Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{8C01C96A-294C-499D-B146-17B600702EE1}"> </QNum></strong> Should we put in greater stipulations on how costs are incurred? This goes back to some of what the shadow Minister was talking about, that the Bill should stipulate that the road is not overspecified—although safety should remain absolutely paramount—while things such as the use of sustainable diesel are not a necessary part of the Bill. Should that be in the Bill? <em><strong>Ben Hopkinson:</strong></em> I am not sure if that would be an appropriate thing for the Bill itself, but trying to make the project as low-cost as possible will definitely be appropriate as we go on to construction and working with National Highways and whatever private company wins the contract. That will be about ensuring that the Office of Rail and Road is set up properly to oversee the costs that are being put through. <em><strong>Sam Dumitriu:</strong></em> It is worth remembering, however, that the families who may pay higher tolls to cross either the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, in the absence of a lower Thames crossing bear very high costs, too, as does freight traffic between two of our major ports. The crossing is crucial to the whole wider freight economy—there are really big problems there. I think it is worth remembering that the projects should be made a priority and that, ultimately, they need to get built.