Highways (Financing) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Olly Glover Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, let me set out the usual preliminary details. Please turn all electric devices to silent mode. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings, except for the water provided. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.

The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. I remind hon. Members that the selection list shows how amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate, but any Divisions will take place in the order in which items appear in the amendment paper.

Clause 25

Licence holder’s tolling scheme: content and procedure

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 25, page 18, line 14, at end insert

“including a reduced rate from tolls for vehicles registered to Disabled Persons’ Badge holders;”.

This amendment ensures that toll reductions for Blue Badge Holders in a statutory condition of a licence, rather than to the discretion of licence holders.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 5.

Amendment 42, in clause 25, page 18, line 26, at end insert—

“(1A) A tolling scheme must provide for lower tolls to be charged for residents living within an area in close proximity to the chargeable highway.

(1B) ‘Close proximity’ under subsection (1A) is to be determined by the Secretary of State in consultation with the highest tier local authority in the areas through which the highway passes in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment gives local residents a right to discounted tolls on toll roads that they would expect to use regularly due to geographic proximity.

Clause stand part.

[Olly Glover]

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“best calculated to further the interests of users”,

which of course means all users.

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

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

[Olly Glover]

I understand the Minister’s point, but does he agree that a problem with taking what he says on trust is that at the moment, as far as I am aware, there is no plan to develop or publish the ORR’s code on the charging of tolls before the Bill is passed? We would need to see that code to be assured that it is sufficiently robust to do what the Minister says.

[Justin Madders]

In our previous sittings, the Committee has debated at length why that detail will not be possible at this stage—it is simply because the level of information on financial transactions is not there—but I have stated on the record what our intention is and what safeguards and measures are in the Bill to ensure that these groups are protected. Unfortunately, the phrasing of amendment 41 does not address the protections that are currently offered.

I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s good intentions, but “blue badges” is a colloquial term. The scheme varies from local authority to local authority. It is primarily not about travel between places, but about ensuring that people can park accessibly at a particular location. It does not relate to a person’s need for a vehicle in the first place; it relates solely to their needs when they have arrived at their destination.

I therefore do not think that amendment 41 is the right one to address the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I absolutely understand those concerns, but I am confident that the existing framework represents the right approach. It is a robust protection of disabled users, but it also has flexibility, meaning that as our understanding of people’s needs changes, or as scheme criteria change, the ORR can continue to act dynamically to protect the interests of all users. I hope that I have given him some assurance that we intend to deal with the matter in the way that his amendment indicates.

Amendment 42 is about local discounts. On the lower Thames crossing and on Dartford, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the same commitment that I made on amendment 41: that for the first control period, which is for nine years from the date of transaction, the local resident discount scheme will remain in place. Beyond that, I believe that the framework strikes the right balance in ensuring that the ORR is representing the specific needs of all users, supported by guidance issued by the Department.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, says that he is looking for recognition in the Bill that local needs will be taken into account. I believe that the Bill does provide that recognition. It is right that this is a framework Bill to secure outcomes based on clear duties and expectations.

In practice, requiring a local resident discount in the way the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage proposes would not give the protection that I think he wants. An operator could fulfil an obligation to carry out a local discount simply by taking 1p off tolls for local residents or offering £1 off an annual pass. That would meet the letter of the law under the amendment, but would clearly ignore the spirit of what we are trying to achieve. In those situations, the ORR would not be able to intervene in the way we have set up in the Bill, because the licence holder could simply say, “We have provided a local residents discount scheme,” albeit that their scheme was not in the spirit that we intend.

In the Bill, we hope to deliver a practical, flexible solution that allows the Government to outline our clear expectations, that empowers the ORR to set a fixed requirement and that requires the ORR to act in a manner that is fair and transparent. It is through that framework that we will deliver a fair outcome for all users and recognise the interests of specific user groups.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has set out, the level of detail that currently applies to local discounts is not something that we would want to make explicit in the Bill, as it would not have the flexibility that the ORR needs in order to deal with future discounts. It is not a fixed concept; it is based on flexibility and response to local need, as my hon. Friend so eloquently set out. The Government therefore cannot support amendment 42.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

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

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

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

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

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

[Olly Glover]

On amendment 41, I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, although it does underline the importance of the ORR code. I note that the next group includes a Conservative amendment on that topic, which will be important to discuss. I am not persuaded by the Minister’s comments that it is not possible to produce the code before the Bill becomes law. We were told very similar things about the licence and the access and use policy in relation to the Railways Bill, and yet the Government eventually decided that they could indeed publish those things before the Bill became law. I encourage the Minister to adopt that not necessarily very common instance of good practice from his Department and apply it to this Bill.

I hear what the Minister says about amendment 42, but this is a very important issue and I wish to press it to a Division.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 41.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 5, in clause 25, page 18, line 22, after “charge” insert—

“in respect of a failure to pay a toll”.—(Justin Madders.)

This amendment clarifies that provision in a tolling scheme about rates of penalty charges is limited to penalty charges in respect of non-payment of tolls.

Amendment proposed: 42, in clause 25, page 18, line 26, at end insert—

“(1A) A tolling scheme must provide for lower tolls to be charged for residents living within an area in close proximity to the chargeable highway.

(1B) ‘Close proximity’ under subsection (1A) is to be determined by the Secretary of State in consultation with the highest tier local authority in the areas through which the highway passes in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Olly Glover.)

This amendment gives local residents a right to discounted tolls on toll roads that they would expect to use regularly due to geographic proximity.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

That leads me to my last point. Similar to the argument about certainty we had on the previous grouping, nothing should commence until we have the published penalty charge policy from the Government. It seems unacceptable that we cannot have that at least on a principle basis, clearly and unambiguously published before any part of the Bill can come into full force.

[Olly Glover]

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

[Greg Smith]

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

[Olly Glover]

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

[Alison Griffiths]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Olly Glover]

I have concluded.

[Justin Madders]

I quite enjoyed the little sideshow there. It was entertaining.

I will deal first with the shadow Minister’s questions about Government amendment 13. Of course, we do not envisage that this is going to be a regular situation. It could cover, for example, a situation where a vehicle has been abandoned on a highway, but it is also for situations where there may be a persistent offender and further action is needed to enforce against them.

I turn to the shadow Minister’s amendment 52, which would introduce a £100 cap on penalty charges for non-payment of a toll. That is actually £20 lower than the current cap for a penalty charge notice issued at Dartford and on quite a lot of other road charging schemes, so it is very generous of him to give a discount.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

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

[Olly Glover]

Steal away.

[Greg Smith]

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

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

[Olly Glover]

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

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

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

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

[Justin Madders]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

[Olly Glover]

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

[Greg Smith]

I think we are getting off topic.