Zia Yusuf Lays Out Our Plan to Reverse The Boriswave.
Every passport handed out as a result of Burnham's U-turn will be reviewed. If that citizenship does not benefit Britain, it will be revoked. Only Reform UK will put the British people first.
11,987 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Watch on YouTube
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, after “strategic” insert “and local”. <em>This amendment expands the general duty of the ORR so that it must consider and avoid adverse impacts on local roads, as well as the strategic road network.</em>
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clause 1 obliges the Office of Rail and Road only to “have regard to…avoiding adverse impacts for the strategic road network”. That creates severe statutory asymmetry that will potentially leave council-maintained local roads completely unprotected. The amendment would correct that omission by elevating local road protection to an equal statutory footing, requiring the regulator to actively evaluate and mitigate traffic displacement, road surface wear, and congestion on local surrounding roads caused by potential toll avoidance. Surrounding A roads and B roads managed by local highways authorities face accelerated asphalt degradation when heavy commuter and freight traffic diverts from tolled highways and creates potentially massive uncompensated repair backlogs for local council tax payers. We all know the challenges that our local roads face under our local highways authorities.<span id="71" class="column-number" data-column-number="71"></span> Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, cautioned the Committee that drivers faced with a toll will naturally choose local, free alternatives, creating negative traffic impacts across adjacent networks. That must be taken into account. The evidence of Ralph Smyth, from the Transport Action Network, highlighted that creating private toll infrastructure without a statutory duty to protect adjacent road networks breaks the integrated transport planning and leaves local highways authorities without recourse. Why does clause 1(3)(b) explicitly protect National Highways’ strategic network from adverse impacts while leaving local council roads to absorb the traffic gridlock and financial fallout of toll evasion and avoidance? Will the Minister accept amendment 37 to ensure that the regulator has an explicit statutory duty to protect local communities and local highways authorities from toll diversion impacts? I intend to push the amendment to a Division.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I thank the Minister for his comments. However, I remain unconvinced about local authorities not having that statutory duty, so I wish to press the amendment to a Division. <em>Question put</em>, That the amendment be made.
- Hansard source
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
Can I ask the Minister how many accidents there have been involving community minibuses in the last two or three years, please? If he does not know, might he be able to write to me with that information? I realise this is a very serious matter, and I just wondered how many incidents there were.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd—I hope you are not too distraught about not having been in the Chair for some of the other very exciting transport Bill Committees that we have had this year. I want to start by addressing amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Minister. We understand where he is coming from, because the Committee heard evidence from Steve Gooding of the RAC Foundation about the danger of clause 3 being used as a Trojan horse for widespread road pricing, which is something that the Minister has assured us will not happen. Our amendment 44 takes a different approach to the problem of excluding non-new roads altogether. As I said on Second Reading, we feel that the idea of tolls <span id="82" class="column-number" data-column-number="82"></span>and fees is reasonable in principle, and it is used quite widely in Europe, but the safeguards must be clear. That is why our amendment 44 would require a strict threshold for applying tolls to existing roads, which we are defining as a continuous extra lane, to show a genuine improvement in the road’s capacity and to justify any introduction. I agree with the shadow Minister on clause 3, in that so much of the Bill relies on us to take it on trust that the Government will do the right thing with the extensive powers that it creates. There was a good article in <em>The Economist</em> a few years ago about the problem with the good chaps theory of government, which has been an historic feature of the British so-called constitution. The problem is that it is difficult to take things on trust and rely on the current generation to do the right thing and interpret a Bill as it was intended, because a Bill cannot force the hand of a future Government, but future Governments do need to work to the legislation that has been passed. We therefore have some concerns about that and would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments. We support the shadow Minister’s amendment 81. It is sensible to require consultation with the relevant local and mayoral authorities and important to involve them in any major changes to their areas that could increase local traffic flow and the burden on the local community, so we would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division. Subject to what the Minister says, at this point we would be keen, with your permission, Mr Dowd, to press amendment 44 to Division.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert— “(c) publish an independent assessment evaluating whether alternative transport investments, including rail and bus connectivity, could fulfil the transport requirements of the proposed licence.” <em>This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the ORR to evaluate whether alternative transport investment, including rail and bus, is needed and suitable before granting a license to upgrade or build new highways infrastructure.</em>
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I want to be clear at the beginning that we are keen to press amendment 87 to a vote. Amendment 45 would mandate an independent modal shift and alternative transport assessment before any new highway tolling licence could be granted. It would prevent multibillion-pound road schemes from proceeding in isolation without evaluating whether rail passenger, rail freight or bus upgrades could deliver better value and lower carbon emissions. There is a clear need to reduce pressure on the Dartford crossing and improve connectivity in the south-east of England via the lower Thames crossing. But so far, the Labour Government appear to be looking only at roads-based means to do so. I grew up in Staines, which is very close to junction 13 of the M25 and which road nerds will know is the busiest segment of motorway in Europe. When I was growing up and the M25 was new, it had three lanes, which then increased to four and eventually to five. Seeing the M25 permanently under upgrade was the accompaniment to my youth and adolescence. Do people who use that section of the M25 now find it a joyous driving experience, one that is entirely bereft of stress and complaint, or do they still consider it to be what Chris Rea once called a “road to hell”? They still <span id="90" class="column-number" data-column-number="90"></span>consider it a road to hell, because while the M25 is of course a useful asset, one of the challenges of increased road investment is that very often that capacity gets absorbed and it does not address some of the wider transport challenges. There is a clear need to improve rail connectivity in the region alongside the lower Thames crossing project. There is currently no Kent to Essex rail connection and very limited provision for channel port freight to move by rail—only by road. There are developed proposals on the table to upgrade the Kent railway network and the Barking freight terminal via High Speed 1 as part of the plan to significantly increase rail freight through the channel tunnel. As Ralph Smyth from the Transport Action Network argued in front of the Committee last week, granting certainty to a major private road scheme can make it significantly harder for regional mayors or local authorities to promote sustainable alternatives like rail, tram or bus upgrades. Ben Garratt of Logistics UK noted that while road capacity is needed at Dartford, rail freight connectivity to ports plays a vital role in national supply chain resilience and must be integrated into transport planning. Why should Ministers grant a potentially century-long highway licence without first publishing an independent evaluation of whether rail or public transport investment could solve the bottleneck? If we are to move towards achieving our environmental goals and providing good transport for those who cannot, will not or cannot afford to drive, serious investment in other infrastructure and public transport is needed alongside improving the road network. Amendment 87 would make it mandatory to publish a local road impact and mitigation report. Toll-avoiding traffic that diverts into surrounding residential streets and local A roads could cause severe congestion, noise, air pollution and safety hazards for nearby communities. The amendment would force the licensing authority to assess the exact financial cost of extraordinary road wear imposed on “adjacent local highway authorities” such as Kent, Essex or Surrey—or whatever they are called now as part of local government reorganisation. As Declan Pang, the director of policy at the Road Haulage Association, warned us last week, traffic displacement and unmitigated local congestion can drive significant indirect costs across local economies and businesses. I will turn briefly to Opposition amendment 78, which we support. It would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities. That would go some way towards addressing some of the deficiencies of clause 4, which leaves it quite open as to which organisations need to be consulted. Clause 4 does not explicitly list local highway authorities, local planning authorities or emergency services—among others—as mandatory statutory consultees. In his comments, I hope the Minister will address why clause 4 is so open and why it does not explicitly name local highway authorities and emergency services as mandatory statutory consultees.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I did not seek to say that we should not have more cars or support private road users, merely that the reason a lot of people choose to drive is that it has been the relentless direction of policy going back decades. The rail network has significantly contracted, and a lot of investment has gone into motorways. Does the hon. Member accept the clear statistics showing that far fewer young people are learning to drive and they need alternatives? We cannot rely on continuing to promote the private motorcar over everything else.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
Given that the Minister was putting words in my mouth, let me clarify my view. We do support the lower Thames crossing, because the Dartford crossing is under pressure and there is no resilience when it closes, but that does not mean that we support only the lower Thames crossing. The problem with policy over decades—I disagree with the shadow Minister on this—is that it has been roads, roads, roads, and motorways, motorways, motorways. It should be not either/or, but both.
- Hansard source
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
Recently I hosted a roundtable of community transport organisations that was chaired by VASA, which operates in my constituency and is supported by Stratford-on-Avon district council. They are a lifeline for residents, often elderly residents, who otherwise struggle to reach medical appointments and other services. Does my hon. Friend agree that community transport should be recognised as a core part of our transport network and as essential infrastructure, especially in rural areas, and should be embedded in future national and local transport policies?
- Hansard source
Draft Administrative Court (Recording and Broadcasting) and Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) (Amendment) Order 2026 Draft Magistrates’ Courts (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. The Liberal Democrats support these orders. As the Minister outlined, they build on existing broadcasting practices across the judicial system to expand the broadcasting framework for the Court of Appeal and to permit recording and broadcasting in the administrative court, and in the magistrates court for the most high-profile magistrates cases. The UK Supreme Court has been broadcast since 2009, the Court of Appeal since 2013 and Crown court sentencing remarks since 2020, with the first Crown court broadcast in July 2022. Transparency in the criminal justice system is essential for public trust. It is crucial that justice is not just done, but seen to be done. These orders will support open justice and make the administration of justice and the rule of law more accessible. I have just a couple of questions for the Minister. First, following the power outage of the Google cloud network that caused chaos across the court system on 20 October, does the Minister know of any evidence that the broadcasting of proceedings has ever caused delays in our court system? Does she have any concerns that expanding the use of digital technology the system could delay proceedings? Secondly, justice is obviously made more accessible by the provision of court transcripts to victims, which we have discussed many times. Many victims are unable to attend the entirety of hearings or trials, and court proceedings can be very complex and difficult to follow, especially when it comes to sentencing decisions. Although we welcome the progress made in the Sentencing Act 2026 on providing Crown court sentencing remarks free of charge, the Government must go further. I know that the Minister is keen on that, so will she outline what more she hopes to do in respect of court transcripts to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done?<span id="7" class="column-number" data-column-number="7"></span>
- Hansard source
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
I would like to start by talking about FISH, although not the aquatic kind, you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the topic of this debate. FISH stands for Friends in Sickness and Health. It is a wonderful charity in the village of Sonning Common in my constituency. Among other things, its volunteers run a minibus service for older residents and residents with disabilities to enable them to more easily get around the villages in my area. Their minibuses are perfect for providing people who would otherwise really struggle to leave the house with a trip out to the shops or to the market. Morrisons, I am told, remains ever popular, and the extra space on the bus is vital for bringing back all the shopping. FISH are not alone either in my constituency. Henley HandyBus, supported by Henley town council, operates daily, and the Woodcote Volunteers host events, providing transport to their monthly tea parties. But it was Sonning Common’s FISH group that brought to my attention the issue of D1 licences when we met in October here in Westminster. The Minister is likely to be familiar with the issue, but I will briefly describe it in the words used to explain it to me. A category D1 licence gives a driver permission to drive a minibus with up to 16 passengers and weighing up to 7.5 tonnes. Prior to 1997, all new licences were issued with this category as standard. In 1997, that changed, and now D1 minibus driving licences require an additional test. This happened for a very understandable reason—to enhance safety—and it brought us in line with other similar countries, but it also created a problem. Community transport services have become dependent on an ever-decreasing pool of drivers who qualified prior to 1997. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am confident that means that neither you, the Minister or I have D1 licences. The reality is that more than half of community transport operators report having insufficient D1 drivers to meet demand. According to the Community Transport Association, 81% of community transport operators are not confident that they will have enough D1 drivers to sustain their services in as little as three years’ time. What is even worse is that once a driver gets to the age of 70, they automatically lose their D1 category licence unless they apply to retain it, and they must do that every three years. Again, that is for very understandable and sensible safety reasons, but the upshot is that 99% of all D1 licences in Great Britain are held by drivers in a narrow age band of 47 to 69.
- Hansard source
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
The hon. Gentleman mentions D1 licences and a wider range of issues that face community transport organisations, and I am sure that the Minister will have heard his points.
- Hansard source
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
I thank my hon. Friend for her very sensible intervention. My own local authority in Oxfordshire also heavily supports community transport organisations. I am sure that her proposals were heard by the Minister. Over the next five years, more than 3 million D1 licences are likely to be lost as drivers reach 70—equivalent to one in five of all D1 licences. We are therefore facing a ticking time bomb as qualified drivers age out at the top and are not replenished enough from below. Without decisive action from the Government, there will be serious concerns for the future viability of community transport.
- Hansard source
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
I thank my hon. Friend for that addition to the debate. I was aware of the costs, which I will come on to, but I had not been made aware previously of the distance that some drivers may need to travel to carry out a test. That would be an additional barrier to enabling volunteers to do what they love doing most. Madam Deputy Speaker, you might reasonably ask, “Why don’t people just take the test?” A test is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask someone driving 7.5 tonnes of fast-moving metal to pass—we accept that; no one is disputing it—but it is how difficult and how costly that test is that matters. How proportionate is the test to the social benefits of community transport? How easy are we making it for people who want to do good in their community, giving up their time for others, to do so? If we make it too difficult, they will just say, “What’s the point?” and move on to something else. At the moment, drivers must pass an additional theory test, a practical test and a medical assessment, all to the tune of up to £2,000. Setting a cost of up to £2,000 might make sense in terms of passing on the administrative costs of the testing regime to the customer. I can see how we might have got to that point rationally. The Minister may be able to confirm whether a profit is made on the testing regime; if that is the case, I ask him to look into that. I argue that the social and economic benefit of having more minibus drivers able to run local community services should be taken into account.
- Hansard source
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights just how widespread the issue is and how keenly it is felt in all corners of the country. Rural constituencies like mine rely on volunteer transport to plug the gap between private motor vehicle usage and commercial for-profit bus companies. Many rural routes are not profit making and have no hope of being so. The alternative is clear: if we let community transport die a slow death, we will see more social isolation, with all the health and social care costs associated with that. We will also see councils come under pressure to step in with taxpayer-funded schemes and subsidies. At a time when the Government have cut my local authority’s funding, it is hard to see how that can happen. Why should it when we have a pool of people willing to volunteer? For the volunteers, it is rewarding work that gives meaning to people’s lives, providing an opportunity to give back and be part of something really special. I put on the record my sincere gratitude for all the hard work that volunteers put in every day and the contribution they make. Two of those wonderful volunteers are John Pearman, the FISH transport co-ordinator, and David Whitehead, the chair of FISH volunteer centre. They do excellent work to co-ordinate half a dozen drivers and look out for opportunities to recruit new volunteers. John told me how he found three potential new drivers, but once they had understood the costs and time needed to update their licence to D1 status, all withdrew their interest, even with the offer from Sonning Common health centre for free medical testing for volunteer minibus drivers. David and John therefore completely rely on the 47 to 69 age band, with the band becoming ever narrower each year. When thinking about how to move forwards, the Government do not have to start from scratch. The 2022 call for evidence on driving licensing took views on the minibus licensing regime from over 2,000 respondents. Although most respondents supported a change in current licensing arrangements, no substantial actions have since been taken to improve the status. The Government have pointed concerned parties towards exemptions that already exist for D1 licences. However, the Community Transport Association notes that those exemptions make no meaningful change in availability of drivers. The exemptions allow those with a standard driving licence issued post 1997 to drive a lighter minibus weighing up to 3.5 tonnes. However, nearly three quarters of all vehicles in the UK’s community transport fleet are minibuses with between 9 and 16 seats, often with weighty accessibility features. Larger vehicles give local charities, community groups and social enterprises the flexibility they need to operate effectively, with more affordable costs.
- Hansard source
Community Transport Services: Minibus Drivers
Of course, we want to encourage a shift to more sustainable and greener forms of travel, while still maintaining a good cohort of drivers. I will not take any more interventions because I know we have to move on. More than one in 10 organisations have changed their service delivery model, often replacing conventional minibuses with cars or lightweight minibuses, resulting in lower capacity, increased costs and operational complexity. However, drivers of those lighter vehicles are not eligible to be paid, unlike those with the standard D1 licence, adding further to the burden. So how can we help community transport? The CTA has put forward a proposal. It is not a blanket minibus licence for all drivers—not a return to 1997. Instead, the CTA proposes a targeted intervention to allow drivers to acquire a D1 licence to drive a minibus for non-profit organisations. The licence would draw on minibus learning programmes that already exist and require the driver to complete a training-based upgrade accredited by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, similar to the minibus driver awareness scheme, or MiDAS, which is a national programme of quality-assured education and training for the community transport sector. This approach was supported by respondents to the Government’s 2022 call for evidence. The CTA proposal requires an online theory test, a short practical session, and on-road and medical assessments, but, crucially, with a cost of under £300. The proposal allows the number of drivers to be increased in a safe way, using an established information and learning assessment. Will the Minister say in his remarks whether he has considered the CTA’s proposals? I caveat that by saying that I am not a road expert and the CTA’s proposals may not be 100% the answer, but surely the Government can come up with a regime that achieves both aims: safe roads and a thriving community transport sector. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks on the points that I have raised.
- Hansard source
Point of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) claimed twice during today’s debate that 27 young non-EU migrants have been hired for every young Brit since 2020, but the reality is very different. The report that the right hon. and learned Member was referring to has been debunked. If the actual numbers of employed young people, not the increases in the number of payrolled young people, are used, 10 UK under-25s are employed for every one non-EU national. I ask for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how Members of this House can be asked to correct the record.
- Hansard source
Poundland
I have not been contacted by any constituents who work for Poundland, because the store in Haywards Heath closed in February. Roll forward to November, and that large unit—an anchor unit for the whole high street—is still lying empty. What is the Government’s plan to reform business rates in order to support these large units that prop up the rest of our high streets?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
Given the time constraints, I will keep my remarks as short as possible. Although there are things that are welcome in this Budget , such as business rate relief and energy cost relief, it does not meet the challenges my constituents in Yeovil are facing, let alone pave the way for the biggest change in a generation that this Government keep saying they are going to deliver. For a start, rural communities have been completely overlooked again. The £100 off most people’s energy costs is great, but it is not means-tested, and is matched to a broken council tax system. For us in rural Somerset, the biggest issue is the price of heating oil, which has doubled in the last year. What we needed was an urgent price cap— I have spoken to residents who have said they are not heating their homes because they cannot afford heating oil. That is unfair, and the Government need to provide real help. There was nothing in the Budget for farmers, the backbone of our rural economy. That adds insult to injury, given Labour has increased taxes on farmers, while cutting the farming budget in England by a further £100 million and locking farmers out of funding by running applications for the sustainable farming incentive as if they were selling Glastonbury tickets—believe me, I know how hard they are to get. That is not just bad for Somerset’s economy; it threatens our food security at exactly the time we need to be strengthening it. That is why we Liberal Democrats have called for the farming budget to be increased by £1 billion a year. More broadly, by missing many of the big-picture challenges, the Budget has failed my Yeovil constituency.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the biggest issues we have in Somerset is that even if there is a bus, sometimes it is so delayed, it is four hours late and students cannot get to college. The can has been kicked down the road to the spending review next year as to how the Government plan to meet their NATO commitment of spending 3.5% of GDP on defence. Yet again, that leaves many of the cutting-edge defence firms that are the beating heart of Yeovil’s economy in uncertain times. Similarly, there was nothing in the Chancellor’s speech on education, when 70% of schools across England have had less funding in real terms than in 2010 and we have a growing SEND funding black hole. Investment in education is an investment in the future of this country and a sure-fire way to drive growth, so it is disappointing to see that funding solutions to this issue have also been kicked down the road. One of the biggest issues impacting growth is how we do taxation. Business relief is great, but I do not know how many more of us have to call it “the broken business rates system” before the message gets through. So many businesses have contacted me since the Budget saying, “It is great, you have helped some, but you have not helped us. We are at the point of closing our doors.” Business rates need abolishing and replacing with a commercial landowner levy. That is not all, however. Council tax is one of the biggest challenges raised by Yeovil constituents, because the system is out of date and we need bold Government action to change that. Unfortunately, the Government have decided not to rise to those challenges in this Budget and the people of Yeovil will continue to suffer the consequences of this Government’s inaction.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank hon. Members in Committee for attending. I hope that we will all learn a little as we go along. I start by recognising the desire of the shadow Minister to reach consensus wherever possible. As the Committee goes on, I am sure that he will find that he is in agreement with me 90% of the time. If not, the Committee will ensure that we are in agreement with the Government position. The hon. Member makes a lucid argument, which I am here to address. The amendment’s intention is very clear: it would restrict the Bill’s application to the lower Thames crossing. I understand the shadow Minister’s desire to seek clarity on what other projects this legislation might be used for, and it is the case that the Bill has very much been made with a single project in mind—the lower Thames crossing. However, I think that naming the project in the Bill would undermine our attempt here to set up a framework for potential future uses. It is clear that under the intended operating model, ownership and operations of the Dartford crossing would transfer to the new regulated private sector entity, which would be responsible for operating and maintaining both the Dartford crossing and the new lower Thames crossing, ensuring a consistent and reliable service. It is important to have both crossings covered, because that will ensure that they are operating in an integrated way. The amendment specifically refers to only the lower Thames crossing, but restricting the Bill in that way would undermine the Government’s intention. Were the legislation used only for the lower Thames crossing, that would undermine its purpose of building a framework for major road infrastructure, and we should not unnecessarily constrain future Governments where this financing approach may be appropriate. The shadow Minister tempts me to come up with a shopping list of potential projects, but the truth of the matter is that, at the moment, the lower Thames crossing is the only suitable project. It is probably worth flagging that the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which <span id="68" class="column-number" data-column-number="68"></span>was passed under a Conservative Government, created a power to create tolling roads and I think only one project has ever been built under that legislation. That is not to say that the same will happen here, but getting the lower Thames crossing right will give us confidence moving forward, if a suitable project arises in the future. We do not want to constrain future Governments in this way. It is also worth bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the amendment having potential procedural consequences, such as the potential risk of hybridisation, which is of course a matter for the House. As the shadow Minister said, the amendment would risk hybridising the Bill, meaning that it would introduce additional parliamentary stages and considerable delay to the delivery of the lower Thames crossing. Hybrid Bills are often used for projects that do not have planning consent, and which need planning consent via Parliament, but that is not the case for the lower Thames crossing. As we all know, the lower Thames crossing has finally got planning consent, and it already has a very long history. As we discussed on Second Reading, we know that the original work to address the capacity issues around the Thames goes back as far as 2009. Risking hybridisation of this framework Bill would put at risk the timetable for this legislation, and therefore the financing and, ultimately, the delivery of the new crossing. The 2025 autumn Budget confirmed the importance of harnessing private investment to build the lower Thames crossing, unlocking the next stage of delivery for one of the UK’s most important infrastructure projects, but I am afraid that the amendment would risk the opposite happening. Of course, the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment on Second Reading recognised the urgency of this particular project, so I gently suggest that, were we to accept amendment 46, the progress that has been made would be put at risk of further delay. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I welcome the hon. Member for Guildford to the Committee and thank her for moving her amendment. The concern she raises through the amendment is that the impact of licensed roads on the surrounding network should be properly considered. However, that does not mean that we need to extend the Office of Road and Rail’s general duties in clause 1, nor does it mean that the licence holder would be free to disregard the impact of its activities on surrounding local roads, because clause 1 reflects the scope of the licensing regime concerning trunk roads. The Bill deals with the impact on local roads in other, more appropriate ways elsewhere, for example under clause 4.<span id="75" class="column-number" data-column-number="75"></span> Before a licence can be granted, the licensing authority must consult appropriate persons exercising functions in relation to highways. That enables local highway authorities to feed in their views where roads may be affected. The relationship does not end once the licence is granted; clause 8 also allows the ORR to require the licence holder to co-operate with other highways authorities as part of the licence. The framework for the Bill provides a route for local road impacts to be addressed, without extending the ORR’s overarching duty beyond the roads it is regulating. Local roads are considered as part of the Bill, which provides appropriate ways for their interests to be considered without extending the overarching statutory duties beyond the scope of the licensing regime. The existing provision provides the appropriate balance between ensuring that the wider impacts are considered and giving the ORR a clear and workable statutory duty. In terms of the specifics of the lower Thames crossing, it is difficult to see what this other local road crossing the Thames would be and how it would be affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has explained so clearly, that is one of the reasons why this project is crucial. I would therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment. I turn to amendment 47 from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. It would remove the ORR’s duty to contribute to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Act. We have deliberately designed those duties as a balanced package. The ORR’s principal focus remains the interests of road users, alongside the efficient and economic delivery of highways and the ability of licence holders to finance their activities. Sustainable development is one of the wider considerations that the ORR must have regard to when carrying out those functions—it does not override the principle considerations. This is not a novel duty; it is an approach consistent with established economic regulatory regimes in the energy and water sectors, where sustainable development forms part of the wider statutory framework within which independent regulators operate. Projects put forward under this legislation will involve significant infrastructure works, including the construction and improvement of roads. This can have significant environmental and wider impacts, therefore it is right that sustainable development, including the consideration of environmental impacts, is expressed in the duties in the Bill.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I do not have any particular details on that, so I will write to the hon. Member. The requirements on sustainable development originate from the Environment Act 2021. I know he was not here at that time, but that was a piece of legislation brought in under the then Conservative Government. Under section 19 of that Act, Ministers are required to have due regard to the Government’s environmental principles policy statement when making policy. Those principles ensure that environmental considerations are built into policy making from the outset, as is the case in this Bill, so we are not <span id="76" class="column-number" data-column-number="76"></span>breaking new ground or doing anything different from what has been done before on sustainable development. There are real factors to bear in mind in delivering major infrastructure, and it is right that we consider them as part of our consideration of the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, whose constituents are affected by this Bill, would want the local environment to be considered. I turn now to amendment 48. I think the general thrust of the arguments here will be the same, because the approach we are taking is consistent with established economic regulatory precedents, as seen in the energy and water sectors. The Secretary of State’s primary focus remains the interest of users of trunk roads in England, particularly the efficient and economic delivery of highways and the ability of the licence holder to finance its activities. As I have already stated, sustainable development does not override those considerations. Decisions under this framework should take into account the wider public interest factors set out in the clause and not focus on any single consideration in isolation. To respond to the questions that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked about diesel, as we have already heard, the evidence is clear that this is at best a marginal issue in terms of costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South suggested, reopening this question could lead to significant delay on the project. Of course, the DCO has been settled for a considerable period. It has brought significant benefits already, in particular large landscape-scale environmental enhancements of semi-natural habitats, woodlands, species-rich grasslands, open mosaic habitats, and wetlands. This approach will support a greater, more diverse range of wildlife than areas such as agricultural land or amenity grasslands. By making LTC a tunnel and extending it, the project will avoid protected wetlands on the banks of the River Thames, helping to reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive habitats such as the marshes special protection area and Ramsar site. That will be of benefit to the wider community, and the suggestion that we withdraw that element of the Bill is regrettable. Amendment 68 is in this group of amendments, but I do not think the shadow Minister spoke to it, so I seek your advice, Mr Dowd, as to whether we are dealing with it now.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
Did you? I must have missed that. In effect, amendment 68 would force the Secretary of State to publish guidance for the ORR under section 1(5) before the Act came into force and would simultaneously remove the Government’s ability to make regulations ahead of particular clauses coming into force. Amendment 68 would mean that the vast majority of the Act cannot come into force until the guidance of section 1(5) is published, but there would be nothing meaningful to issue guidance about until the Act is in force, because the bidding would not have happened, we would not know who the investors would be, and therefore we would not know what the ORR would have to provide guidance on. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State could not meaningfully provide guidance.<span id="77" class="column-number" data-column-number="77"></span> I turn now to clause 1 stand part and the overall duty that will guide the ORR in carrying out its functions under the Bill, which we have probably already covered in some detail. The ORR must act in a way that it considers best supports the interests of users who use highways covered or potentially covered by the licensing regime. That includes future users, which is important because the ORR might make decisions about a road before construction works or improvement works have been completed. When carrying out this duty, the ORR must consider the efficient and economical construction, improvement, operation and maintenance of those highways. It must also consider the need for licence holders to be able to finance their activities required under the licence. Of course, those are not the only considerations for the ORR. It must also have regard to safety, as I have said, as well as sustainable development, competition and the effects of its decisions on the wider strategic road network. The clause also reflects the principles of good regulation. ORR’s regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and they should be targeted only when action is needed. ORR must also have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Clause 1 places road users at the heart of ORR’s role, while ensuring that it takes account of safety, efficient delivery, financial viability and the wider public interest. That is an important framework, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is vital that the duties set out in clause 1 can be delivered to the best of the ORR’s ability. The whole purpose of the RAB model is that we have a functioning and effective regulator, so resourcing it is vital.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s question. The Bill’s purpose is to give the ORR the powers and ultimately the responsibility to regulate this <span id="78" class="column-number" data-column-number="78"></span>model. It will be able to levy the licence holder to finance that particular work. A great deal of preparatory work is already going on to ensure that the ORR is capable of delivering the important functions set out under the Bill.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. There is a plan in place, but it would be a bit ridiculous for us to have everyone ready now when the legislation has not been passed. I assure her that a number of considerations are already taking place about having the right skills. We heard evidence last week that there is confidence that the right skillsets and people will be in place to provide the important functions that the ORR will have to deliver under the legislation. Clause 2 sets out the overarching duty that will guide the Secretary of State when exercising functions under the Bill. It mirrors the duty placed on the ORR in clause 1 and ensures that both key decision makers operate within a consistent statutory framework. As the Bill gives important functions to the Secretary of State and the ORR, it is therefore important that decisions made by each are guided by the same overarching objectives and principles. The clause requires the Secretary of State, like the ORR, to act in a way that furthers the interests of road users. In doing so, the Secretary of State must balance a range of important considerations, including efficiency, safety, sustainability and the impact of decisions on the wider strategic road network. These duties are underpinned by established principles of good regulation, helping to ensure that decisions are transparent, accountable, proportionate and targeted only when action is needed. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this group. Without doubt, the scope of the licensing regime is an important subject, including which road schemes can be brought in and—as amendment 81 refers to—how local authorities should be consulted. Turning to amendment 82, I thank the shadow Minister for raising the issue of the circumstances in which a licence can be granted for improvements to existing highways. He asked why the licence would extend beyond the construction period. The simple answer to that is that the model is deliberately designed around the whole life cycle of major infrastructure, not simply the point at which it is built. That is why the Bill provides not only for construction, but for qualifying capacity-enhancing improvements and the subsequent operation and maintenance of infrastructure within the regime. In particular, things such as the lower Thames crossing, a very expensive project, will need consistent and persistent maintenance and repair. That matters because one of the benefits we seek from this model is strong long-term management of assets. The regulatory framework provides ongoing oversight, with incentives to manage operating costs and maintenance investment efficiently over the life of the infrastructure. Removing capacity-enhancing improvements would unnecessarily restrict the framework. It would mean that the model could not be used for major upgrades to existing road infrastructure, simply because the project involves improving an existing road rather than constructing an entirely new one. For example, a significant reconstruction of an existing bridge to add capacity, or a new tunnel that increases the capacity of an existing highway, could be excluded from the regime.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
That would be where clauses 1 and 2 come in, which should give the hon. Member sufficient reassurance. It is important to say—I will use scouse terminology, if you do not mind, Mr Dowd—that I think the arguments coming forward are a bit jarg. I do not know if that is a phrase the Committee is familiar with, but it is a bit of a scaring-the-horses moment—a bit of a ride on the ghost train. Unfortunately, that is what we have come to expect from the Opposition. They are trying to create a scare story where none exists. I have to be clear, as I was on Second Reading and in the evidence sessions, that improving an existing road does not mean that the road will automatically be brought into the regime or be subject to tolls.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I will just finish. Establishing and structuring a RAB arrangement comes with significant costs, so for small-scale improvements such as the setting up of a speed camera, it is just not going to be financially viable for anyone to consider it. In practice, it simply would not be justified, or work, in any way. We are clear from the evidence that we heard last week that the model will make sense only for projects of sufficient scale, where the benefits of bringing in long-term private investment justify those costs. Members should be clear that I know that what I say on the record is relevant to the intention of the Bill, and that that will be something that any future court will take into account.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I will now give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
<strong> </strong>We are very clear that the clause is about the specified highway. It is about the trunk road. It is about the protections in clauses 1 and 2. I will simply push back that, if there was some secret plan to expand road tolls, there is already legislation in place that would allow us to do that. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which was passed by the hon. <span id="85" class="column-number" data-column-number="85"></span>Member’s party in Government, created the powers to introduce road tolling. If there was a secret plan to do that, we would not need to bring forward legislation. This is about setting up a new regulatory model to bring in investment for particular projects.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and her description of “benign”, which I will frame and put on my wall at home. The Bill is clear. There are reasons why we have to look at the existing network, particularly when we consider what is happening in the lower Thames crossing. The simple economics of this would not be attractive to investors if we were going to broadly open up road charging across the country—as I say, there is already legislation that would enable us to do that. The clause is about setting up a specific financial model, which will have strong regulation and will enable capacity-enhancing improvements to be made to the road network. As I say, it is very clear that there are sufficient protections already within the legislation to avoid the situation that Opposition Members are concerned about. Turning to amendment 44, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for raising the question of capacity-enhancing improvements. We will be clear that this framework is intended for major road infrastructure, not for minor changes to the road network. There are practical constraints on the use of this model. Again, as I have referred to, clauses 1 and 2 require the ORR to act in the “interests of users” of the highway specified in licences or proposed to be specified. Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to act in the “interests of users of trunk roads in England.” Both have regard to the principle that regulatory action should be proportionate and targeted only where it is needed. I am not entirely sure that the amendment would deliver the changes that the hon. Gentleman proposes. I am concerned that, while he is talking about an extra lane, he has not put any de minimis length on that, which might give a future non-benign Government encouragement to take it further than is our intention. We have to be clear that establishing and structuring a RAB arrangement carries substantial costs. It must be sufficiently large and economically viable for that financing approach to make sense. We heard evidence that the geography of this country is such that simply adding lanes on here and there is not a viable option. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman not press his amendment to a Division. The shadow Minister spoke to amendment 81. I hope I never have a call from him when he is feeling frustrated—I am not sure how that would go for either of us—but <span id="86" class="column-number" data-column-number="86"></span>he made an important point about ensuring that local and mayoral authorities are notified where there may be a proposed scheme. It is of course the case that the Bill already ensures that the relevant authorities are consulted. As set out in clause 4, before any licence can be granted, the licensing authority must publish the proposal, which must also be shared with the relevant bodies, expressly including the strategic highways company and any other appropriate bodies exercising highway functions. At least 28 days must be allowed for representations from those bodies. Different projects will affect different places and different authorities. Therefore, the right consultees will depend on the project. As we have seen in recent times, the structure of local government can change, so it would not make sense to hardwire into legislation that particular types of authority should be consulted, because that could become outdated.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
Of course the answer to that is that we cannot predict the future. In 2010, the idea of a mayoral combined authority was nothing more than a glint in George Osborne’s eye. It is about future-proofing the legislation: it does not make sense for us to come back at a later stage to add in extra consultees, because the Bill already has the correct powers to ensure that the licensing authority must consult appropriate bodies. That makes the framework flexible enough to respond both to the circumstances of individual projects and to changes in local government structures over the life of the legislation, which will be significant, because of the LTC project. Clause 3 is at the heart of a lot of the debate today. The clause establishes what a licence is, what it can authorise and the circumstances in which one can be granted. The purpose of the licensing regime is to provide the framework through which private investment can support the delivery of strategic road infrastructure. In simple terms, clause 3 allows a licensing authority to grant a person a licence giving them the right to charge tolls on a highway specified in that licence. But that right is not freestanding; it is granted in return for the licence holder securing specified works to the highway. The works fall into three main categories. A licence may support the construction of a highway; it may support the improvement of an existing highway, where the purpose is to increase its capacity; and, where a highway has already been constructed or improved under this licensing regime, it may provide for its maintenance, operation or further improvement. If another highway is specified in the licence, the licence may also authorise the licence holder to charge tolls in respect of that highway. That is an important point about the structure of the regime. Clause 3 is not simply a general power to allow private companies to charge motorists; the authority to charge tolls is tied directly to the licence <span id="87" class="column-number" data-column-number="87"></span>holder securing the highway works specified in the licence. In addition, clause 3 does not allow the model to be applied indiscriminately across the road network. We have heard the concern about the measure meaning a change to existing roads. A small improvement to an existing road, such as a smart motorway camera, does not automatically mean that that road will be brought into the regime or become subject to tolls. A highway can be included in a licence only if it is, or is to be, a trunk road in England, or part of one. The licensing regime created by this part is therefore deliberately confined to that network. Clause 3 also sets out who may grant the licences. When the regime first begins, both the Secretary of State and the ORR will be licensing authorities. This is known as the “initial period”. Put simply, it is the period for dealing with the first licence under the Bill. Once the first licence has been issued, the initial period will end and the ORR will become the licensing authority. The end of the initial period will be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. It is important to say that there is an additional safeguard during that initial period. The ORR cannot itself grant a licence without the Secretary of State’s consent. Where the Secretary of State gives that consent, the decision must be published in a way that the Secretary of State considers appropriate to bring it to the attention of people likely to be affected. Where the Secretary of State grants the licence directly, a copy must be provided to the ORR as soon as reasonably practicable. Clause 3 should also be read alongside the safeguards in the rest of the licensing framework. In particular, clause 4 requires consultation before a licence can be granted. The proposal must identify both the works to be secured and the highway on which tolls would be authorised, and there must be at least 28 days for representations. A licence cannot be granted unless that consultation requirement has been met. That is an important safeguard because bringing a road into this regime is of course a significant decision. Before a licence is granted, those likely to be affected have an opportunity to understand what is proposed and make representations. The licensing authority must go through that process before deciding whether the licence should be granted. It is also important to be clear that, whether we are talking about a new road or a capacity enhancing improvement, the regime is confined to the trunk road network. A highway can only be included in a licence if it is, or is to become, a trunk road in England. We will come later to clause 81, which makes the necessary changes to the existing trunking provisions in section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 so that a new highway built under this licensing regime can become a trunk road. It does not create a blanket new power to designate any road as a trunk road; rather, it enables the existing process to work for the new type of highway.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
Apologies to the hon. Member.<span id="88" class="column-number" data-column-number="88"></span> Taken together, these provisions mean that the Bill can support both new strategic roads and significant capacity enhancing improvements, while remaining firmly focused on the trunk road network. The licensing authorities will also exercise their functions within the overarching statutory duties we have just debated. Those duties put the interests of road users at the centre of decision making, while requiring consideration of matters including efficiency and economy, safety, the wider strategic road network, sustainable development and competition.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I turn first to amendment 45. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for raising whether alternative transport investment should be considered before a licence is granted. I have to say that I have never been entirely clear whether the Liberal Democrats support the lower Thames crossing. The hon. Gentleman’s comments push him more into the “no” territory, but as the Bill progresses we will no doubt see whether they can support it.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s clarity. I understand his argument, but it is probably a bit late now. The assessment on alternative transport options belongs in the scheme appraisal and the business case process, not in this Bill, which is about whether to grant a licence in the first place. The Association for Consultancy and Engineering was clear in its written evidence that schemes must be “sufficiently developed before financing and procurement decisions are taken.” As the hon. Gentleman knows, for the lower Thames crossing, the development consent order has already been issued, and all the issues that he talked about were considered. It has been approved, and construction is under way. The Bill is not about which road should be built; it is about creating an additional financing and regulatory framework, which can be used where there is a need for a road scheme. It is not about putting roads ahead of rail or bus transport. That will be considered through <span id="94" class="column-number" data-column-number="94"></span>the earlier business case process. Requiring that to be assessed again once the licence has been granted would duplicate the work and add delay. As hon. Members have said, there is an urgent need for this scheme to proceed, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. On Opposition amendment 78, we debated a similar point when we discussed amendment 81. The shadow Minister did not press that amendment to a vote, but given the gusto with which he advanced his argument today, he may press amendment 78. I will not repeat the point that have been made, but clause 4(1)(b)(iv) requires that consultation includes “such other persons (including persons exercising functions in relation to highways) as the licensing authority considers appropriate.” So the assurances that Opposition Members seek are there in black and white. If we are too prescriptive, we may not cover every type of authority. At the moment, we know exactly what the local authority structures are but, as we have seen in recent years, that can change, so it would not be prudent to hardwire that into primary legislation. The Bill rightly allows the licensing authority to identify and consult the appropriate bodies exercising high-risk functions for the scheme. That makes the framework flexible enough to respond to the circumstances of individual projects and changes to local government structures over the lifetime of the legislation. On amendment 87, I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. We absolutely recognise that major road schemes can have impacts on surrounding local roads, and they need to be properly considered—indeed, the lower Thames crossing is proceeding because we want to improve the conditions on the local roads—but I do not believe that the amendment puts the consideration in the right place. Licences granted under the Bill are about bringing qualifying trunk road projects within the new financing and regulatory framework. It is not the process through which the underlying impacts of a road scheme are first identified and addressed. Those impacts, including changes to traffic and congestion, should be considered through the development and planning of the road scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, for the lower Thames crossing, traffic forecasts were assessed and considered as part of the development consent order, which is the appropriate stage for such considerations. Carrying out that work again would delay the project and duplicate work that has already been completed. Clause 4 sets out the requirements that must be met for consultation before a licence can be granted under the Bill. It ensures that the grant of a licence is subject to a clear, transparent and accessible consultation process, giving those likely to be affected a proper opportunity to make representations before the licence is granted. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
- Hansard source
Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The Minister has made it clear that it is incredibly important that the mechanism we are setting up today not only works to get the lower Thames crossing constructed but integrates the work at the Dartford crossing, so that tolling is equalised and traffic is hopefully distributed properly across both crossings. The lower Thames crossing is there to take the pressure off the Dartford crossing, which is a single point of failure that leads to costs not only for the economy but for my residents in delays, air quality and all sorts of adverse life consequences. Does the hon. Member not understand that, if we limit the Bill to the lower Thames crossing, there is a possibility that we will not be able to undertake the integration between the two entities, and that the point of what we are doing in this Bill Committee will therefore be lost?