friend know, because she will not tell me?

[Mr Holden]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We do not yet know who will fund the project. Would the Minister like to intervene on me to say if any companies have been lined up and who is looking forward to funding this project under the proposed legislation? He does not want to at the moment, so I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will be getting an answer to his question today.

[Mr Holden]

I have just given way several times, so let me make a little progress before I give way again.

The Secretary of State is too busy to bother about motorists until they become useful cash cows for Labour’s ballooning welfare budget, which shows no sign of changing under the new Prime Minister, no matter how many pints he poses with. The Transport Secretary could not even be bothered to mention fuel in her speech at the Labour party conference, even though diesel has just hit £2 a litre for the first time ever. To be fair, she did mention drivers once, but only to tell us that railways are the drivers of change—whatever that means.

Make no mistake: Labour does not care about Britain’s motorists, unless it is making a tax, a charge, a new fine or a new yellow box junction. Labour—its Government, its Back Benchers and its councillors—will never stop trying to fleece motorists. This Bill proves that in spades with its open-ended approach to what could happen. There are new sweeping powers in the Bill for road charging right across England, with next to no future parliamentary approval. It is not even as if the Secretary of State has been out there banging the drum for Britain’s automotive sector; otherwise, we would have seen the changes to the zero emission vehicle mandate that so many in the industry, and some Labour Back Benchers, are demanding. In fact, we have seen Labour turn the screw on this issue even further since it came to power.

We know that some Labour Ministers—such as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who is a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade—are on the side of motorists. However, the Department for Transport has shown absolutely no indication that it is on the side of Britain’s car industry or those who work in it in good jobs, often with trade union representation, up and down the country. It is not on the side of those who go out and drive for work or for leisure day after day.

What have this Government done? They have been busy merrily cooking up a story with the Treasury and pressing ahead with plans to put an extra 6p per litre on fuel in the new year. They have been busily slicing out road scheme after road scheme and road upgrade after road upgrade. So much for the road investment strategy that the Minister talks about! Under this Government, how can we have any confidence that they will deliver the scheme at all? We have just seen the A303, the Blyth relief road, the A31, the A10, the A12, the A17, the A454 and the A127 growth corridor cancelled, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) just mentioned, as well as many more. The Government have cancelled their own growth corridor!

The Transport Secretary—although she is not here—expects us to swallow the idea that the Government will suddenly be on the side of motorists and road users with this new scheme, which opens the entire road network to potential road charging. As soon as any new enhancement is put in—it may be a central reservation enhancement—it can be opened up to potential road charging.

I read the other day, to my amazement, that National Highways has banned diesel from construction sites on the lower Thames crossing. Are this Government absolutely mad? Are they trying to keep the costs of this project down?

[Mr Francois]

It costs £10 billion!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member—my occasional squash partner—for asking that question; he often beats me at squash. We are not opposed to tolls, per se—we have had them on the existing lower Thames crossing at Dartford for years—but we took them away on the Severn bridge, which is important for our connectivity to Wales. We are totally against opening up the entire strategic road network to charging, which is what this piece of legislation does.

[Mr Francois]

For the record, the first Dartford tunnel opened in 1963, under a Conservative Government, and the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Thurrock opened in 1991, under a Conservative Government. Is not the risk that if the lower Thames crossing is 90% funded by private finance, which I am not opposed to in principle, the toll charges could be so ruinous that it will be very difficult for ordinary motorists to afford it? We would have some confidence if we knew who was going to fund the scheme, but until we know that, we are going to be worried, aren’t we?

[Mr Holden]

Nowhere in this legislation is there any talk of the exact price that people will have to pay to cross the river. There is no idea of who is going to build the crossing, the cost of it or how much people will have to pay to cross. Huge numbers of open-ended questions are left by this piece of legislation.

As I was saying, my party has outlined plans for how we will reduce the cost of infrastructure, including leaving the Aarhus convention, so that we can tackle the rules that allow costly or protracted legal challenges. The Minister smirks, but that is costing his Department hundreds of millions of pounds a year. If his Government pulled out of the convention, they could deliver some of the road projects that they have just cancelled. That is exactly what we should be doing. At the moment, every man and his dog can challenge the Government on any important piece of road infrastructure being built in the country—or, in Jolyon Maugham’s case, every man and his fox—and use those rules to delay projects and cost the taxpayer. Costs are capped at £5,000 for an individual and at £10,000 for a campaign group, but this situation costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds a year. That is where the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) should look to save money for his constituents when they cross the road in the future, and it is why it took so long for this legislation to come forward—because it took so long for the planning to happen.

What plan have the Government set out? Is it for this country to be a world leader in greenwashing road building and making roads more expensive than anywhere else in the world? We have a Government run by a man whose only care for transport is whether it is in Manchester or not. I have no doubt that if the LTC was somewhere in Manchester, the Government would fall over themselves to get it built, rather than having no answers to the big questions that we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

As many Members will know, I joined the industry 20 years ago as a civil engineer. Throughout my career, I have been very fortunate to work on a lot of major infrastructure projects, including the lower Thames crossing, the A303 and some of the big National Highways frameworks, such as the specialist professional and technical services framework and the regional delivery partnership—the delivery integration partner framework. I now chair the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure, so I come at this Bill as someone who has priced and bid for major contracts and has seen what happens when the money just is not there.

However, I thought I would start my contribution to this debate with a safety moment. Members who have been around the sector will know that safety culture is absolutely critical to delivering our road network and doing so safely, and a safety moment that has always stuck with me is one from National Highways. It is about a lady who I am going to call Jane. Jane had had a busy day at National Highways; she jumped in her car, was driving home, and was involved in a very low-speed traffic collision. When she hit the car in front, her airbag went off and caused her lanyard to be forced through her chest, and she ended up in hospital. That is always a good reminder—when you leave today, if you are rushing to your car to drive home, remove your lanyard, not only for your security but for your safety.

Let me now turn to why this Bill matters to Northampton. Why is an MP for Northampton talking about a scheme in Essex and Kent? Well, Northampton sits at the heart of the logistics network: some 2,640 logistics businesses operate out of Northamptonshire, and 35,000 people in my county work in haulage and logistics. Every day, goods move between warehouses in my constituency and the channel ports, many of them crossing the Thames via Dartford, and when Dartford jams up, those costs are felt in my constituency and across the midlands. I support this Bill—I think it is the right thing to do to deal with that problem—but I agree with the Road Haulage Association and many hauliers that we must also consider the cost for freight operators. When the licensing agreements come forward, we must consider the considerable business and fuel costs that many businesses in my constituency are facing.

Planning has long been the biggest barrier to building roads. In particular, the development consent order process for the lower Thames crossing has been torturous—unfortunately, I know that at first hand. The second biggest barrier, though, has often been money. The Treasury can only fund so many projects at any one time, and every project competes for the same pot. This Bill brings in the private capital to build things that would otherwise sit in the queue. I have long argued that private finance works in this sector; when the Silvertown tunnel opened last year, it showed that modern public-private partnerships can deliver for taxpayers, and I still believe that.

However, having spoken to the Minister previously responsible and now to the current Minister, I want to be straight with this House. This is an ambitious thing that we are doing. I do not believe that the regulated asset base model is used elsewhere in the world for road infrastructure; traditionally, we see it delivered through concessions or availability-based public-private partnerships. I was initially concerned, so rather than shouting at the Department about where the money is coming from, I went out and spoke to industry. Through the Global Infrastructure Investor Association and some of the big advisers to the investment community, I spoke to investors about this project, and they said that this is actually quite an exciting opportunity, particularly because it should reduce the cost of capital. Creating a regulated return reviewed by an independent regulator should deliver cheaper finance and, importantly, more competition for that finance, so it is completely right that the Department cannot say who is funding this project yet, because we need to run the competition to get that funding in the first place. The more certainty we give to the market through a model such as this one, the better our chances of securing that finance at a much lower cost.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously spent a lot of time looking into this matter, and I commend him for that. As a result of his discussions, could he estimate when we might know who the funders will be—is it another year or two? When will it be? As he has obviously spoken to the Road Haulage Association as well, what does he think the initial toll will be for a lorry going through the tunnel?

[Mike Reader]

I would not want to speculate on the Government’s timetable. What is important is that the Bill goes through, and then we will go through the licensing arrangements to find the right partner to deliver this project, as well as the finance, obviously. However, the delays that happened under the previous Government—the first failed development consent order, where they completely ignored the local community, and the second DCO ending up in the courts because of challenges brought forward by the environmental lobby, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said—were not dealt with, and I am really disappointed that the Opposition are playing that card now when they campaigned against the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which brought forward many measures that would have solved the problems that the lower Thames crossing had.

The question of risk is another important one. A RAB model moves construction risk on to the people who are financing, building and delivering the scheme, but the treatment of risk in the delivery of a major infrastructure project can make the difference between success and failure. The question is: who holds that risk? The Competition and Markets Authority’s review of the civil engineering sector rightly identified that the transfer of risk from tier 1s, from financers, and into the supply chain can make a big difference to a project’s solvency and how it is delivered, particularly for major projects. We have to make sure that the licensing arrangements established by this Bill make provision for Government to require equitable risk management and risk treatment within the delivery of projects, as well as prompt payment through the supply chain, so that when billions of pounds of investment are involved, that money flows through quickly into the supply chain and does not get stuck at tier 1 level.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister to round off my speech—I am very grateful for his and his predecessor’s engagement on this Bill. The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that the process for setting tolls in the first settlement period, which would answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), would be set out as the Bill progresses. Will the Minister confirm that that is still the case? The standard licence conditions will be set by the Secretary of State without parliamentary procedure, so will the Government commit to publishing the core principles for investor returns and price reviews before any licence is granted?

The Bill puts new requirements on the Office for Rail and Road. I have had relatively good experiences with that organisation, but this is a new skill and capability that it needs to have, so what are the Government going to do to strengthen the ORR’s capability to manage these contracts effectively?

Turning to existing roads, to address the point made by the shadow Secretary of State, the Government have already confirmed in a written answer that they have no plans to use these powers to toll roads that are currently free. I welcome that, but since there is confusion, could the Minister put that question beyond doubt in his closing remarks from the Dispatch Box?

Some will say that this is a pay-per-journey model that will change Britain’s roads, but I do not believe it is. It is a way of getting the biggest schemes—the schemes that get stalled for years, if not generations—off the drawing pad and into delivery. I fully support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

Not all French motorways are tolled. Certain sections of them are—often the busiest sections. I will come to what the right hon. Gentleman said about what the Bill does and does not do.

The Liberal Democrats’ position is that there needs to be close attention to the detail and scrutiny of the way in which charges and tolls—like those in Europe and on the M6, which I mentioned—are implemented. However, the Bill leaves all of those questions of operation, management, oversight and regulation of tolls and charges largely undefined; they are often relegated to secondary legislation. The Government must ensure that road users are not held to ransom by licence holders, who must be properly regulated. We have seen disastrous effects in other sectors when these things have been got wrong.

The Minister and the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) gave good examples of how a regulated asset base approach, and indeed private finance initiatives, can be used for good, but of course there are many bad examples as well. I am not sure whether too many people believe that the water industry’s use of the regulated asset base approach has been enormously successful. We certainly need regulation of private investors and to ensure that the triggers for the special administration regime defined in the legislation are not too weak. Of course, there are also many examples of public private partnerships and private finance initiatives that have not ended well, particularly with hospitals and the London underground.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Member is making a very thoughtful speech. I was recently on a private holiday in Texas, being driven by a friend. In that state, there is a number of toll roads, so people have a chip attached to the windscreen that allows them to transition from public roads, as it were, to toll roads and back again, with that chip recording what they have to pay as they go from one to the other. The technology to do this already exists—I saw it with my own eyes. We are just a bit worried that the Government might be a bit too keen to adopt it.

[Olly Glover]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that if we are to go down that road, it needs to be transparent and done in a way that gives confidence to consumers. Car drivers and road users are consumers, and we should think of them in the same way we do customers on the railway or on planes. If such a thing is to be done, it must be done with great care and thought. That is why we need to scrutinise the legislation carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). The different varieties of charges and how they are enforced is a problem not just for people with disabilities, but for general motorists. As I understand it, almost half of the income from the current Dart charge is from penalties. That income is almost as great as the income from the charge itself. It shows the level of confusion that is caused to those who use that crossing.

I had the privilege of being the duty Minister in October 1991, when the Queen Elizabeth II bridge was opened by Her late Majesty. That was an occasion that I will never forget, with fly-pasts and the QE2 underneath the bridge. It was a great celebration of private enterprise at its best, because Members may recall that that bridge was built in only three years and two months. It cost £120 million and was delivered on time and to budget. The way it was financed was set out in the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988. In responding to this debate, I hope that the Minister will explain why a similar proposal is not being applied to the lower Thames crossing.

I checked out the remarks that I made as the Minister when the bridge opened in 1991, 35 years ago this month. In those remarks, I made reference to the fact that we were working on the lower Thames crossing. We recognised 35 years ago that there would be a need for an additional lower Thames crossing. The idea then was that the income from the tolls on the Dartford crossing would eventually be used to help fund the lower Thames crossing.

I am supportive of my party’s reasoned amendment, because it shows a certain scepticism about all these promises that are made. We should recall that, at the time of the opening of the QEII bridge, I promised—it was a repeat of a promise that had been given by a previous Conservative Minister—that the tolls would cease to be payable once the costs of the bridge had been paid for. The legislation provided that there was a maximum period of 20 years through which the tolls could be paid in order to fund the bridge.

In the end, I think the period of the tolls should have been about 12 years, because the bridge should have been paid for by then. There was then an extension of one year for tolls in order to ensure that we had sufficient income to pay for the ongoing repairs and maintenance costs. That should have been the end of the financial burden on motorists using that crossing. Of course it was not, because then the Treasury got involved and said, “No, we need to keep the income coming in from the crossing. How do we justify that?” Well, the justification was that by continuing to have tolls on the crossing, we would be able to fund the lower Thames crossing.

That continued for a bit of time, and then the Labour Government decided that they did not want to have the income from the tolls dedicated to a future road project across the Thames, and that the money would go into general taxation; we lost the allocated resources that should have been there to fund the lower Thames crossing, and the money that continues to be paid by those who use the Dartford crossing just goes into general taxation. Is it any surprise that people are sceptical about promises that are made when legislation like this Bill is being debated?

The Minister says that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle for toll roads across the country. Frankly, from my own perspective, I once argued that the best way for us to promote important highway infrastructure in this country is by building roads for prosperity. “Roads for Prosperity” was the title of a 1990 roads White Paper that led to an enormous expansion of our road network, which I was lucky enough to be involved in during my time as the Roads Minister.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend brings valuable ministerial experience to the House. I think it is fair to say that the lower Thames crossing has a very long and checkered history, just as HS2 has a very long and checkered history—in both cases, under Governments of different colours—but he is absolutely right: in south Essex, the scepticism about future tolls on the lower Thames crossing is largely based on the fact that the tolls on the QEII bridge are still in operation.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that observation. That is why we need to be very sceptical about what the Government are proposing.

Let us look at the issue of the lower Thames crossing. I read that it is going to cost £10 billion, and people will ask how we are going to raise that money. It seems to me that it will not be difficult to get the capital from the private sector, if a return can be obtained on that capital. Indeed, when Sir Nigel Broackes, who was the boss of Trafalgar House, was bidding for the Dartford crossing, he obtained the capital from the Bank of America. I do not think there is any doubt that the money will be forthcoming, but what will be the cost of the whole project? Will it have a finite cost of, say, £10 billion? If so, over how long a period will the Government allow the operator and the construction vehicle to have that paid back? Will the tolls be designed to pay back the cost of the tunnel within 20 years, 30 years or 50 years? The answer to that question will determine the level of the tolls. Are they going to be affordable? My view is that it is reasonable that this infrastructure be paid for by the people who will use it. I do not have a quarrel with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

May I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for missing a bit of her speech? I nipped upstairs briefly to see the Children’s Parliament in action in Room 14. It is something our great friend Sir David was passionate about, so I hope the House will forgive my absence; no disrespect was intended. If it helps her, I have heard anecdotally that there is a lot of support for bringing back the Tilbury ferry—if I say that, perhaps she will forgive me.

There has been some debate about whether or not the Conservative party was committed to long-term infrastructure projects. Just for the record, in 1963, the first Dartford tunnel opened; I think Sir Alec Douglas-Home was Prime Minister at the time. In 1986, the first section of the M25 was opened by Margaret Thatcher. In 1991, the Queen Elizabeth II bridge opened, and in 1994, the channel tunnel opened, both during the premiership of John Major. We can trade historical dates, but I think those four examples show fairly conclusively that the Conservative party has been committed to major infrastructure down the decades.

On the lower Thames crossing, as I said in an earlier intervention, the truth is that this has a long and complex history. I know that it has been very controversial in Thurrock and in what is now South Basildon and East Thurrock. This really had a genesis, I think, under the Blair and then Brown Governments, so it goes back a very long way, and it is a fact that the project has been delayed by multiple consultation exercises over a period of years. But we are where we are, and because of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about the history of tolls on the QEII bridge, and whether or not they would ever be cancelled, I hope the Minister will understand that there is understandable scepticism—certainly in south Essex—about what would happen to tolls on the lower Thames crossing.

For the record, I have asked the Transport Secretary three times on the Floor of the House over the last year or so which financial institutions are now going to finance the 85% to 90% residual cost of the lower Thames crossing. I heard what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) said about the negotiations still being ongoing, but given the history of the whole project, I hope the Minister can understand in all seriousness why some people in south Essex are sceptical that the Government cannot yet tell us which companies or financial institutions would, in fact, pay for it.

When the Minister winds up, will he answer three very specific questions about the lower Thames crossing? First, given all of this complex history, what is the Government’s latest estimated year in which the crossing will open to traffic? Secondly, what is their latest estimate of the toll for a family car when the crossing opens? Thirdly, what is their latest estimate the toll for a 38-tonne lorry when the crossing opens? I would be grateful if the Minister could at least attempt to answer those three specific questions in his winding-up speech. I want the crossing to go ahead, but I want to know when, and I want to know what it is going to cost my constituents to drive through it, be they a private motorist or a lorry driver.

The Bill is about highways financing. I have dealt with the Minister before in a different context when he had a different job, and he has always struck me as a reasonable man—let’s get that on the record—but I wonder if he can understand the frustration in south Essex over the recent decision to cancel the proposed upgrades to the A127. Those upgrades included a scheme to straighten out what is now, in effect, the chicane at the old Fortune of War roundabout, and to add a third lane to the A127 in the Southend-bound direction between the Halfway House, as it is known, and the site of the old Fortune of War. Both those schemes would have increased flow and capacity on the A127. Some months ago, the incoming Labour Government cancelled the proposed widening of the A12, which had been in gestation for almost as long as the lower Thames crossing. I hope the Minister will understand why this has caused immense frustration in south Essex.

A different Department, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, wants to build 100,000 houses from Grays to Shoeburyness. That is its departmental objective. The Department of Health and Social Care has a particular challenge at Basildon hospital, which is pretty much maxed out as it is. According to the NHS’s own planning metric, it works on a basis of 2.4 additional potential patients per dwelling. The plans say there will be 28,000 additional houses in the Basildon borough, and 35,000 in Thurrock, thanks to Reform and Labour; that is 63,000 in total. When we factor in the 2.4 multiplier, that is 151,200 additional patients—at least by my maths—for a hospital in Basildon that is completely maxed out today as it is.

[Jen Craft]

indicated assent.

[Mr Francois]

I see the hon. Member for Thurrock nodding assent.

That hospital is rated “inadequate” by the Care Quality Commission. It is part of the Mid and South Essex foundation trust—along with Broomfield hospital in Chelmsford, and Southend hospital—which is a failing organisation. How can we build all those houses when there is no real plan of any kind to expand capacity at the hospital? Now we are cutting road programmes on the A127, which is one of the two fundamental east-west arterial roads between London and south Essex, and the A12 obviously feeds into to that area from the north.

The point that I am seeking to get across to the Minister is that none of this is joined up: one Government Department wants to build a vast number of houses; another Government Department is responsible for healthcare but has no idea whatsoever how to cater for what could be a quarter of a million extra people, if we use the NHS metric; and the Department for Transport is cancelling road upgrades that were supposed to increase capacity. At the morning and evening peaks, the A127 and the A13 are at 99% capacity as it is. I have seen the heat maps; the busier the road, the darker the red, and both those roads metaphorically glow scarlet in the morning and evening peaks. We have three different Government Departments with conflicting objectives, but my constituents in south Essex and other people who live there have to bear the consequences.

I have dealt with the Minister before on a constituency case, which I will not go into now, and he was very reasonable and listened. My plea to him this afternoon is: please accept what I am saying as true; please do not cancel anything else in Essex; and, for God’s sake—whatever you do—do not cancel the upgrade to the Fairglen interchange at Rayleigh on the A127, because if you think I am upset now, you want to see me then!

Those are the points that I wanted to make. Some are directly about the lower Thames crossing and some are about other issues, but I think my fundamental point about these key infrastructure projects is: it’s all got to be joined up. We cannot tolerate a situation where we have three Government Departments—I know the Minister is only responsible for one of them—pulling in three totally different directions. I hope that is not an unreasonable point to make in a debate of this kind. With that, I rest my case.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to speak alongside Kent colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), to see my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) in her place, and to hear from Members from across south Essex, whose constituents will directly benefit from the lower Thames crossing. Anyone who has travelled down that stretch will know that the lower Thames crossing will be a vital part of the north Kent infrastructure. When there are problems with the Dartford bridge, disruption can spread all the way down into south-east London and Kent, including into Medway, which I represent.

I want to speak to four elements of the Bill: first, the benefits of the new crossing, including the direct investment it could bring to Essex and Medway, in my local area, and why that is so critical; secondly, the vehicle that will be used by the Government to deliver the project, learning from the National Audit Office review of the Sizewell programme and others about some of the cost considerations of which we need to be mindful; thirdly, the Opposition amendment; and, lastly, the importance and necessity of delivering the project on time.

As many hon. Members will be aware, the Dartford crossing was originally conceived to cater for 136,000 vehicle movements, but it is currently catering for over 150,000. We know from projections that freight movements are due to increase over the next 15 years. As has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), we are due to see an expansion in population across all of the south Essex and north Kent corridor over the next 15 years as part of the urban sprawl that is moving east of London. He mentioned capacity issues on many road networks. In my area, there are issues on the A229, which crosses from Maidstone into Medway, and with the Medway tunnel—a particular focus that I will come to. We know that there are also constraints on some of the roads connecting Gravesham and Dartford, particularly around Galley Hill.

[Mr Francois]

For the record, I am completely opposed to the urban sprawl. The Government are trying to impose far too many houses on south Essex. The figure of 100,000 homes that I mentioned is nearly 7% of their entire target of 1.5 million homes—and that is in one half of one county. Nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman will believe that I am being honest in arguing on behalf of my constituents, I am prepared to believe that he is being honest in arguing on behalf of his.

[Tristan Osborne]

Housing targets are not unique to this Government—indeed, they have existed in previous iterations throughout the last several decades. Housing has been built in south Essex under the previous Government, and I am sure that permissions were given under Conservative-controlled councils. Similarly, in my area, the then Conservative-led Medway council delivered housing projects. We have to be realistic, because infrastructure is needed to cater for these future developments.

The crossing is necessary because of the capacity issues that have just been raised. The impacts of a blocked crossing have profound implications, including for people trying to get to health appointments and inconvenienced residents. Town centres are blocked, in the case of Dartford and Thurrock. There are also implications for the freight and logistics industry, which have been so eloquently expressed by colleagues from around the country, because the south-east is the key link to European trade.

I am very proud that this Department, led by the current Secretary of State, sought on day one of taking office to give the consent order for this programme. That clearly shows the direction of travel and the focus of a Government to deliver some of these really big infrastructure projects. Alongside Sizewell C and other Government programmes, we know that private investment, working with the Government, can deliver significant projects going forward. We know that projects that cost around £10 billion are Government mega-project schemes, so I ask that this scheme be considered on the Government programme of mega-projects. There has been deliberation about whether HS2 is a mega-project, which has caused some delays, especially around the Euston development site; that was covered in the NAO report.

I know that tolls are a sensitive topic. I agree with my colleagues that there needs to be some consideration of whether those who live in the direct surrounds of not only Dartford and Thurrock, but around the new site in Gravesham and Medway, and on the other side in south Essex, should be considered for toll relief to ensure that they get a fair discount.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to today’s debate. The House has heard a range of views this afternoon. Some Members have spoken about the opportunities that the Bill presents, and others have rightly pressed the Government on how users will be protected, how local communities will be treated, and how we can ensure that major infrastructure is delivered in a way that provides value for money.

Before I turn to some of the specific points, I want to return to the more fundamental question: why is the Bill needed? The answer is straightforward: the Government believe that we should have a wide range of tools to deliver nationally significant infrastructure, and that we should avail ourselves of those tools to offer the best deal for taxpayers and to help us provide the connectivity that our economy needs. The immediate context for this legislation is the lower Thames crossing, and the House knows the importance of that project. Dartford is operating well beyond the volumes that it was designed to carry. It has become a critical pinch point on the strategic road network, affecting commuters, businesses, supply chains and communities across large parts of the country. The lower Thames crossing will provide additional capacity, greater resilience and a new strategic connection across the Thames.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Simon Lightwood]

I have a lot to get through, and I have heard a lot from the right hon. Member already. [Interruption.]

The Bill provides the statutory framework needed to support the Government’s preferred financing approach for delivering this project. It does not grant development consent—

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The right hon. Member knows very well that it is at the Minister’s discretion whether he gives way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sorry to hear about that incident. I share my hon. Friend’s relief that no one was injured. As he knows, improvements to junctions across the A50 corridor in Staffordshire are being considered as part of the pipeline of potential future major enhancements to the strategic road network. He is undoubtedly the A50’s greatest champion, and he will not have long to wait for news, as we will say more when RIS3 is published next month.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Essex man and woman love their cars, but the A13 and the A217 in south Essex are at 99% capacity during the morning and evening peaks—they are maxed out. The proposed lower Thames crossing would help, and although Labour now says that the crossing will be 90% privately funded, it will not say by whom. For the fourth time of asking in this Chamber, which companies, banks or other financial institutions will now pay for the lower Thames crossing? Many people in Essex are beginning to believe that Labour will never, ever build it.

[Lilian Greenwood]

That is just not true. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined to provide the road infrastructure that the public want. That is why we are providing public funding to start that project. We will say more in the coming weeks and months.

Driving Test Availability: South-east

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observation. He is right to identify that rural and semi-rural communities are particularly badly affected, because of the very often skeletal public transport systems. I will come on to potential solutions to the challenge as I reach the conclusion of my contribution.

Parents described to me the practical and emotional toll of the crisis: driving teenagers to work or college several times a week, rearranging family routines and supporting young people who are increasingly demoralised. Others tell me that their children have delayed job applications or turned down work altogether because they cannot secure the driving tests they need to unlock those important employment opportunities.

One of my constituents, George, has been trying to acquire a driving test for two years after passing his theory test. He is autistic and unable to undertake long journeys to distant test centres, yet he receives no preferential consideration despite being registered for personal independence payments. He told me that he is losing heart over driving, and fears that without a licence he may be condemned to welfare dependency for life, as he is unable to reach his job in hospitality, which requires late-evening travel that public transport in Surrey Heath simply does not support. That is not an isolated case; it is emblematic of a system that is failing the people who rely on it most.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Unfortunately, it was right that Loveday Ryder, the previous chief executive of the DVSA, had to resign because of this terrible ongoing problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need new leadership at that organisation, to grip this problem with alacrity? We must particularly address the problem of bots sweeping up the tests, as there is not much point in increasing the number of tests if the bots capture them. We are then back to the 6 am problem of parents dialling in, which he has articulated so well.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that very important observation. The plight of bots stealing places from under people on a Government-registered system strikes me as utterly inappropriate. I have heard internal stories that the DVSA has been in a state of upendedness for some time. I am also grateful to him for his observation about Loveday Ryder.

As of June, the average waiting time for a practical driving test stood at about 22 weeks, although the nearest centres for my constituents, in Farnborough and Guildford, reported waits of 24 weeks. Many have told me that they have waited up to a year to secure a test slot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Tell us!

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I will write to you all.

The main thing was that someone learning to be an instructor has two years after passing the part 1 test, which is the theory, to complete part 2, the extended driving test, and part 3, the teaching ability test. The limited availability of parts 2 and 3 causes massive problems and means that trainees abandon the course, losing thousands of pounds. We should make it easier for them to get through because we need more examiners —we need more people to train people to learn to drive. If we choke off that supply, there is no chance of anybody getting tests because there will be no people to carry them out.

There is also the misleading test availability. One pupil was sent a DVSA link to book a practical test after passing the theory test, but no available slots were shown in her area for two years, despite weekly test slot releases. I have already mentioned the bulk buying, and there is another issue. In April 2015, the average waiting time in Chingford and Woodford Green was 6.3 weeks—I think that is too long, but there it is. By September 2024, the average waiting time was 24 weeks and rising, and it has gone up since then. So this has become a massive issue. It is a massive issue in respect of people’s ability to earn a living and a massive issue for people who have a personal need to drive—perhaps because they look after somebody with disabilities or other problems. All this impacts hugely on their ability to live full and complete lives.

At the end of the day, why are driving test slots so limited across the UK right now? Why are we not training more people? Why are we not making more slots available? Why are we not acting now to get rid of the business of bulk buying and then resale? We should be tackling that straight away. I simply say, on behalf of my constituents and those who have been training to become instructors and testers, that their exasperation, which I am sure others here today have felt, is remarkable. This issue is affecting all of their lives, and we should make it a priority. Too often it has been shunted into the background by successive Governments, on both sides of the fence. Now is the time to act, and I urge the Minister to give us a clear timetable for when he will act and how the Government will sort out this problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My right hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the importance of the structures fund. There are bridges, flyovers and tunnels across the country where the local authority with responsibility for the structure is simply unable to meet the whole cost of repairing it. I intend in the new year to set out more details about the £1 billion fund, which will enable both the repair of structures and enhancements to our local road network.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The lower Thames crossing—or the late and tardy crossing, as it is now known in Essex—is the second largest piece of infrastructure in the country after High Speed 2. When will the work actually commence, when will the crossing be open to traffic, and—this is my third time asking the Secretary of State this question at the Dispatch Box—specifically which banks and companies will fund it? Many people in Essex are beginning to believe it is never going to happen.

[Heidi Alexander]

I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before that we are exploring private finance options to deliver the lower Thames crossing, having granted planning consent through a development consent order earlier this year. Enabling works, including utility works, could begin next year, before 2027, and the crossing should be open for use by vehicles in the mid-2030s.

Road and Rail Projects

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am very aware of the case that my hon. Friend and the leader of Bradford council have put forward for a new station. As he notes, we will be setting out our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail in the coming weeks.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The largest road programme in the UK is the lower Thames crossing from Tilbury to Gravesend. It is now scheduled to cost about £10 billion, and the Government say that 90% or more of that will be funded from the private sector. I asked the Secretary of State last month on the Floor of the House which institutions exactly are going to finance that, and she replied, in essence, “I’ll get back to you.” So can I ask her again, because the longer the Government refuse to answer this question, the more sceptical people in Essex and Kent will become about whether that much-needed, vital strategic link is ever going to get built at all?

[Heidi Alexander]

One of the first things I did when I came into this post was to agree with the Treasury that we would explore private finance options for the lower Thames crossing. We are working at the moment on securing a suitable private sector partner to finance the scheme. However, I think the right hon. Member has a bit of a brass neck, if I am honest. His Government sat on a planning application for years and years. This Government, within a year of coming into office, had granted planning consent and had decided to take forward the scheme with private finance, because we know how critical that crossing will be for people living in Kent and Essex, and also for the freight and logistics companies that will use it.

HS2 Reset

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

We have a really important programme of work across all arms-length bodies of the Department for Transport, including the DVSA. It is really important that we provide public services in an efficient and effective way. I am conscious that my hon. Friend’s constituents and others may be very keen for rapid progress on driving test wait times. I can assure him that the issue is a focus of discussions that I am having with the DVSA.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I too served on the Public Accounts Committee, so I know that while HS2 is by far the largest civil infrastructure programme in the United Kingdom, the second largest is the lower Thames crossing from Tilbury to Gravesend, for which about £10 billion is currently budgeted. If her tighter approach to HS2 produces savings, is there any way that some of them might be vired to pay for the lower Thames crossing? If not, exactly which private-sector companies will pay for it? So far, I am afraid the Government have been rather vague on that point.

[Heidi Alexander]

We are exploring finance options for the lower Thames crossing. On Monday we announced that there would be £590 million of public funding this year to take forward utility works and some land purchases. I will say more to this House in future about the private finance arrangements that we are exploring.

Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I rise to make one very brief point. The regulations amend the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999. To get a driving licence, one has to pass a driving test. I have had lots of complaints from constituents, as I am sure have many right hon. and hon. Members, about the increasing wait times for driving tests. I have had extensive correspondence with Loveday Ryder, the chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, but some of the replies have been very unsatisfactory. Will the Minister go back to the Department and look at what we can do to speed up driving tests, in particular by combating the bots that capture the tests and sell them on for profit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to the points that have been raised. I thank hon. Members for their consideration.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said that he would be brief and got a cheer, but then went on for just a little while to talk about his favourite subject of synthetically fuelled cars. We know he has one.

[Mr Francois]

That was brief! [Laughter.]

[Mike Kane]

I think Churchill famously said from this Dispatch Box that a fanatic is someone who cannot change their mind and will not change the subject. I say that gently—[Laughter.] I really am being gentle there.

The intention of the SI is to support the transition to zero emission vehicles. The driving licence flexibility is therefore designed to account for the additional weight of heavier batteries in fully electric vehicles and some implementations of hydrogen fuel cell technology. Vehicles powered by natural gas or biogas are not net zero. I get what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is saying about the single life cycle of the carbon, but they are not subject to the standard category B licence requirements, meaning that they can be driven if they weigh up to 3.5 tonnes. The Government estimate that there are currently fewer than 30 such vehicles on the road.

E-fuels and synthetic fuels—which I know are the hon. Gentleman’s area of expertise and interest—are not disadvantaged by the standard category B requirements, which apply to petrol and diesel vehicles, and are therefore not included in the SI. As I have said, synthetic fuels are already treated no differently in the driving licence regulations to their petrol or diesel counterparts, and do not require the additional weight to achieve payload parity. The instrument seeks only to achieve parity with zero emission vehicles.

I am not sure about the issue with driving licences raised by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is no longer in his place. I will undertake to write to him.

In closing, this instrument, while technical in nature, represents a common-sense step that will support industry to make the switch to zero emissions and decarbonise our road transport as we make progress to net zero. It will cut transport costs for business, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and further accelerate our progress to becoming the clean energy superpower that we so hope to be. I trust that the House has found this debate informative and will join me in supporting the legislation. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put.

Wickford Station

Mark Francois Excerpts

Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am grateful to have been given this opportunity to raise a matter that is extremely important to my constituents, namely the rebuilding of Wickford station. I appreciate that the Rail Minister sits in the House of Lords, so he cannot be present to respond to the debate. I am grateful to his ministerial colleague, the Local Transport Minister, for being present in lieu, especially on a Friday afternoon when, no doubt, he also had pressing constituency demands. I thank him for that.

Before I get into the matter of the station itself, perhaps I can explain for context why its proposed redevelopment is so important for the regeneration of Wickford, the second largest town in my constituency. Wickford and my constituents who live there have been through a tough time over the last few years since the covid pandemic. We have seen a number of banks and several other retail outlets close on the high street, and footfall is not as high as local traders would like. The police station closed several years ago, although I understand that Basildon borough council, the local authority, has plans to redevelop the site as a community hub.

We used to have two medium-sized supermarkets in the town: a relatively new one run by Aldi and a more long-standing one run by the Co-op. Unfortunately, the Co-op store closed several years ago, while Aldi demolished its old store in order to build a new, enlarged version. The net effect was that for over a year the town had no supermarket of its own, other than a small Iceland in the high street. That meant that my constituents often had to travel some distance to conduct their weekly shop. On top of that, there have been quite a number of flats built in the town in the past few years, which has meant that we have lost quite a lot of car parking space, particularly as a large part of the town’s main car park, located next to the old Co-op site, has been blocked off, making the town a more difficult place to visit for those who have to come by car as opposed to rail.

I am pleased to report that Aldi rebuilt its store, which is at the bottom of a shallow slope leading directly down from Wickford station, and I had the honour of reopening it back in November 2023. In addition, the developers who own the old Co-op site, which is a five-minute walk from Wickford station, have submitted planning permission to Basildon borough council to demolish it and rebuild a brand-new store with a number of low-rise flats on top. We are very hopeful that they will soon succeed in agreeing a lease with a major supermarket chain, the name of which I have been asked not to mention because the negotiations have not yet concluded but is an open secret across the entire town. I very much hope that the negotiations will come rapidly to a close and then the company concerned can make a formal announcement.

Lastly, there have been a considerable number of roadworks in Wickford over the last few years, some of which have, unfortunately, overrun badly, including some not far from Wickford station itself. By far the worst transgressor in this regard is Cadent, which principally maintains gas infrastructure. It has further works planned in Wickford and other parts of my constituency, including Hockley, where the residents are so fed up with endless roadworks that some have nicknamed the village “Blockley”. In my experience, Cadent often starts late and clocks off early, which means that its works take far longer than would be necessary otherwise. It is one of the least productive companies I have ever seen. As I have a Transport Minister in front of me, I must tell him how appallingly Cadent has behaved with regard to my constituents. I hope we can follow that up separately, perhaps with his colleague the Roads Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).

I mention all this to convey to the Minister that the town has gone through something of a tough time in recent years. As the local MP, I am very keen to promote its regeneration. That, I hope, segues nicely to the situation at Wickford station itself.

The issue arises because several years ago, Abellio Greater Anglia—as it was then known—demolished half of Wickford station in order to extend the platforms for a new fleet of 720-class trains. Those new trains were designed to replace relatively old class 321 rolling stock, which unfortunately suffered from quite a lot of reliability issues—I can see the Minister nodding. I am pleased to tell the House that since the new class of trains have been introduced, reliability has improved markedly, so in that respect my constituents have been getting a better service. However, the long-promised rebuild of the station has yet to occur. At present, Wickford station basically consists of several platforms, an old footbridge without a lift, and a number of very unattractive portacabins. I hope the Minister will accept that that is hardly a station fit for the 21st century.

The whole issue of rebuilding the station has turned into something of a Norse saga. I will not try the Minister’s patience this afternoon by attempting to recount every single twist and turn of the tale; suffice to say, the rebuild is long overdue. For several years, I have been consistently lobbying the Department for Transport to try to achieve the reconstruction of the station. As part of that effort, I made representations to the then Rail Minister, Huw Merriman MP. I am pleased to say that I managed to persuade him to ensure that funding was provided by the Department to allow Greater Anglia to undertake the work. I then told my constituents in all good faith that we finally had the money, and that I was therefore confident that works would begin.

In addition, Greater Anglia is part-owned by Mitsui, a very large Japanese corporation headquartered in Tokyo that has a number of global investments in different sectors, including transport. Back in March 2024—prior to the general election—I was serving on the House of Commons Defence Committee when we undertook a trip to Tokyo in order to prepare a report into the new global combat air programme, which aims to be the RAF’s new Spitfire for the 21st century. As we were in Tokyo anyway, in order to try to progress the rebuilding of Wickford station, I took the opportunity to try to organise a meeting with Mr Hayato Iiyama, who is the deputy general manager of Mitsui’s mobility and industrial business division, and as such oversees that corporation’s transport-related investments in the UK. The embassy absolutely went the extra mile—or perhaps I should say track—and managed to set up that meeting.

I was delighted to spend over an hour with Mr Iiyama to familiarise him with the background and context of the issue. I think it is fair to say that as an investor in Greater Anglia, he was very supportive, and undertook to see what he could do to help. I place my thanks to both him and Mitsui on the record. I should also like to thank the British ambassador, Ms Julia Longbottom, and her staff for helping to facilitate our discussion. I subsequently joked with her that when the new station eventually opens, I would like to see a plaque saying, “This station was rebuilt with the assistance of the British embassy in Tokyo.” If representatives of Greater Anglia are listening to this debate, as I hope they are—I have a funny feeling that they are—that is the least they could do after all of this.

Back in Britain, following the general election, Greater Anglia initiated a competition for a contractor to rebuild Wickford station. Unfortunately, because the programme itself had been subject to multiple delays, by the time the bids came back, it had slightly exceeded the originally allocated budget. Nevertheless, I understand that Greater Anglia has negotiated with the Department, which has managed to provide some extra resource so that the project can now go ahead—I thank the Department for that. On 28 February 2025, Greater Anglia formally announced that a contract to rebuild the station had been signed with Walker Construction, and that the rebuild of the station would finally go ahead. Indeed, Martin Beable, the managing director of Greater Anglia, said at the time, to quote from its press release:

“We are glad to confirm that the contract for the station upgrade at Wickford is now signed. We look forward to confirming details of the timings for the delivery of the scheme later in the Spring and then to the implementation of the project to provide customers with better facilities at the station.”

On that point, as someone who campaigned hard during the previous Parliament against what I described at the time as misguided proposals to remove the ticket offices in the majority of stations across the country, I am pleased to see that not only were those proposals abandoned, but the new design at Wickford station will include a ticket office. Indeed, the new design is, as I understand it, likely to be used as a model for the construction or reconstruction of other small and medium-sized stations across the country. As part of the design, there is an iconic clock tower—or so says the marketing material—on which people seem to have firm views either one way or the other. For the record, I quite like the look of it, but I appreciate that some of my constituents have different architectural tastes, shall we say. Nevertheless, the overall design is a good one, and the sooner they start building it, the better.

Having been in a lot of discussions with Greater Anglia over this project for several years now, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I take the opportunity, at Greater Anglia’s request, to remind him of the Department’s proposals to upgrade Ely junction, which it believes is an urgent and critical priority, and which has widespread business and industry support across East Anglia. I hope the Minister will forgive my cheek in taking this occasion to remind him of that priority.

Turning to the timings of the station rebuild project, given the history of all this, I can understand why Greater Anglia is cautious about providing timings for the programme because were they to be exceeded—for instance, because of bad weather during the construction phase—there would be a further wave of criticism from my constituents. Nevertheless, I do think it is reasonable to give my constituents at least some indication of how long all this will take.

Having spoken recently with the organisation, Greater Anglia is confident enough for me to say that it expects work to begin on the site this summer and that the work will be completed by 2026 at the latest, though it is hopeful that it might be able to shave some time off that, particularly if the good Lord is kind with the weather, which I very much hope He may yet be. I appreciate that there will be some inevitable disruption at the station while the works are undertaken. Nevertheless, Greater Anglia assures me that it will do everything it can to run a train service while the work is under way.

There is one additional issue that I would like to raise with the Minister regarding disabled access. A number of my constituents have contacted me to express their dismay that the proposed design does not include wheelchair-accessible facilities, such that people would still need to negotiate the old footbridge to reach the London-bound platforms. I note in passing that when the new station was constructed at London Southend airport several years ago, it included full disabled access as part of the design. I understand that would normally be facilitated by an Access for All grant, which Greater Anglia has previously applied for, but unfortunately it has been unsuccessful, at least to date. Perhaps the Minister would allow me to put in a plug for any future resources, which might yet be looked on more favourably, to solve this problem.

While such facilities would clearly be desirable, especially for my disabled constituents, given all the previous delays to the project, the absolute priority must be getting the rebuild under way. If we could eventually achieve full disabled access, that would be the icing on the cake.

To summarise, I thank the Minister for listening to my impassioned plea on behalf of my constituents after years of delay to finally get Wickford station rebuilt. As I said earlier, this has been a Norse saga with a whole number of twists and turns, but now that Greater Anglia has finally signed the building contract with Walker Construction, I hope that work can get under way this summer, and hopefully be completed by the end of 2026 at the latest and ideally sooner.

Having campaigned hard in the previous Parliament to maintain ticket offices in our stations across the country, I am pleased to note that the design of the new Wickford station will indeed contain a ticket office, as I believe that it is an important element of customer service. I am sure that my constituents will welcome the fact that the new station will have one as well. While the current design for the new station, which will be used as a model for other new small and medium-sized stations across the country, does not include full disabled access, I hope that at some point that will be provided at Wickford as well.

In the meantime, I am very pleased that the long-awaited rebuild of Wickford station will now finally go ahead, in order to serve my constituents and provide what they have long asked for: a station in Wickford that is fit for the 21st century. I thank the Minister for his patience as I have outlined so much of the background to the story. I now very much look forward to his reply.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing this debate and providing the opportunity to discuss the rebuilding of Wickford station. I also thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today.

I recognise the right hon. Member’s concern and frustration at the length of time it has taken for the station rebuild to progress, but let me explain some of the background, with which I am sure he will be familiar. The original station building needed to be demolished to facilitate and enable the introduction of Greater Anglia’s brand-new, longer fleet of trains. Otherwise, the bay platform—the dead-end platform—at the station could not be extended to accommodate the new trains. Alternative options, such as extending the platform in the opposite direction, would have been far more expensive, as that would have required re-signalling, and there was no space to implement that particular option.

It is important to reiterate that, without carrying out the bay platform extension, the Southminster branch would have been the only part of the Greater Anglia network not to benefit from the £1.4 billion investment in new trains, which are now operating across the entire Greater Anglia network. The changes at Wickford station were therefore essential, and a scheme was developed both to extend the platform and to provide new station facilities in place of the old building.

With the approvals secured, the old station building was demolished, and the station became reliant on temporary facilities. The delivery of the Wickford station scheme was then delayed by covid-19 and the wider funding challenges facing the rail industry in its aftermath. Understandably, in a cost-constrained environment, where the industry’s revenue was vastly reduced for a couple of years, the introduction of the new trains was a key priority, as it affected millions of passenger journeys and would underpin the recovery of passenger numbers from the pandemic.

It is worth explaining a little more about the new train fleet programme. The new, longer trains required a significant investment programme at stations and depots across the Greater Anglia network. There has been significant investment in depots such as Ilford and Norwich Crown Point. Several stations on the West Anglia route needed platforms to be extended, and funding needed to be secured for those vital works to take place, in addition to the platform extension needed at Wickford station.

The fleet transformation programme has allowed Greater Anglia to introduce the new class 720 trains, which have addressed key customer priorities, with additional seating capacity, air conditioning, plug and USB points, and improved accessibility features. Furthermore, they are more reliable and resilient, improving operational performance on the network and therefore improving the service provided to passengers.

I am pleased to note that Greater Anglia is one of our highest-performing operators in quarter 2 of 2024-25, during which 85.6% of trains were classed as on time, leaving within one minute of schedule. When we compare data from before the introduction of the class 720s with more recent data, the improvement is clear. In 2019-20, on-time performance was 69.9% and 3.2% of services were cancelled. In 2023-24, on-time performance was 86.2% and cancellations had halved to 1.6%. In fact, Greater Anglia has consistently been one of the best-performing UK train operators since April 2023, and the new trains have been a key factor in that positive track record.

To return to the station project itself, a combination of the funding challenges facing the post-pandemic rail industry and the need to ensure that the new trains were all in service as soon as possible contributed to the delays in the scheme. However, despite those challenges, Greater Anglia continued to develop the design and concepts for the project. As a result of its work, Greater Anglia has planning approval for a new building and awarded the design and build contract to Walker Construction towards the end of last month. The contract has been signed. Detailed timescales for implementation are now being finalised and will be confirmed once agreed.

The Wickford station redevelopment project represents a landmark in UK rail infrastructure. As the first of its kind, this project uses the new and innovative Network Rail hub station modular design concept, which integrates sustainability, adaptability and community engagement into a cohesive, modern station blueprint. The hub design has been developed by Network Rail over several years, and this project is the first to use the modular design in practice. By combining innovative design elements such as modular pods, photovoltaic canopies and energy-efficient systems, as well as a highly cost-effective design and build methodology, the project establishes a new benchmark for railway stations nationwide. The new station will have features that improve the passenger experience, with a large canopy providing shelter for 70 seated and 345 standing passengers, a spacious waiting room, an accessible toilet and an integrated ticket office. Automatic ticket gates will also be a feature, enhancing security at the station, protecting industry revenue and managing passenger flows.

The Department will continue to seek further opportunities to improve rail accessibility, including taking advantage of the opportunities created by our rail reform programme. This includes the establishment of a powerful new passenger watchdog, which will champion passenger interests with a view to improving service performance and to ensure that GBR and other operators meet passenger expectations.

The Government are determined to clamp down on street works—referred to by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford—that cause unnecessary disruption in local areas, which is why we have announced increases to fixed penalty notices and extended overrun charges of up to £10,000 a day so that they also apply at the weekend. The Government also want to see the roll-out of lane rental schemes in England, which are a tool to help highway authorities to reduce the impact of works taking place on the busiest streets at the busiest times by charging utilities up to £2,500 a day for works on these roads. We have recently announced that at least half of the surpluses from lane rental should be spent on highway maintenance. Following publication of the “English Devolution” White Paper, a consultation is under way on devolving powers to approve new rental schemes from the Secretary of State to Mayors.

On accessibility, the plans for Wickford station improvements also make provision to allow for the future installation of lifts; any future funding would, of course, be subject to the ongoing spending review. This Government are committed to improving the accessibility of our railway and recognise the considerable social and economic benefits that it brings to communities.

In conclusion, there is positive news on the Wickford station upgrade scheme. With the design and build contract now awarded, I am pleased that this station project can proceed, and works will commence in 2025.

[Mr Francois]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is obviously coming to a conclusion. I want to thank him again for being here this afternoon and for the support that has been given to the station rebuild. As the constituency MP, I am very grateful. I wonder if he could give me some comfort on one further point. The works will be extensive, so is it still the intention to try to maintain train services through Wickford, as far as possible, while they take place?

[Simon Lightwood]

This Government are determined to put passengers at the very heart of our railway, so I am sure that every effort will be made to ensure that that is indeed the case.

As well as delivering a modern, welcoming experience for customers, the station will set the standard for future buildings, being the first of the new and innovative Network Rail hub stations. I am looking for colleagues at Greater Anglia to progress this important project at pace, to ensure that the permanent structure is put in place to serve the customers and constituents who use the station.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

Open access operators currently account for 1% of our railways, and they do not always have the same public service obligations as other train operating companies. We have always supported open access operators where they genuinely add value and do not divert revenue away from existing operators, all of which are supported by the taxpayer in some form. I would add that we need to make best use of constrained capacity on the rail network. Ensuring that the railway can recover from problems on the railways is also important to me.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Talking of access, several years ago, Greater Anglia demolished half of Wickford station to extend some of the platforms. However, after nearly three years of endless excuses, missed deadlines and, frankly, broken promises, it still has not rebuilt it. I regret to say that I have lost all confidence in the senior management of Greater Anglia. If they told me today was a Thursday, I would double-check it. Can I go over their head and ask the Secretary of State for a personal meeting with the Rail Minister so that we can finally get Wickford station rebuilt, despite Greater Anglia, rather than because of it?

[Heidi Alexander]

I will happily ask the Rail Minister to meet the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that progress can be made at Wickford.

Roadworks: Journey Times

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of roadworks on journey times.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I declare an interest as a Hertfordshire county councillor. I am pleased to have secured this debate on a very important topic for my constituents. When I describe the constituency of Broxbourne to those who are not familiar with it, I often say that it is a collection of places without a dominant centre. Instead, many of the towns and villages that make up Broxbourne are connected by two main roads: the A10 and the high street, or the old A1170, which extends from Waltham Cross in the south to Hoddesdon in the north. Demand on those roads, as the main arteries between the residential and urban areas, is extremely high. If works are taking place at any location on our roads, the traffic standstill can affect almost the entirety of Broxbourne. That is a serious problem and, frustratingly, one that is not often discussed.

According to INRIX, a transportation data analytics company, the average driver in the UK lost 61 hours to traffic congestion last year alone—four hours more than the 2022 figure. Those delays are costing UK drivers on average £558 each. Staggeringly, that means that the cost of traffic delays to the country overall is an eye-watering £7.5 billion—yes, £7.5 billion. People wanting to enjoy their hard-earned cash are unable to spend as much time as they would wish at local shops. Small business owners and traders struggle to make appointments on time. The less time people have to earn or spend, the harder it is for our country and economy to grow. The Chancellor said today that economic growth will be her mission for this Parliament, so I hope the Government will recognise that point.

The economic cost is especially damaging in the constituency of Broxbourne, where more people use a car or van to get to work than the national average. Hundreds of my constituents have completed my survey to share their experiences of the roadworks and how they affect them locally. They have made it extremely clear how disruptive long waits in traffic caused by roadworks are to their daily lives. I have heard about delays in reaching elderly parents, carers finding it difficult to carry out their vital duties and children missing out on the start of the school day. It is not just car journeys; for many of my constituents, the bus service is a lifeline, and when roadworks have left our local roads gridlocked, buses are inevitably delayed. Pensioners in my constituency have told me that they have simply given up even trying to go out. The knock-on effects of missing serious medical appointments and of social isolation are obvious.

My constituents’ anger and frustration are made even worse by the fact that so often when they drive past roadworks, no one is working on them—and it can be the case that no one is working on them for days, or even weeks. We are told that the problem is urgent and the barriers and traffic lights are in place as an emergency measure, but can it really be an emergency if no workers are on site for such long periods of time? My constituents feel that there has to be a way for the vital work to be carried out quicker and more logically. Local authorities and utility companies must communicate much better between themselves to co-ordinate works in a sensible and cost-effective way. It cannot be right that the same stretch of road is dug up time and again, sometimes by different companies, but sometimes by the same company. Those organisations have to improve how they communicate with the public. It should be easier to find out why disruption is taking place and exactly how long it will be for. We cannot let it be the case, as my constituents have experienced, that residents wake up to find a four-way traffic light diversion in place, making it even harder to leave their house, get to school and go to work. We should use technology much better and come up with innovative ways to avoid static traffic where we can.

Here is an example. Someone drives up to a four-way traffic light, which is on the main road, but there is a side street with a few houses. All the lights will go green and red in sequence. We should be able to use technology so that the light only goes green down the cul-de-sac when a car is waiting to go. That is a small change that would make roadworks a lot easier for my constituents and others across the country to move about.

I welcome the fact that the previous Government set out plans for drivers and consulted on several policies to make it easier for everyone to use our roads. That included helping local authorities to establish lane rental schemes. Those schemes allow a highway authority to charge up to £2,500 per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times, with charges applying only to works carried out by utility companies and highway authorities.

The cost incentives to those organisations to move their works and carry them out at less busy times, or engage in joint working with others, are obvious. Around 95% of charges are avoided by taking those steps, meaning that disruption for drivers is minimised, without additional costs being placed on them by the firms responsible. Just four schemes are currently in operation, covering less than 10% of the road network in London and counties in the south of England.

Expanding those schemes across the country would raise significant funds for local authorities. As the previous Government proposed, at least 50%—I would suggest 100%—of the surplus funds should be directed to the repair of potholes, so that drivers can benefit from smoother journeys. I urge the Minister to publish the findings of that consultation, which closed on 11 March 2024, and introduce those measures.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In the previous Parliament, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill about the regulation of roadworks, which I am reintroducing next week. I am honoured to say my hon. Friend has agreed to be a sponsor, as has the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). Does my hon. Friend agree that a key element is the handing-out of permits by highway authorities, which I am trying to tighten up on? If we could tighten that up, we could help to prevent many of the overruns that my hon. Friend so eloquently described.

[Lewis Cocking]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. There is a problem with a highway authority issuing permits. There is also a problem when utility companies use emergency legislation, where they do not even have to notify the highway authority of the works taking place. Residents can wake up, get in their car to go to work or school, drive to the end of their road and see the road being dug up, without any communication having been made with them.

We need to take a two-pronged approach. I am happy to support my right hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, to tighten up some of the regulation on this. We need to ensure that highway authorities are responsible when they issue permits. We also need to ensure that, when utility companies use that emergency legislation, they get someone working on site as quickly as possible to get that emergency fixed. Do not dig up a road, under claims of an emergency, put traffic lights in place and then allow our constituents to sit in traffic for hours on end while no one works on that site.

I am pleased to support my right hon. Friend and his Bill, which will include increasing the fixed-penalty notices for utility companies whose roadworks overrun, which is another important issue. As I have said, the threat of financial penalties for those undertaking these works can make a difference, so penalties for work that overruns should be increased in line with inflation, especially for regular offenders. I have said before that sometimes when the same stretch of road is dug up, it is dug up by different utilities. If those utilities worked together, it would save them money. It is absolutely extraordinary—and there are examples of this in my constituency—that the same utility company digs up the same stretch of road, virtually at the same point, just a couple of weeks after they finished digging it up. They really need to forward-plan and look at how they do such work.

These changes, along with lots of others, would bring down costs for consumers, so that we could spend our money where we want to in the economy and get to work or school on time. I hope that the Government will listen and take the side of my constituents and many ordinary working people across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) on securing this debate on the impact of roadworks on journey times, and I thank all Members who have contributed to what has been an informative and interesting discussion.

People use our roads to make journeys every day, and how we manage them has a direct impact on everyone’s lives. The frustration caused by congestion and the poor condition of our roads are recurring themes that my Department and I are focused on. I am sure that we all, as Members of Parliament, hear the concerns that have been exposed today every time we knock on a door, frankly.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne about growing traffic congestion. That is one reason why the Government are acting to enable more people to choose public transport or active travel. We need to tackle that congestion and to think about it in the round. We are determined to deliver a transport network that works for all road users, whether they are drivers, bikers, cyclists, bus passengers, pedestrians or horse riders.

The challenge of congestion will only grow, given that over the coming years the number of roadworks will increase because of new housing developments, the continued roll-out of broadband and the need to meet our targets for installing electric vehicle charge point infrastructure to deliver the Government’s commitment to net zero. We also all need the services provided by utility companies, and we want them to maintain and improve their infrastructure. More than 2.2 million works take place in England each year, and the congestion created costs around £4 billion.

In addition, the Government are determined to tackle the problem of potholes and other road defects on our networks. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne will know, we have a manifesto commitment to fix 1 million more potholes a year, every year of this Parliament. I am pleased to say that we have already made a start by announcing, in today’s Budget, a £500 million funding increase for local authorities in 2025-26, which is an increase of almost 50% from 2024-25 levels. I am more than aware that authorities and Members alike will be interested to know how their areas and communities will benefit from that funding, and specific allocations will be announced in due course.

In total, the Department for Transport will invest about £1.6 billion in local highway maintenance in the next year. That includes additional funding on top of that already provided to city mayors through the city region sustainable transport settlements, to help local councils to maintain and renew their local highway network. Future capital investment in our infrastructure, including roads, rail and other things, will of course come in the spending review in the spring.

I enjoyed the contribution from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), and I hope that the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport enjoyed it, too, as that is a matter for her and the Scottish Government.

The pressure on our road networks caused by works is not going away. However, we want to find the right balance between allowing necessary works to go ahead and minimising the disruption for everyone using our roads.

[Mr Francois]

The Minister’s opposite number in the previous Government kindly granted me a meeting about my Bill, which unfortunately ran out of parliamentary time. As I have 10 minutes to fill next week, will she allow me as part of my speech to say that we have discussed this today and that she has kindly agreed to meet me to discuss the merits of my Bill and whether the Government might be prepared to adopt it in whole or in part?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The appropriate thing for me to do is to listen to the right hon. Member’s speech next week and to the arguments that he makes. I am sure that we will find an opportunity to discuss it in the future.

I assure the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) that National Highways always works closely with Network Rail to ensure that works on our national networks are co-ordinated. If that does not happen, I hope that he would draw it to my attention, and I would certainly seek to raise those issues with them.

There is already a great deal of scope for works to be planned, managed and co-ordinated more effectively—as the hon. Member for Broxbourne called for—and, importantly, for the public to be told when works are happening and to be warned about the impact that those might have on their journeys. The responsibility of the local highways authority is to co-ordinate any works taking place on their roads, including their own works. In doing so, councils must take account of the needs of everyone using the road, consider the implications of works for their network and that of neighbouring authorities, and act to minimise or prevent problems. Utility companies also have a duty to co-operate with the authority.

Street works permit schemes are now in use by all but one local authority. They provide councils with the proactive tools to improve the management of all works in the street, as well as offering incentives to minimise disruption. To support the transition to permits, the Department for Transport set up Street Manager, which is our online service for planning and managing road and street works in England. Since 2020, all local authorities, utility companies and their contractors, have had a single view of the street, with visibility of the whole network to help them plan and co-ordinate works for the benefit of road users. It enables better forward planning and more joint works. We also stream open data about live and planned works that apps and websites make available to the public. We have a commitment to continue improving the service to ensure that it meets users’ needs.

As the hon. Member for Broxbourne highlighted, lane rental is another tool to help local highways authorities to reduce the impact of works taking place on the busiest roads at the busiest times. Such schemes allow authorities to charge utilities up to £2,500 a day for works on those roads. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) expressed the hope that roadworks would be planned for periods when they cause least disruption. Such issues are devolved in Northern Ireland, but his point is well made.

Lane rental charges act as an incentive to encourage those who plan works to complete them as quickly as possible, to carry out their works outside peak periods, or to consider alternative locations to minimise disruption. Lane rental schemes also encourage joint works, as that can attract discounts or charges can be waived. Any surplus revenue can be spent by the council on ways to reduce the impact of works on congestion.

Highways authorities that want to set up schemes can bid to the Secretary of State for approval, and we have provided bidding guidance on how they can do that. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, four lane rental schemes are in operation: on Transport for London’s network in London, and in Kent, Surrey and West Sussex. The Secretary of State has recently approved a scheme in East Sussex, which is due to begin in 2025. Many more local councils are developing schemes and this Government want to support them. We want to make the lane rental scheme application process as easy as possible for local authorities, and I am reviewing the application and approval process with my Department to see what improvements can be made.

On the issue of fines and penalties, local authorities can already issue overrun charges of up to £10,000 per day for works that exceed the duration agreed as part of the permit. For a range of offences such as breaching permit conditions or working without a permit, fixed penalty notices can also be issued. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) said, these powers can and should be used to improve the daily lives of our constituents, who rely on the roads. As I grew up in his constituency, many of those roads are very familiar to me.

As has been said several times, the Department for Transport consulted earlier this year on proposals to apply overrun charges at weekends and to increase fixed penalty notice charges. I am fully aware that the Department’s response to that consultation is eagerly awaited. I am considering the proposals, and we will publish our response shortly. As I said, I look forward to listening closely to the comments from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about his forthcoming ten-minute rule Bill.

In addition to the existing range of powers available for use by authorities to manage roads on their network, I hope and expect that we will all see improvements in how utility companies carry out their works as more authorities operate lane rental schemes. My Department is determined to put people at the heart of everything that we do, so as we continue our work, we will constantly look at how we regulate roadworks to see if further improvements can be made for the benefit of everyone who uses our roads—drivers, bikers, cyclists, pedestrians, and so on. We plan, for example, to look at how urgent or emergency works, which I recognise cause particular difficulties, can be planned and co-ordinated more effectively, especially when they affect traffic and cause disruption, including for buses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) set out clearly how roadworks can affect the punctuality of the bus services that our constituents rely on. My constituents in Nottingham will very much recognise that, as we have some major roadworks in our city centre. While I am on the subject of buses, which are important road users, I gently point out to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that the previous Government funded their bus fare cap only until the end of the year. We are extending the cap and investing in better bus services across England. I am also surprised that he did not mention the fuel duty freeze, but there we go.

I thank the hon. Member for Broxbourne for raising these important issues, which affect the daily lives of our constituents and all of us. I am determined to keep people moving and to deliver the cleaner, greener, smoother and less congested roads that all our constituents want to travel on.