Highways (Private Finance) Bill - Second Reading

Challenged the Minister on Labour's cancellation of road widening projects (A12 and A127) while proposing significant house building in the area. Francois argued that cancelling road upgrades while planning to build houses is contradictory and illogical.

Welcomed the measures in the Bill, particularly the potential for technological advances in vehicle automation to reduce congestion and improve road safety. Asked the Minister about the Government's consideration of self-driving vehicles and their impact on future road infrastructure.

He argues that the Bill opens up the entire road network of the country to new road-charging schemes, despite the Government's assurances that it applies only to existing big toll roads. He criticises the Labour Government for not being in favour of motorists and for cancelling major road schemes under their watch.

Suggests that the three London bridges in disrepair should be designated as trunk roads to allow for their repair under the provisions of the legislation.

Disagrees with the suggestion that the Labour Government does not care about motorists, pointing out that the current Government has cancelled road projects previously initiated by the Conservatives.

Highlights the dramatic increase in the cost of the Lower Thames Crossing, from an initial estimate of £2 billion to £2.5 billion to a current estimate of £9 billion to £10 billion. He questions the sources of funding for the project and the feasibility of the toll charges.

Defends the Secretary of State's actions in agreeing the development consent order for the Lower Thames Crossing, stating that the previous Government failed to do so over 14 years.

Asks if the shadow Secretary of State is opposed in principle to the concept of tolls for the Lower Thames Crossing project.

Requests a response from Mark Francois.

Instructs others to read the Bill, suggesting that they misunderstand its provisions.

Mike Reader supports the Bill, arguing that it can attract private investment to build infrastructure that might otherwise be delayed due to funding constraints. He highlights the importance of safety culture in infrastructure projects and the impact of congestion on his constituency's logistics industry. He also raises concerns about the cost for freight operators and the need for the Government to provide clarity on licensing arrangements and tolls.

Intervened to ask about the timeline for identifying funders and estimating initial tolls for lorries using the tunnel. This shows support for the Bill but also a need for more detailed information.

Olly Glover argues that the Government's approach to road building and the lower Thames crossing is shortsighted, neglecting rail infrastructure and the potential for transferring demand to other modes of transport. He also raises concerns about the lack of transparency and regulatory oversight for road tolls and charges in the Bill.

Richard Holden intervenes to point out that the Bill allows for toll roads across the entire strategic road network, similar to the French model.

Mark Francois raises concerns about the Government's eagerness to adopt toll road systems, citing a recent experience in Texas where such technology is already in use.

Ruth Cadbury notes that toll road systems and congestion charges are not new, and points to the existing congestion charge in London as an example.

Daniel Francis supports the Transport (Crossing Charges) Bill and argues that it will benefit businesses and reduce costs. He mentions that the Bill will double road capacity east of Crayford, which will relieve congestion and support business growth. He also highlights the need for consistent tolling arrangements between the Dartford crossing and the proposed lower Thames crossing, particularly for Motability users. Francis encourages the Government to work on interoperability for toll systems, both for businesses and disabled people, to reduce complexity and encourage economic growth.

Chope argues that the income from the Dartford crossing tolls should not continue indefinitely and should be dedicated to the lower Thames crossing. He raises concerns about the lack of dedicated legislation for the lower Thames crossing and questions the length of time tolls will be in place. Chope also suggests that the Bill could be used to fund repairs and maintenance of London bridges. He expresses scepticism about the new powers granted to the Office of Road and Rail.

Francois supports Chope's scepticism about the lower Thames crossing tolls, citing the ongoing tolls on the QEII bridge as a reason for scepticism among constituents in south Essex.

Cadbury defends the RAB model as clear and transparent, explaining that funding under this model is hypothecated to the scheme and covers construction, maintenance, and improvements. She also clarifies that the funding model is not merely for construction costs but for long-term maintenance.

Francis seeks clarity on the responsibility for London bridges and questions Chope about the ownership of the bridges in London, noting that some belong to local authorities and charities, not Transport for London.

Welcomes the Bill's introduction of the RAB model but raises concerns about over-engineering and poor value for money in similar projects. Highlights the critical need for truck stops and service areas for road haulage and driver safety. Criticises the government's track record on major road schemes, particularly the cancellation and redesign of HS2. Expresses concern over the lack of service stations for truck drivers on the route of the lower Thames crossing.

Agrees with the concerns raised about the lack of service stations on the route of the lower Thames crossing, highlighting that this will exacerbate issues with lorry drivers parking in inappropriate places due to the lack of service stations.

Mr Dickson argued that the proposed amendment to decline the Second Reading of the Bill would be detrimental to the progress of the Lower Thames Crossing. He cited the long delays under the previous Government and the economic and social benefits of the new crossing, such as reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality, and job creation. He also raised concerns about the tolling system and the need for equal value and affordability for local residents. Overall, he expressed strong support for the Bill and welcomed it as a vital step towards building much-needed infrastructure.

Craft supports the lower Thames crossing project but raises concerns about toll mechanisms, transparency, congestion, toll disparities, local employment, and the return of the Tilbury ferry. She emphasises the need for social value and a toll levy to fund the ferry's operation.

Quigley interjects to support the proposal for integrating ferry travel into integrated transport, particularly in the context of the Tilbury ferry.

Mark Francois raises concerns about the lower Thames crossing and the lack of transparency regarding financing and tolls. He questions the cancellation of A127 upgrades and criticises the lack of coordination between different government departments regarding housing, healthcare, and transportation infrastructure.

Mark Francois intervenes to express opposition to the urban sprawl and the imposition of a large number of houses on south Essex, although he acknowledges the honesty of the MP arguing on behalf of his constituents.

Lauren Sullivan intervenes to emphasise the importance of accountability for toll regulators and the need to ensure that toll roads are properly cared for and enhanced for local residents who will be most affected by the project.

Peter Dowd thanked the Minister for the clarity of the Bill's content and praised the historical context of Merseyside's transport infrastructure, including the Mersey tunnel crossings. He questioned the opposition's stance on the legislation's provisions for an independent regulator and a licence regime for the construction and operation of proposals. Dowd also mentioned the importance of community involvement in the development of transport projects and the need for agencies to act with integrity, honesty, and passion.

Smith criticised the Government's plan to use private finance for infrastructure, citing cost overruns and the lack of clarity on road charges. He highlighted the failures of Labour councils and criticised the Labour Mayor of London for high charges. He also raised concerns about the regulatory burden on road projects.

Dewhirst intervened to support Smith, urging the Government to address the issue of the closed Hammersmith bridge managed by a Labour-run council.

Francis questioned Smith's analysis of the proposal to spread the cost of river crossings among London taxpayers.

French challenged Smith by pointing out that the Mayor of London has introduced charges for driving, and the Government has increased the Dartford crossing charge.

Francis intervened to confirm that the measures introduced by the Mayor of London and the increases in charges were made under the previous Conservative Government.

The Bill provides a financing framework for the Lower Thames Crossing, offering taxpayers a better deal and ensuring connectivity for the economy. It does not grant development consent but offers a different model of regulation with the Office of Rail and Road at its heart. The Bill also allows for modern tolling systems and does not create new taxes, instead ensuring users contribute towards costs. It is designed to be a tool for delivering nationally significant infrastructure with strong regulatory protections in place.

Asked the Minister to clarify points during his speech.

Asked about local accountability and representation in the ORR to prevent past issues from happening in Gravesham.