Highways (Financing) Bill

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Simon Lightwood]

The right hon. Member had numerous opportunities to intervene, which were accommodated by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders).

As I was saying, the Bill does not grant development consent, alter planning requirements or remove scrutiny; it provides a financing framework for delivery. However, this Bill is not simply about one project. At its heart, it is about ensuring that the Government have another option available when that is the right solution for delivering nationally important infrastructure. This infrastructure very likely could not exist without this new mechanism or something like it.

It is worth remembering what this Bill is and is not. The Bill does not create the concept of privately financed toll roads. Parliament has already provided a route for private companies to finance, construct and operate toll roads through the concession arrangements under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. That route remains available today, and in the right circumstances it can work effectively. The M6 toll is an example of that approach. The principle that private capital can play a major role in road infrastructure is therefore not being invented by this Bill, but the Bill creates a different model.

For some roads, a concession arrangement may be entirely appropriate. Where users have clear alternatives, commercial incentives can play an important role in protecting users’ interests and encouraging good performance. Some infrastructure, however, performs a very different function. Some roads are nationally significant strategic assets that form critical trade corridors and support economic activity far beyond the communities through which they pass, and for many users there may be limited practical alternatives. In those circumstances, the Government believe there is a strong case for independent regulation sitting alongside private investment.

That is why the Bill places the Office of Rail and Road at the heart of that framework. The ORR will oversee performance, scrutinise costs, protect users’ interests, monitor financial resilience and hold operators to account. It will have substantial enforcement powers, including to intervene where performance is inadequate. The Bill also provides important safeguards to ensure continuity of service if a licence holder encounters serious financial difficulties. The purpose of the Bill is not to enable private charging where none has existed before; it is about expanding the Government’s toolkit to better address the range of possible circumstances.

Furthermore, the Bill will help modernise the way tolls are collected and enforced on existing toll roads. Some operators have already moved on free-flow tolling, but the legislative framework has not kept pace. In some cases, existing arrangements are not working as effectively as they should, while in others the necessary powers simply do not exist to enable such a transition. It is right that the law keeps pace with advances in technology, and this Bill provides a clear route for operators to move to a modern tolling system while ensuring that enforcement remains effective.

That brings me to the predominant theme in this debate. Today we have heard just how important local services are to communities across our nation. This Government back local people to make the right decisions for their communities, and we are striving forward with ambitious plans for devolution that will drive growth in every postcode. Fundamentally, this Bill is designed so that users make a contribution towards the costs of major infrastructure from which they derive substantial benefits. Toll revenue should meet the efficient costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure for which users are being charged. It would not be right to expand this proposition to a form of centrally imposed local taxation.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan). The Prime Minister has personally committed the assistance of No. 10 North to the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham to find a suitable way to bring back the Tilbury-Gravesend ferry, and we remain open to working with local leaders on similar issues.

The clear theme in this debate has been whether this framework will provide regulation strong enough to protect users and avoid the failings seen in other sectors, including the water sector. We have learned those lessons and the Bill equips the ORR to be a strong and effective regulator from the outset. The ORR already has substantial experience of overseeing road and rail. Its new chief executive, Paul Smith, brings extensive regulatory experience from the UK’s aviation, energy and payment sectors, as well as from senior regulatory roles in Australia. Under this framework, the ORR will monitor licence holders’ financial resilience and long-term performance closely, and the regime will incentivise the right behaviour. Where an operator falls short, there will be meaningful consequences. Ultimately, the ORR will have the ability to suspend tolling while issues are resolved. The Bill also provides a clear backstop for this nationally important infrastructure where necessary.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan]

Gravesham will be one half of the centre point. Yes, it is a nationally significant infrastructure project, but the people of Gravesham need to ensure that there is accountability, so that the things we saw and learned in Dartford do not happen there. Will there be local representation and local voice, so that the ORR can look at what can make it work better?

[Simon Lightwood]

There will indeed be a stakeholder group and opportunities for people to feed into that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, was right that transport works best when there is a clear sense of direction and purpose. The Government are committed to providing that through a coherent programme of investment, reform and delivery that will create a more reliable, integrated and sustainable transport network. Indeed, that is exactly why we published our “Better Connected” strategy in April, which set out for the first time a single vision of how roads, rail, buses and active travel should work together to serve the people and places across England.

I want to address directly the reasoned amendment before the House, because it goes to the heart of what the Bill is and what it is not. To be honest, it is as if the Opposition have pleaded with ChatGPT to find any conceivable reason why they could disagree with the Bill. The first thing to note is that while the immediate context for the Bill is, of course, to aid the delivery of the lower Thames crossing, the Bill is about far more than that, so I will not be talking about the budget or project timelines. I will not dwell on the frankly shocking hypocrisy of the Conservative party, which oversaw ballooning costs to HS2, lecturing this Government on financial management. There are other times and places for that kind of discussion. Let me simply say this: the project is progressing, with construction activity already under way. Decisions on the project continue to be subject to rigorous scrutiny, with value for money remaining at the heart of decision making. The project already has its necessary planning approvals, which included the approval to charge tolls for use. In bringing forward the Bill, Parliament is not changing that approved scheme; it will just be providing another option in a suite of tools that the Government have to fund major road projects.

I am confused, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I do not understand why the Opposition want to withdraw from the Aarhus convention at this stage of the process for the lower Thames crossing. The main thing the convention does is to allow public participation in the planning process and ensure that environmental information is made available. It protects public access to reasoning and decision making during the planning process. That stage has already passed in the case of the lower Thames crossing. Withdrawing from the convention now, on behalf of the lower Thames crossing, would do absolutely nothing. The environmental information has already been produced. It has already been scrutinised publicly and published. That stage has passed, so it would not save money now.

The third thing to note is that, as I have just explained, there are already Acts that have been approved by this place that allow the Secretary of State, and indeed local government, to introduce new road schemes that involve charging or tolling without recourse to parliamentary approval.

Finally and most importantly, I must address what can only be described as misunderstandings contained in the reasoned amendment. It is important that this House takes its responsibilities for clear and fair communication with the public seriously, and I want to address that head-on. The Bill provides a mechanism for new infrastructure to be funded through future tolls in a way that regulates the potential impact on road users and provides certainty for investors. It also allows for existing physical tolls to be replaced by free-flowing virtual toll systems. The Opposition support both those measures as far as I understand. There is nothing else in the Bill: it has got nothing to say about applying new tolls on existing roads; nothing to say about wider road-user charging; nothing to say about low-traffic neighbourhoods, 15-minute cites or who shot JFK! There are no conspiracies here. I know the Opposition like to whip up the culture wars whenever they see the opportunity, but their rantings and ravings about the war on motorists, in this place and outside it, are obviously wide of the mark.

What sensible hon. Members will see in the Bill is a common-sense approach to managing our road infrastructure, now and in the future—nothing more; nothing less. Frankly, our constituents would be better served if we scrutinised what was in the Bill, rather than harping on about things that are not. Ultimately, the debate comes down to a simple question: should the Government have another tool to help deliver nationally significant infrastructure; a tool that enables practical partnership with the private sector that, in the right circumstances, can offer a good deal for taxpayers and users, and that comes with a strong regulatory protection. I believe that the Government should have that tool.

The Bill does not require the Government to use that model in every case, it does not place private finance above public finance, and nor does it ask the House to make an ideological choice between the two. It simply ensures that where private investment can help deliver nationally important infrastructure, with strong, independent regulation and robust safeguards for users, the Government have the option. That is pragmatic, proportionate and, above all, focused on delivery. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.