Blue Badge Eligibility

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

As ever, Sir Christopher, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on securing this important debate and on sharing her personal experience and the experiences of her constituents. I also pay tribute to Kent residents Sandy Burr, Bev Evans and others whose personal stories have led to this campaign and to today’s debate; I thank the hon. Lady for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) spoke with passion and conviction in support of his constituents and those who face serious health concerns that give rise to some of the most difficult moments in our constituents’ lives. I recognise the need for a system that is fair and consistent. It should never be heartless or cold, and it should not feel like an obstacle course. I am committed to listening and to considering carefully the points that have been made today. I will come to my hon. Friend’s questions in just a moment.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for his contribution to the debate and for highlighting the examples from his own constituency. He asked what arrangements there are for monitoring councils’ processing times. The Department for Transport does not monitor councils’ processing times; that is a matter for councils themselves. We recommend that they should process blue badge applications within 12 weeks, but of course that will vary according to the local authority and the resources that it chooses to put into its blue badge team. These are decisions for local authorities, which are elected by local residents and are responsible and accountable to local residents. I absolutely recognise that when we allow local authorities to make local decisions, they will make different decisions, which sometimes leads to inconsistency between them.

The Department for Transport sets the legislation around blue badges and provides non-statutory guidance to local authorities, but it is local authorities themselves that are responsible for administering the scheme. I recognise the issue that hon. Members from across the House have raised about the potential that that creates for inconsistency; it is one that I have reflected on over the period in which I have been a Minister, and I have dealt with numerous pieces of correspondence about it from MPs on behalf of their constituents. It has caused me concern and I have discussed it regularly with my officials in the blue badge team. Today’s debate is timely in making me consider again what more we can do to address the concerns that are being raised.

Let me come back to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. He asked whether work is ongoing to review the scheme. We constantly consider the scheme and look to improve it. I felt that it was somewhat rude of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), to refer to things that were last changed in 2000 and then suggest that within my first year of being a Minister I should have conducted a review and made major changes; the last 14 years might have provided an opportunity to address some of those issues. Nevertheless, it is timely to think about the scheme and look at whether there is a need for review and further refinement. As I have said, there is guidance for local councils on best practice, and I know that local authority blue badge officers come together to talk about their experiences of administering the system and to share notes and best practice. I met a number of them when they last got together in Runcorn, which is where the blue badges are issued.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford also asked about the potential for cross-departmental work with colleagues in the national health service and the Department for Health and Social Care. I would be happy to explore that further with colleagues in those Departments; I hope that that will have the support of everyone who has spoken today.

It may be helpful to step back for a moment to talk a bit about the scheme as it was intended and to reaffirm its purpose. As has been acknowledged, the scheme was introduced in 1971 and has served the UK public for over five decades. It provides vital support for people with severe mobility difficulties, whether those difficulties are visible or non-visible—so-called hidden disabilities.

The scheme enables individuals to access goods and services by allowing them to park closer to their destination, whether they are driving or travelling as a passenger. The blue badge provides national on-street parking concessions, including the ability to park without charge or time limit in otherwise restricted areas and to park on yellow lines for up to three hours where loading restrictions do not apply, but it is important to note that the scheme applies only to on-street parking. Concessions in private or council-owned car parks are not guaranteed and may vary depending on the operator.

All car parking providers are required to provide disabled parking spaces, and quite rightly so. In local authority car parks it is very likely, but not necessary, that the council will not charge those who are using disabled spaces, but in private sector car parks that might or might not be the case. I think that that also applies to hospitals. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), spoke about hospital car parks; they are outside the remit of my Department, but would be a useful part of the conversation.

Although we recognise the changing landscape of local infrastructure and council-owned car parks—perhaps there are fewer of them, and more private car parks—we have to continue to ensure that the scheme remains effective and accessible for on-street parking. Each year, over 1 million blue badges are issued across England. The day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme rests with local authorities, which are responsible for assessing applications and for ensuring that badges are issued only to those who meet the eligibility criteria set out in legislation.

I would like to take a moment to recognise the efforts of the local authority teams who deliver the service. I hope I can assure hon. Members that I know at first hand the passion and dedication that many local authority blue badge teams have in helping those who need access to parking. I have spoken to many of them, and I know how committed they are to supporting those in need.

My first ask to colleagues today is that they encourage their constituents to provide as much detailed and high-quality information as possible when applying. I appreciate the points that have been made about how some people applying for a blue badge are doing so at a really difficult, traumatic and stressful time. However, providing detail helps local authorities to make informed and fair decisions in line with the guidance set out on the Government website. The Department provides non-statutory guidance to assist local authorities in implementing fair and consistent assessment and enforcement practices, but this is a matter for local authorities. We cannot intervene in individual cases, but we are committed to helping to support local authorities in delivering the scheme effectively.

I really understand the concerns raised in this debate about eligibility for people living with cancer or other life-altering illnesses. They are serious and heartfelt concerns raised in response to constituents facing difficult and distressing circumstances, but before I come back to those issues it is important that I set out the rationale behind the current structure of the scheme. The eligibility criteria are designed to ensure that the blue badge is reserved for those with severe mobility impairments, whether physical or non-visible, that significantly impact their ability to access services.

I know that the shift from the term “permanent and substantial disability” to “enduring and substantial disability” was a very deliberate change. It recognised that some conditions, particularly those affecting cognitive or mental function, might fluctuate or respond to treatment but still endure over time. I think the change was designed to allow for greater flexibility to recognise a broader range of disabilities, including those that might not be immediately visible. It also ensures that the scheme remains focused on mobility and the ability to access places and services safely and independently. Ultimately, a blue badge may therefore be awarded to an individual with a disability that is expected to endure in some way for the three-year blue badge issue period.

Local authorities invest considerable time and care in assessing applications from individuals who do not automatically qualify in line with the legislation. Many authorities—including Kent county council, which is one of the largest issuers, if not the largest, of blue badges in England—work hard to ensure that their decisions are fair and evidence-based. In 2024 alone, Kent issued more than 33,000 badges, supporting more than 83,000 of its residents.

I have to be honest about the kind of structural change that people are calling for today; it would represent a significant departure from the scheme’s current purpose. That is not to say that it is not a legitimate question to raise, but it would place additional pressure on a system that is already under strain. Many local authorities report that they are operating the scheme at a financial loss, with the current £10 fee no longer covering the cost of administration. Expanding eligibility without providing additional resources could compromise the integrity of the scheme and reduce the availability of disabled parking spaces for those who rely on them the most.

I note that, in reaction to the recent campaign, many have understandably expressed support, but others have raised concerns about the potential impact on parking availability and enforcement, including those who are current badge holders. Nevertheless, the cases highlighted by the Kent Messenger campaign and taken up by Members today cannot be ignored. These are real people, facing real challenges, and the response requires both compassion and the determination to look for solutions.

There is already plenty of room for local innovation; local authorities already have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to introduce locally determined parking concessions, which can include temporary permits or designated bays for individuals recovering from surgery or undergoing intensive treatment, such as chemotherapy. In 2012, the Department published an advice note encouraging local authorities to consider such schemes, and while they are voluntary and locally led, they offer a flexible way to respond to specific community needs, without altering the national framework of the blue badge scheme. Of course, local authorities may wish to explore options for hospital parking concessions for patients who require frequent access to treatment, which is a matter for discussion with local NHS trusts, but I recognise that such measures can make a meaningful difference to people who are navigating serious illness.

In response to points raised today, I will ask my officials to review and update our existing advice note to provide clearer, more practical guidance on how local authorities can use those existing powers to support residents facing temporary or fluctuating mobility challenges. That would not change the core eligibility criteria for the blue badge, but in the short term, it may help councils to better understand the tools at their disposal.

We have not really touched on this today, but it is important to note that blue badge schemes in England, Scotland and Wales are fully devolved, and each nation administers its own scheme, sets its own criteria and determines its own fee structure. In Wales, the devolved Administration has chosen to introduce a temporary blue badge option, allowing individuals to apply for a 12-month badge if they are recovering from or awaiting treatment for serious illnesses or injuries that have a significant impact on mobility.

While I understand the appeal of such a model, it is important to recognise the scale of the English scheme and the context in which it operates. England has a significantly larger population and a far greater number of blue badge holders than Wales. Introducing a temporary badge scheme on the same model could place a real strain on local authority resources, many of which are already under pressure, and it could risk reducing the availability of on-street disabled parking spaces for those with long-term and severe mobility needs.

Of course, a change could also lead to a big surge in applications, increasing administrative burdens and undermining reliability, processing times and the current operation of the scheme. That said, I remain open to learning from the experiences of the devolved nations. I note the Welsh Government’s recent publication of their review into the blue badge scheme. Where there are lessons to be drawn, or best practice to consider, I want to do so carefully and constructively.

To conclude, I reiterate that the Government fully recognise the importance of accessible services for people with disabilities and serious health conditions. The blue badge scheme plays a vital role in enabling independence and dignity, and we are committed to ensuring that it continues to serve those in need. I am cautious about expanding eligibility in ways that could undermine the current scheme’s effectiveness, but I am keen to reflect on the concerns raised today. I will continue to engage with my officials and ministerial colleagues to explore how we can support local authorities in delivering compassionate, practical solutions within the existing framework.

This is not the end of the conversation; I am listening, I will keep listening, and I look forward to continuing to work with hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that the blue badge scheme remains fair, effective and focused on those who need it most. I am open to the possibility of change to address some of the concerns that have been rightly raised today.

[Helen Grant]

I thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have spoken so meaningfully and passionately on this matter today. In particular, I must mention the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), who is working with closely with me and the Kent Messenger on this matter. I know that the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), will be meeting the Transport Secretary. I hope the Minister, who was listening carefully today, will also speak to the Transport Secretary about what she has heard from all hon. Members today. I am glad she said that she will reconsider certain matters, and I hope that she might agree to have a meeting with me and some other colleagues so we can go into more detail than we have in the hour allowed.

[Lilian Greenwood]

indicated assent.

[Helen Grant]

I think that was a nod. We can and must do better. As I said in my speech, and I am repeating it again, we need a fairer and faster approach, which recognises that at the centre of these faceless applications are highly vulnerable people who deserve care, dignity and respect.

Finally, I pay tribute to the courageous Dr Susan Michaelis, who died of lobular breast cancer last week. Susan, with her husband Tristan, was a great campaigner for cancer patients, and she would have been so happy to see this cross-party campaign debated so sensitively today. May she rest in peace. Let us all keep working together to make a difference.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered blue badge eligibility for cancer patients and people with life-altering illnesses.

West Coast Main Line

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dr Murrison, after seeing each other yesterday to talk about roads.

It is a pleasure to be in Westminster Hall today with so many hon. Members to speak about the future of the west coast main line—a route that has long served as the backbone of connectivity between London, the midlands, the north-west, north Wales and Scotland. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) on securing the debate. He is a powerful advocate for his constituents and for our railways, which is fitting for someone who represents a constituency that has had a long and proud position at the heart of our rail network since 1837.

As my hon. Friend anticipated, we have heard from hon. Members up and down the west coast main line and beyond, calling at the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—slightly off the line, there—and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) and for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), and diverting via the constituency of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and perhaps not stopping at the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).

Rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich raised concerns about future capacity on the west coast main line. I should just say that it is also a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner); I know that he has lost his voice and so has not spoken, but that he will bring his great knowledge and expertise to bear on this subject on another occasion.

As so many in this House will know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, the west coast main line is one of the busiest mixed use railways in Europe. It provides vital inter-city connections between the country’s largest urban areas, which we have heard much about this afternoon. It delivers local services to our towns and cities. Very importantly, it enables the transport of goods that help to keep our economy running. While the covid pandemic demonstrated that demand modelling is a complex area, our current estimates indicate that the west coast main line may reach capacity from the mid-2030s.

Let me turn straight away to what this Government are doing to address the situation. I will start with HS2. As hon. Members will know, this Government inherited a difficult position on the programme. That is the line my civil servants have drafted. The truth is, the last Government could hardly have made a worse mess of this project if they had tried. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth described it as “shocking mismanagement” and frankly, she is not wrong.

A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to this House setting out the scale of the challenge and this Government’s determination to get the project back under control. We are clear that our priority is to deliver HS2 between London and the west midlands safely and at the lowest reasonable cost.

It is worth remembering the benefits that the new railway will eventually bring. HS2 will almost double long-distance rail capacity between London and the west midlands. It will significantly improve the southern section of the west coast main line, which, as we have heard repeatedly, is heavily congested. In turn, that could release capacity for local services. HS2 will deliver significant journey time savings too, not only from London to Birmingham, where travel times could be reduced to 49 minutes, but also to Manchester and Liverpool, where journeys could become 25 minutes faster.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and other hon. Friends have rightly noted, HS2 was always about capacity, and phase 1 will not improve capacity north of Birmingham. Addressing the problem of insufficient capacity on the west coast main line was, as many people have said, one of the key strategic aims of HS2. I am sure I have said in the House many times that it was misnamed—“HC2” could have tripped off the tongue quite easily.

Following the previous Government’s decision to cancel phase 2, we know that there are real and very understandable concerns about capacity between Birmingham and Manchester. I also understand the frustration—and, frankly, the anger—that this decision created for leaders and communities across the midlands and the north. We have heard that again today, and it is just as true for my own constituents in the east midlands as it is for those of so many colleagues.

Back in January, I set out to this House—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich—that we would not reverse the cancellation of HS2 phase 2. However, I also noted that we were, and are, continuing to review options for enhancing rail connectivity in the midlands and the north. That work continues and is now supported by the clarity that the spending review has provided. I do not like to disappoint my hon. Friend or other hon. Members, but I am not able to provide more detail at this stage. However, I can assure him and other hon. Members that the Government hope to say more in the coming months, including on the future of Northern Powerhouse Rail.

I very much agree that increasing rail capacity will allow for better services and enable more freight to travel by rail. That is desirable and can help us tackle multiple challenges not just on the rail network but on the road network, as well as issues around air quality and many other things. There is a great deal to play for.

In the meantime, Network Rail is undertaking a programme of renewals on the west coast main line between Crewe and the Scottish border to improve the performance and reliability of the railway. This section of the route was last upgraded in the 1970s and suffers from performance issues today. Renewing the railway also provides an opportunity to improve its capacity and capability in a more efficient and less disruptive manner.

The Department is working closely with Network Rail and the rail industry to consider various options, and decisions on those options will need to be taken in the context of the spending review outcomes. The settlement received by the Department shows the Government’s commitment to invest in rail and in schemes that support economic growth in every corner of the country. The settlement represents an increase in funding compared with what has been spent on rail enhancements in recent years. We are already investing to increase the capacity and capability of the power system at both ends of the west coast main line to improve performance on the route and enable the introduction of new electric services.

A number of Members took the opportunity to raise concerns about the performance of Avanti West Coast. It is obviously not acceptable that people are experiencing high levels of delays and cancellations, and we are tackling that issue. Avanti West Coast is beginning to see a steady and consistent improvement in performance on the network, but there is much more to do, with punctuality behind the industry average. Poor Network Rail infrastructure reliability continues to be the leading cause of passenger disruption.

While improvements to performance generally have been made, the Department for Transport will continue to hold Avanti West Coast to account to ensure that improvements are maintained in the future. Our officials regularly meet both Avanti West Coast and Network Rail as part of our relentless focus on improving rail performance, bringing together track and train, holding both sides accountable and getting them to work together. That is the great advantage of the integrated approach that has been mentioned in the debate. The Rail Minister met the Avanti West Coast managing director and the Network Rail west coast south route director in January and May to challenge poor performance and demand immediate action to deliver urgent improvements.

As many people have acknowledged, a new arm’s length body, Great British Railways, will deliver a unified system that focuses on reliable, affordable, high quality and efficient services, alongside ensuring safety and accessibility. Officials have been immediately convened to begin work on our plans to deliver Great British Railways and wider rail reforms, which I know will please hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Blackley and Middleton South and for Stockport. However, constituents should not have to wait until all those services come into public ownership to see improvements in their rail journeys, and we are absolutely determined that they will not have to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South set out her constituents’ very reasonable needs when it comes to travelling on the railway. The Government are determined to address those needs, and I assure her that we are serious about investing in our transport infrastructure to support economic growth across the country, including in Warrington. Indeed, last week we announced investment in 50 road and rail projects, but we are doing this in the context of the terrible legacy left to us by the previous Government. We are clearing up their mess and it will take time, but we will do it.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stockport and for Blackpool South spoke with passion on behalf of their constituents, both those who rely on the railway and those work on it. I assure them that we will be working to ensure that Avanti West Coast and Network Rail deliver the improvements that we all expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport will, I am sure, know that Transport for Greater Manchester and Stockport metropolitan borough council are working on business case development for a station refurbishment scheme. I assure my hon. Friend the member for Blackpool South that, as my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary told him at recent transport oral questions, the Rail Minister will be happy to meet with him to discuss the south Fylde line proposal.

I come to the need for interventions at Crewe station to address ageing assets. As I said, Crewe is at the heart of our rail network. It is a crucial transport hub providing 360° connectivity where four regional lines converge with the west coast main line. Network Rail has developed a £270 million programme of interventions to deliver essential renewals in the Crewe area over the next few years. The Department is supporting this programme, and is keen to work with local partners to consider any opportunities for investment over and beyond essential renewals.

Today’s discussion is an opportunity to reflect on the current challenges and advocate for the improvements to the west coast main line that the public rightly expects. It has provided much food for thought, and the Rail Minister will continue to work extremely hard to address all of the issues. Our Department is currently developing an integrated national transport strategy, which is coming down the track later this year. This is just part of the bigger picture of providing the transport infrastructure we need to support economic growth, housing development and the shift of freight from the roads on to our railways, and to ensure that every part of the country is able to thrive.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich for securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this debate and on making such incredibly good use of the extra time we have had. I thank him for speaking so passionately about road safety. He is clearly a powerful advocate for his constituents. We really had a tour across the many villages and communities that he represents, and I enjoyed his efforts to namecheck them—every single one of them, I think.

I am pleased to be back here for the second Adjournment debate about road safety in less than a week. I am happy to be discussing this important issue again, not just because I am Minister for the future of roads—which should, of course, be a safer future—but because this issue matters to all of us. We, our families, our friends and our colleagues all use our roads, whether as drivers, riders, pedestrians, cyclists, or passengers in buses or taxis, and we all deserve the right to go on our journeys knowing that we will get home safely.

Unusually in an Adjournment debate, we heard from, I think, 19 Members this evening—not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland but from my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Chris Vince), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for North Northumberland (David Smith), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). I hope very much that I have not missed anyone out.

We clearly all agree that no one should be killed or injured on our roads, and improving road safety is one of my Department’s highest priorities. In 2023 there were 1,624 fatalities in reported road collisions in Great Britain, and more than 28,000 people were seriously injured. I have not worked out the numbers, but I suspect that means that in the time we have been debating this issue, someone will have been seriously injured somewhere on Great Britain’s roads. Fatalities and injuries resulting from road collisions are simply unacceptable, and this Government are working hard to prevent such tragedies for all road users. Road safety is fundamental to everything that the Government stand for. Safer roads underpin our national missions: driving economic growth, enabling greener journeys through active travel, easing pressure on the national health service, and ensuring that everyone can travel safely. That is why my Department is developing our road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. We will set out more details in due course.

Members referred to the implementation of road safety at a local level. Local government is the main delivery body for road safety. Local authorities have a statutory duty under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take steps both to reduce and to prevent collisions. It is for them to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have the local knowledge —many Members mentioned the importance of that this evening—and it is right that they focus on the areas of highest risk, which may be places where tragic collisions have occurred. However, there is nothing to prevent them from implementing road safety measures elsewhere. Indeed, it is entirely right to consider what action can be taken to prevent collisions in the first place.

[Dr Arthur]

Although she lives in Edinburgh South West, my constituent Amanda wrote to me about a power that English councils do not have when it comes to road safety, namely the power to deal with pavement parking. Is that something that the Minister has considered?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for, once again, raising the issue of pavement parking. As I hope he knows, I am very keen for us to address that issue. It has been far too long since the 2020 consultation on the options, and I look forward to the opportunity to publish that consultation and set out the next steps in due course.

I hope that no local authority would claim that road measures can be considered only at locations where there have been fatalities, because that is simply not the case. I understand the importance of using resources effectively, where they are most needed, but the use of such measures should never be arbitrary. This Government are committed to the devolution of powers to local level, as we have shown through the publication of the English devolution White Paper, but it is important that the right powers be held at the right level. Responsibility for highways and traffic sits at county council or unitary level; that enables local authorities to deliver services in an efficient and consistent way across their areas.

We have no plans to devolve those powers further to parish councils, but it is nevertheless crucial that local highway authorities engage with local partners, including parish and town councils, when deciding on the measures to take, as they can play an absolutely critical role in identifying road safety issues in their area. They are often the first to hear about near misses or dangerous incidents, and act as a vital link with local residents’ day-to-day experiences. As we have heard time and again this evening, local parish and town councils—as well as residents’ associations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said, and indeed schoolchildren, parents and a wide range of community groups—have incredibly valuable local knowledge, and they need to be listened to and engaged with.

Numerous hon. Members have talked about the need for action to reduce speed, including by lowering speed limits, and the need to enforce speed limits through police action and the introduction of speed cameras. Hon. Members will know that the enforcement of road traffic law, and decisions on how available police resources are deployed, are the responsibility of chief constables and police and crime commissioners, taking into account the local problems and demands that they face. Local highway authorities have the power to set speed limits on their roads, and it is important that this is done in partnership with town and parish councils, and in consultation with the residents affected.

I was really sorry to hear that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, Durham county council has not responded to local calls for lower speed limits on the stretches of road that he mentioned. I urge him, the town and parish councils, and Durham county council to discuss this matter as a priority, and to try to find a way forward. As my hon. Friend described so vividly, dangerous roads have very real impacts on the lives of his constituents, especially children, older people and disabled people. This debate will send a clear message to Durham county council, and perhaps to other highway authorities, about the strength of feeling not only among his constituents, but in his local communities, about road safety issues, and about the need for highway authorities to be accountable to local residents for decisions that they take in fulfilling their duties.

Local authorities have a range of traffic management measures available to them to help improve safety in residential areas and outside schools, including pedestrian crossings, traffic-calming measures, school crossing patrols, and the introduction of a school street, where appropriate. Good street design can help improve road safety, and the “Manual for Streets” is our key piece of street design guidance. It advocates for streets to be designed to support appropriate vehicle speeds from the outset. Let us build the right roads to encourage appropriate speeds, rather than having to deal with problems when they arise later. That will reduce the risk of collisions, and reduce the severity of collisions that do happen.

We expect local authorities to adopt the “Manual for Streets” when setting their own design standards, but that is ultimately a choice for them. We are working to update the manual to ensure that it is still relevant and enables those designing streets to do so in a way that contributes to sustainable, healthy and active communities. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have local knowledge of their roads, but any authorities that wish to install schemes to improve safety have my Department’s full backing. Obviously, they will want to make those decisions in consultation with local communities and the local police. I welcome the support expressed by so many hon. Members this evening, and agree that sharing local knowledge and working in partnership can be very helpful.

My Department gave councils updated guidance on setting 20 mph speed limits in March 2024, and reminded them to reserve the lower limits for appropriate locations, such as outside schools, with safety and local support at the heart of such decisions. I want to emphasise that we support 20 mph speed limits in the right places. As well as improving safety, they can enhance quality of life, the environment and the local economy, but 20 mph zones and limits are best considered on a road-by-road basis, based on the safety case, to ensure local consent, rather than as blanket measures. As I say, local councils will want to make decisions about local implementation in consultation with local communities and the local police. They know their roads best, and I simply cannot and should not dictate to them from Westminster.

While local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the speed limits on the roads in their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation and guidance, they are rightly accountable to local people for those decisions. My hon. Friend and his constituents will rightly expect the county council not only to listen to their concerns, but to be accountable for the decisions it makes, whether it decides to install traffic measures or declines to do so, and I think that applies to all hon. Members who have made the powerful case for lower speed limits. The “safe system” approach to road safety acknowledges that even careful drivers can make mistakes, but no one should be killed or seriously injured as a result of a mistake, and we know that collisions at high speeds are much more likely to have tragic outcomes, which is why the argument holds for reducing speed limits in particular circumstances.

The Department will look at what we can do to support local authorities, and we stand ready to work with all those looking to improve road safety locally. My Department recognises the excellent work that parish and town councils do to improve the safety of local roads, including through their involvement with community speedwatch schemes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Amber Valley for highlighting that valuable volunteering. Police-run community speedwatch schemes enable local volunteers to work with the police and other agencies to address identified road policing issues in their localities. Drivers who are detected speeding are sent letters, and the police may take further action if a driver is detected multiple times. Decisions on when to adopt community speedwatch schemes are operational matters for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, working in conjunction with their local policing plans.

The responsibility for keeping for our roads safe cannot fall solely to central or local government; all road users have a part to play, and they must all comply with road traffic law in the interests of their own safety and that of other road users. As set out in the highway code, the hierarchy of road users places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision right at the top of the hierarchy. The objective of the hierarchy of road users is not to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders in every situation, but rather to ensure a more mutually respectful and considerate culture of safe and effective road use that benefits all users. This does not detract from the requirements for everyone to behave responsibly. There is both a legal and a moral duty for all road users to obey the law, both for safety and to create a culture of respect and consideration for all road users. There are laws in place to ensure that unsafe and dangerous behaviour has no place on our roads and is dealt with appropriately, using the most effective sanctions, including educational interventions. Enforcement of the law is a matter for the police, who will decide on the evidence of each case whether an offence has been committed and the appropriate action to take.

I conclude by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland for securing this timely and important debate. As I said at the start, the Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the number of those killed and injured on our roads. My Department is developing our road safety strategy, which is vital. For too long, we have tolerated a lack of progress, and this Government are determined to act. I look forward to setting out more details in due course, as indeed we will on my hon. Friend’s ambitions for the A66.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

Potholes and poor road surfaces are a nuisance for drivers, cause damage to vehicles and can pose a real danger to road users. To tackle the poor state of our roads following a decade of decline, this Government will provide £24 billion of capital funding over the spending review period to maintain and improve local roads and motorways across the country, delivering faster, safer and more reliable journeys.

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the Minister for her answer, and for reassuring residents in Swanscombe and the surrounding areas that, two years after the collapse of Galley Hill Road, hope for a solution is in sight, thanks to the structures fund announced as part of the comprehensive spending review. Can the Minister confirm the likely timescale for the structures fund being up and running and open for bids? Will she undertake to ensure that her officials in the Department are working closely with Kent county council to maximise the chances of a successful bid to the structures fund, as I am sure she will for other parts of the country?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his steadfast advocacy for people and businesses in his constituency, which I know has been blighted by the collapse of the A226 at Galley Hill. It was visiting places such as Galley Hill that led us to invest £1 billion to enhance the road network, and create a new structures fund that will repair rundown bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels. Details on how that fund will be allocated will be announced in due course.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The Minister is familiar with the campaign that I and neighbouring colleagues have been running for many years to improve the A180. When will she have some good news for us?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I can already give the hon. Member the good news about the £24 billion allocated in the spending review for improving our nation’s roads, and as he knows, National Highways is looking closely at what can be done on the road that leads to his constituency.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

Peacehaven in my constituency is a growing town, but it remains a one-road-in, one-road-out town. The daily gridlock and frequent roadworks on the A259 is the single biggest frustration and barrier to opportunity for my constituents. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can unlock that and provide a real boost to Peacehaven and neighbouring towns?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I appreciate how frustrating the situation is for my hon. Friend and his constituents. My officials are continuing to discuss details of the business case for the scheme with East Sussex county council, and I would of course be happy to meet him to discuss that further.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The Rapid Transition Alliance tells us that we can improve the quality of our roads if we support more people to use rail as a form of public transport. That is one reason why I am campaigning to restore the direct train between Eastbourne and London Bridge that was discontinued during the pandemic. Will the Minister back my campaign, with a view to helping to improve our roads and improve economic growth for Eastbourne too?

[Lilian Greenwood]

That was a creative way of asking about railways in a question about roads. This Government are committed to improving all forms of transport, so that people have a real choice about the best mode to use for their journey. We are keen for people to have the choice of sustainable transport modes, including rail, walking and cycling, as well as driving and travelling on buses. As the hon. Member will see, the Government are investing huge amounts to support our rail industry, just as we are doing to support the state of our roads.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

10. How much funding she plans to provide to increase the frequency of trains from stations in Sutton and Cheam constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

11. What steps she is taking to reduce the backlog for driving tests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I know that many learners are still struggling to book a driving test. We are working hard to reduce driving test wait times and help more people get on the road. In April, the Secretary of State announced further measures, including doubling examiner training capacity and offering overtime pay incentives. In May, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency launched a consultation on improving car driving test booking rules, which currently has over 30,000 responses. Over 630,000 learners now have a test booked. That number will rise as the DVSA increases test availability.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The post-covid backlog in driving tests was trending down under the last Government. At the time of the general election, it had got to 521,000, which was still too high, but it was coming down. Since this Government took over, the number has rocketed up to 600,000, a new record high, meaning that constituents like Oliver, in my Spelthorne constituency, have had to wait six months for a driving test. The increasing delays in driving tests are putting a handbrake on growth and productivity, so whatever the Government are doing, can they do more of it and faster please?

[Lilian Greenwood]

We recognise that demand for driving tests has grown not just because of a covid backlog, but due to a long-term change in behaviour and demand for driving tests. I am pleased to report that the changes we have introduced, particularly on overtime pay incentives, are making a difference. The DVSA expects to deliver thousands of additional tests this month and is working to increase test availability further over the coming year, so that constituents like the hon. Gentleman’s can obtain a test as soon as possible. I understand how important this is, particularly to young people, and we do not want to curtail their life chances.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T2. In a recent survey I conducted in Mansfield, local and minor roads were among the worst affected by poor maintenance. The A60 in Warsop, Chesterfield Road in Mansfield and Old Mill Lane in Forest Town were highlighted as particular problems. What is the Department doing to improve local roads in my constituency and in Nottinghamshire as a whole?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his local constituents. We have provided an extra £500 million for councils this year to end the pothole plague, and the East Midlands combined county authority will receive almost £20 million extra, taking the total to £76 million. For Nottinghamshire to unlock its full uplift, it needs to show that it is following best practice and publish a report on its highways maintenance activities by the end of this month.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

T3.  After years of broken promises by the Conservatives, this Government have finally confirmed this week that the Camelford bypass project will not go ahead. Having anticipated that for some time, I have already started working with local stakeholders on a plan B. Will the Roads Minister meet me to discuss an alternative way forward?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am aware that at least the certainty of a decision was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate that. The Department is happy to discuss any alternative plans with him and with Cornwall council. We have met before, and I am very happy to meet him again.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

T6.   First Bus is axing the critical 65 bus, which runs through Dalmarnock, Bridgeton and the Gorbals in my seat and into the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks). Without the 65, Dorothy, who is in her 90s, will not be able to visit family and friends. That is a loss for everyone, because Dorothy is brilliant company. Does the Minister agree that bus operators must take into account the needs of people such as Dorothy before axing critical bus services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

The Dawlish sea wall collapsed in 2014, causing a devastating loss to the south-west’s economy of about £1.2 billion. It was not the break in the sea wall that closed the railway for eight weeks; it was the collapse of the cliffs. Will the Minister prioritise the project to secure those cliffs, which is yet to be carried out, or will she meet me? Perhaps she could even visit Dawlish to see how important this fix is going to be.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I know how important that rail line is to the people of the south-west, including the hon. Member’s constituents. We are working to determine which rail enhancement projects will be taken forward following the Chancellor’s spending review statement on 11 June. More information will be made available shortly, and I am sure that my colleague, the Rail Minister, will write to the hon. Member in due course.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), last week the Casey review showed us yet again that private hire vehicles are a dangerous place for many children and young people. Nationally in 2023, 96% of taxi licences were issued in one local authority—Wolverhampton, one of my neighbouring local authorities—yet only 10% of the applicants lived there. What action is the Minister going to take to ensure local taxi licensing is done locally and to high standards?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The Minister may be aware that the outline business case for improvements to the A31 at Hickley’s Corner in Farnham will come before her in a couple of months’ time. While I understand that she cannot make any promises now, will she at least agree to look kindly on that application and meet me to discuss it?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I look forward to seeing that business case when it comes forward, and I will of course be happy to discuss it with the hon. Member at the appropriate time.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

My constituent Paul cycles more than 1,000 km a month all across the country, but he tells me that Cheshire’s roads are among the worst. Poor roads are dangerous for all road users, so does the Minister agree that national guidance for pothole repair policy must properly reflect the needs of cyclists alongside motorists? We must urgently improve road conditions for everyone.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I absolutely agree that the poor state of the roads that has been left to us after 14 years of under-investment poses a serious risk to cyclists. That is precisely why we have given that extra £500 million to councils across England, and it is precisely why we are holding them to account and asking them to follow good practice in roads maintenance.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State knows, I welcome the £445 million being invested in Welsh rail over the next five years, but will she help me to secure a meeting with the Rail Minister, so that we can discuss the need to start off building the Burns stations with the Magor and Undy station in Monmouthshire?

Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this debate—her first Adjournment debate—and thank her for raising the vital issue of speed cameras and the criteria for their installation. It is really good to have the opportunity to discuss an issue that she has raised with me a number of times in questions and correspondence over the past year.

I begin by making it clear that improving road safety is one of my Department’s highest priorities, and measures to address speeding will be considered for inclusion in the forthcoming road safety strategy. As the hon. Member has said, there were 1,624 fatalities in reported road collisions in Great Britain in 2023. Of those, 888 occurred in collisions in which, in the opinion of the attending police officer, speed was a factor for at least one vehicle. That represents 58% of all fatalities in collisions for which the police recorded at least one collision factor. The police often refer to the “fatal four”, and I am afraid that excessive speed remains the major contributor to road traffic collisions.

[Alex Ballinger]

One issue that we have across Dudley is street racing. We often have groups of young men coming from Birmingham, racing up and down the A456 and through the back streets of Halesowen, terrifying some of my residents. Unfortunately, despite the excellent work of Operation Hercules and the police, we have not really been able to crack down on that. Does the Minister agree that street racing hotspots are areas where we should consider putting average speed cameras?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am sure that everyone in the House feels concern about the kind of antisocial driving occurring in his constituency. It is absolutely right that local partners—the local authority and the police—should look at how best to tackle that kind of behaviour, which is undoubtedly a blight on his local community and is obviously very concerning to hear about.

All available research shows a link between excessive speed and the risk of collisions, so I am really grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for raising this issue, and indeed to other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Fatalities and injuries from road collisions are simply unacceptable, and this Government will work hard to prevent those tragedies for all road users.

The hon. Member talked about action to reduce speed, including lower speed limits, and action to enforce speed limits, such as speed cameras. My Department’s guidance on the use of speed cameras and red light cameras for traffic enforcement is not mandatory—it is guidance—and authorities are invited to set their own deployment criteria if they wish. The guidance encourages authorities to develop their own deployment criteria, so that they can demonstrate a local systematic approach to site selection.

I recognise that at a time when local authorities face a great many calls on their resources, it is important that they focus those resources where they will have the most impact. Unfortunately, I imagine that will sometimes mean local authorities deciding that they need to focus on those places where there have been KSIs—where people have been killed or seriously injured. However, I encourage local authorities to consider both how they can deal with places where there have been KSIs and how they can take a more proactive approach.

[Tom Gordon]

In North Yorkshire, we do not have any average or fixed speed cameras. We have a number of temporary mobile speed vans, but they do not act as a sufficient deterrent because they move around—that is obviously the purpose and nature of them. Instead, we have seen lots of community speed watch groups set up. Does the Minister agree with me on the importance of those community groups, who work so hard to highlight the dangers of speeding in rural communities like mine?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of community speed watch groups. I will come on to that topic a little later.

The guidance on the use of speed cameras and red light cameras should be used alongside setting local speed limits. These are tools to support our primary objective, which is reducing the number of collisions and casualties and, indeed, reducing their severity. I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that speed cameras work. In the right place, speed cameras can help manage safety risks by encouraging drivers to conform to the speed limit. However, they are not the only or always the best way to improve road safety. Speed limits should be evidence-led, and general compliance needs to be achievable without an excessive reliance on enforcement. Frankly, we cannot have a speed camera everywhere, and we cannot have a police officer everywhere.

As the hon. Member knows, the enforcement of road traffic law and the deployment of available police resources, including on mobile cameras, is the responsibility of individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners, taking into account specific local problems and the demands that they face. Local government is the main delivery body for road safety. Under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, local authorities have a statutory duty to take steps to reduce and prevent collisions, and they have the power to set speed limits on their roads. It is right that they focus on the areas of highest risk, which may be where tragic collisions have occurred, but there is nothing to stop them from implementing road safety measures elsewhere. Indeed, I would agree that a more proactive, preventive approach is entirely sensible. It is clearly incredibly valuable to identify places where there is a higher risk and evidence of near misses.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks. She says that it seems entirely sensible to move to a proactive approach; does she have plans to update the guidance in a way that moves towards that approach, so as to be clear with local authorities?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Certainly I welcome the opportunity for us to debate this issue today. I will reflect on the contributions that Members have made, and on the suggestions that the hon. Member has put forward. Local authorities already have the power to take that approach, and I want to be clear about that. It is a myth to say that they cannot act until there have been a number of fatalities; they already can. Local authorities also have a range of traffic management measures available to help improve safety in their areas. In addition to the ability to set local speed limits, they can also introduce traffic calming measures, speed-activated warning signs and average speed cameras.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister consider the fact that if someone wants to install a 20 mph limit in our towns and cities—such as Wells or Cheddar, which are plagued by speed trouble—the police advice is that drivers have to already be close to 20 mph for them to accept the need for a 20 mph limit? That strikes me as utterly bonkers. It stifles any further discussion and the implementation of 20 mph limits, even near schools.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, and I will say a little more on that in a moment. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have the local knowledge of their roads. Any authority that has the support of the local community for installing such schemes has my Department’s full backing. I welcome the support expressed by Members today, and agree that sharing good practice can be helpful.

The Department gave councils updated guidance on setting 20 mph speed limits, reminding them to reserve them for sensible and appropriate areas only, such as outside schools, and that safety and local support should be at the heart of the decision. That in itself impacts compliance, as drivers are more likely to observe the speed limit when they understand why it is there. I emphasise that we support 20 mph limits in the right places. As well as influencing safety, they can influence quality of life, the environment and the local economy, but 20 mph zones and limits are best considered on a road-by-road basis. That ensures local consent, unlike blanket measures.

We are therefore not in favour of 20 mph limits being set indiscriminately on all roads, without due regard for the safety case and for local support; but when there is clear evidence, and when people support them, I think it entirely right for local authorities to pursue them, if they wish to. They will want to make decisions about local implementation in consultation with local communities and, of course, with the local police; as I have said, they know their roads best, and I cannot and should not dictate to them from Westminster.

While local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the speed limits on roads under their care, provided that they take account of the relevant legislation and guidance, they are rightly accountable to local people for those decisions. I understand how frustrating it is for communities who feel that their concerns are not being listened to and acted on. However, the Members who have spoken today have made a powerful case for lower speed limits, and we know that even the most experienced and careful drivers can make mistakes, and that collisions at higher speeds are much more likely to have tragic outcomes.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I fully appreciate how important it is for local communities to have the most influence over road safety measures in their area, but can my hon. Friend expand on the forthcoming road safety strategy? Can she tell us whether there will be an even clearer drive from central Government towards, perhaps, a “vision zero” approach, and towards giving local communities even more impetus to reduce speeding? It is, in my view, and probably that of many other Members, selfish and reckless of people to exceed a speed limit that they are required by law to abide by.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I know that my hon. Friend has been a great champion for improvements in road safety. The Department will consider what more we can do to support local authorities and hon. Members in this regard, and we stand ready to work with everyone who is trying to improve road safety locally. As my hon. Friend knows, and as the House knows, we are developing our road safety strategy, and I look forward to saying more about that in the months ahead. As the Secretary of State has said, we are hoping and aiming to publish it by the end of the year.

The police-run Community Speedwatch schemes enable local volunteers to work with the police and other agencies to address identified road policing issues in their localities. I know how important they can be to local communities, and I thank all those who are volunteering in this way. Drivers who are detected speeding are sent letters, and the police may take further action if a driver is detected multiple times. Decisions on when to adopt Community Speedwatch schemes are operational matters for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, in conjunction with local policing plans, but as I have said, the schemes can play a very important role.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the number of people killed and injured on our roads. The Department is developing our road safety strategy, and I look forward to the opportunity to set out more details in due course. I welcome today’s debate and all the contributions from Members on road safety, both today and on other occasions. I am pleased that there is so much determination in the House to tackle the unacceptable loss of life and unacceptable injuries that result from road traffic collisions, and I look forward to working with Members further on the issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing the debate. I know how committed she has been to raising the importance of transport infrastructure in her constituency, frankly at every opportunity. Today, she has set out very clearly the challenges for her constituents and the communities that she represents. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government’s ambitions.

Reliable transport infrastructure is vital to everyone’s daily life, whether it is connecting communities, family and friends, providing access to jobs and training, or moving goods. It can boost productivity by helping firms to cluster and innovate, unlocking land for housing and development, and making places more attractive to live, work and invest in. The Government recognise the challenges facing communities such as Cramlington and Killingworth, and today I will outline what we are doing to maintain and renew our infrastructure, protect vital public transport services and invest in the long-term future of our transport system.

We recognise the long-standing aspirations of local leaders, and by devolving power and decision making from Whitehall we are ensuring that local decisions are taken at the right level. I commend Mayor Kim McGuinness on her ambitions and vision for the north-east. The Government are backing those ambitions with real support, as my hon. Friend will be aware. At last week’s spending review, we outlined our commitment to the protection of vital public transport services and the maintenance of our road and rail networks. That reflects the Government’s recognition of the essential role that transport plays in driving economic growth, regional development and public service delivery.

Through the transport for city region settlements, eligible mayoral combined authorities will receive dedicated funding to deliver key local projects. The North East combined authority, NECA, will receive £1.8 billion from the TCR settlement between 2027 and 2032. That builds on the £573 million already provided from the first round of city region sustainable transport settlements.

[Ian Lavery]

I enjoyed the company of my hon. Friend the Minister in Cowpen Road in Blyth not too many months ago. Does she share my frustration, amazement and disbelief in Northumberland county council for criticising this Government for investment in transport infrastructure, when the A1 dualling has been announced more times than I can remember, and the Blyth relief road is waiting for investment. The Conservatives did absolutely nothing in 14 years; after every spending review, they would announce that they would pay for this and that, but it never happened. Yet, after mere months, Northumberland county council are criticising every decision that this Government have made. This Government will make a real difference to the transport infrastructure in Northumberland.

[Lilian Greenwood]

As my hon. Friend says, the last Government were good at making announcements, and very poor at putting real money behind those announcements. We are determined to do something very different. This unprecedented long-term funding certainty will enable enhancements and renewal of local transport networks, based on local priorities, helping to drive growth and productivity, support the delivery of new homes and decarbonise local transport networks.

I am aware of the specific concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth about the road infrastructure in her constituency, particularly the Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts, as well as the challenges that need to be addressed around congestion and the delays impacting residents and businesses. As part of last week’s spending review, the Government announced £24 billion of capital funding between 2026 and 2030 to maintain and improve motorways and local roads across the country. That funding will allow National Highways and local authorities to deliver faster, safer and more reliable journeys. Already this year, the north-east has been provided with an extra £22 million for local roads maintenance. The opportunities for new enhancements to the strategic road network will be considered in due course, as part of the future road investment strategy, which will start from 1 April next year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for North Northumberland (David Smith) and Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for highlighting the needs and challenges of their communities. Now that the spending review has been completed, we will take decisions on how best to spend that money on both strategic and local roads.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth asked some specific questions, which I will try to go through. As she rightly noted, on 11 June, alongside the spending review, the findings of the Green Book review were published. They sought to understand whether it is being used in a way that ensures a fair, objective and transparent appraisal of proposals across the country. As a Department, we will work with Treasury analysts to develop and embed any changes to the Green Book.

A new place-based business case taskforce will be established to define objectives for a particular place and bring together the relevant interventions that are needed to achieve objectives across different policy areas. This is about making sure that places like the north-east get their fair share of transport investment. The taskforce will also feature participants from local and regional government, as well as other Government Departments, and will identify appropriate test cases for place-based business cases, and what that means for existing proposals in due course. I note that my hon. Friend got her bid in early.

The deeper devolution deal and the north-east growth plan will allow the combined authority to enter into agreements with Government, other local authorities and National Highways to determine shared priorities for the strategic and key road networks. This closer working relationship, and strategies such as the north-east growth plan, will be an important consideration in the prioritisation of enhancements to the strategic road network in the north-east.

On local plans and housing targets, our Department has a close working relationship with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government on a range of transport matters to support our ambitious goals for housing. The successful implementation of local plans is a key part of ensuring development in the right places. Local authorities are encouraged to develop plans in sustainable locations that are not wholly reliant on significant investment in the strategic road network. I recognise that in some cases that is hard to avoid, and it is essential that issues such as constraints on growth form part of the assessment of individual schemes, as my hon. Friend said, and wider investment planning for the network.

On the spending review, schemes that are in the RIS pipeline, such as the A19 north of Newcastle scheme, are being considered for possible delivery beyond 2030. The Department expects to reconfirm those schemes that remain in the pipeline, and they will continue to be developed during the next period, when RIS3 is published early next year. I heard the points that my hon. Friend made about how the pressures on the network may have changed in recent times.

I will just touch on the point about local councillors. As with all schemes in the RIS pipeline, the proposals are funded for their development stages only, and there has been no commitment and no funding for their full delivery at any stage. To say otherwise is simply untrue.

In addition to considerations on the strategic road network, it is vital that we improve public transport connectivity. We are driving forward wider regional transport reforms, including rail upgrades and the resources and powers to deliver better buses as we look to build a modern, integrated public transport system. My hon. Friend highlighted the difference that investment in local rail is already making in her region. This year, we are providing NECA with £24 million to support and improve bus services by putting power over local bus services back into the hands of local leaders. That will help to ensure we meet the needs of the communities that rely on them, while protecting socially and economically necessary services. I understand that Mayor McGuinness is exploring franchising options that, if taken forward, would ensure that local bus networks across the north-east can be designed to work better for the people who rely on those services.

We have also just confirmed that from next year, we will be providing £900 million a year to maintain and improve bus services across the country, ensuring that they continue to be affordable and accessible to all. As part of the Government’s clean energy mission, we are also committed to decarbonising transport. The spending review confirmed £1.8 billion to support the uptake of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, including the provision of charging infrastructure along the strategic road network in England.

Active travel also plays a crucial role in the mission, and last week we were pleased to announce a further £616 million nationally to build and maintain walking and cycling infrastructure, and the north-east is already benefiting from more than £7 million this year to support the development of active travel facilities.

Our communities deserve transport infrastructure that supports growth, enhances mobility and ensures sustainability. The Government will shortly publish our 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will set out a long-term plan for how infrastructure projects are planned and delivered. Today’s contributions will help us as we make decisions in the weeks, months and years ahead. We remain dedicated to delivering improvements that will make a real difference to people’s lives, including in the constituencies of my hon. Friends in the north-east. Through investment, innovation and engagement with local leaders, we will continue to transform transport infrastructure for the better. I thank all my hon. Friends for the cases they have made, making sure that I understand the needs and challenges faced by communities in their area. I look forward to working with them as we go forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Dartford Crossing Charges

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

The Dartford crossing is the only fixed road crossing of the river Thames east of London, and one of the most important links in the strategic road network.

To manage demand and protect the crossing’s role as a vital component of the nation’s economic infrastructure, a user charge has been collected at the crossing since 2003. In 2014, the tollbooths were removed to help make journeys smoother, and the charge was increased to help manage increased demand. That was the last time that charges were increased for all vehicles.

In the 11 years since, demand at the crossing has grown by 7.5%, with the crossing now used by, on average, over 150,000 vehicles every day, and up to 180,000 vehicles on the busiest days. These traffic levels are well in excess of the crossing’s design capacity, causing delays for drivers using the crossing, congestion and journey disruption for drivers on the M25, and a range of knock-on impacts for local communities.

Current charging levels are no longer sufficient to achieve their stated aim of managing demand so that the crossing works well for users and local people. The need to increase the charges in order to manage traffic highlights the need for the additional capacity that the lower Thames crossing, for which the Government confirmed new funding yesterday, will provide.

To secure the effective operation of the crossing, I have therefore decided to increase the charges for all vehicle types that currently pay to use the crossing from 1 September 2025. The new tariff is given below.

Mass Transit: West Yorkshire

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this timely debate and on his passionate words in support of his city and region.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government’s support for West Yorkshire’s ambitions and why we are committed to working hand in hand with local leaders to deliver transformational change. West Yorkshire is a region with enormous potential. Home to 2.4 million people and a £67 billion economy, it contains some of the fastest growing towns and cities in the country. However, it also faces significant socioeconomic challenges. Productivity has lagged behind the national average for 15 years. Too many people still live in areas of persistent deprivation, and poor connectivity is holding back housing, regeneration and access to opportunities. Around one in five people in West Yorkshire live in the 10% most deprived neighbourhoods nationally.

Improving transport connectivity is key to unlocking growth across West Yorkshire. Better links between Leeds and Bradford—just 9 miles apart—will help to reduce reliance on car travel, which currently accounts for 74% of journeys.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am very conscious of time, and I want to make a bit more progress.

Leeds remains the largest city in western Europe without a mass transit system. For a city of its scale, potential and ambition, that is unsustainable. That is why Government intervention is vital and why we are already acting. We recognise the long-standing aspirations of local leaders and communities to build a modern, integrated mass transit network. Those ambitions, as we have heard, stretch back years, but setbacks have not weakened the determination, and I commend Mayor Tracy Brabin and the West Yorkshire combined authority for their persistence and vision.

The Government have backed the ambitions with real support and real money: £200 million has already been provided in development funding, to enable the combined authority to progress its plans. That includes a £160 million allocation from the first city region sustainable transport settlement. Now, I am pleased to confirm that the support is growing under the new funding settlement announced last week. As a Government, we have made a £15.6 billion commitment to improving local transport across the north and the midlands, to be delivered through transport for city regions settlements. Between 2027 and 2032, West Yorkshire will receive an impressive £2.1 billion—a strong vote of confidence in the region’s plans.

It is right that prioritising use of the funding will be for West Yorkshire to decide on, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) will be making the case for improved transport connectivity, including to Leeds Bradford airport. We are bringing £30 million of transport for city regions funding forward into the next two financial years, to support early preparation and delivery of schemes. Most importantly, the combined authority has confirmed that this funding will enable the delivery of phase 1 of West Yorkshire mass transit, connecting Bradford and Leeds city centres, to begin. Mayor Tracy Brabin is keen to have spades in the ground from 2028. Of course, the period beyond 2032 is for a future spending review. Beyond mass transit, TCR funding will also support a new bus station in Wakefield to replace the existing facility, and a modern bus station replacement for Bradford interchange, expanding services and improving reliability across the region.

Our support extends beyond finance. With West Yorkshire combined authority, we have put in place a new model for working together. It features a joint sponsor board and close collaboration between Government officials and the combined authority. We are working side by side to progress at pace, align with national priorities and support delivery, so hopefully there will not be the kinds of hold-up that we have seen in the past.

The prize and the benefits of mass transit to West Yorkshire are clear. It will improve local transport for over 675,000 people, many of whom are from communities currently disconnected from opportunity. It will reduce congestion, cut carbon emissions and enable access to jobs, education and services, especially for those who do not have a car. It will support transformational regeneration, housing and growth, particularly in areas such as central Bradford that have previously been overlooked for major investment.

The scheme complements wider regional transport reforms, including rail upgrades and bus franchising. We welcome the introduction of the Weaver network, which will mean a single brand across the transport network in West Yorkshire and will make transport easier and more accessible for passengers. Together, those efforts will build a modern, integrated public transport system worthy of this growing city region, which is central to the growth ambitions of the Government and the country.

Looking ahead, we will continue close collaboration with the combined authority to move from planning to delivery. Key milestones include submission of the strategic outline business case for approval in 2026, when many of the questions that have been posed in the debate will be explored and fulfilled; route consultations; and the development of a growth prospectus to maximise the economic benefits of mass transit in West Yorkshire. That will include an employment and skills action plan to train and recruit the skilled workers needed to deliver the programme. Our shared ambition is to see spades in the ground in 2028, and I assure Members that the Department is fully committed to enabling that ambitious timeline.

The Government back West Yorkshire’s mass transit ambitions because better transport means better lives, safer journeys, cleaner air, more opportunities and stronger communities. I once again congratulate my hon. Friends on their support and advocacy for this absolutely vital investment. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) nodding along with that. The West Yorkshire region has huge potential, and this Government will give it our backing into the future.

Automated Vehicles Act 2024: Implementation

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I wish to provide the House with an update on steps the Government are taking to implement the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 and kick-start economic growth, a top priority in the Government’s plan for change. The AV Act delivers one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind anywhere in the world, with safety at its core, which will give potential operators, tech developers and manufacturers the confidence to invest in the UK. It sets out clear legal responsibilities so businesses know where they stand, establishes a safety framework and creates the necessary regulatory powers. The AV Act implementation programme has been designed to maximise innovation, enabling investors and operators to develop and deploy the creative mobility solutions that can drive growth. This comes as part of a Government-wide programme of work using artificial intelligence to deliver the plan for change, with AVs being a clear example of how AI will bring tangible benefits to the public.

Automated passenger services

Today I can announce that the Government will accelerate the introduction of automated passenger services regulations, subject to the outcome of a consultation later this summer. This will provide businesses with the regulatory confidence to invest in testing and deploying these innovative services on our streets, reinforcing the UK’s position among the world leaders in tech deployment. It will help facilitate commercial pilots of services with paying passengers and no safety driver to be deployed from spring 2026.

The APS permitting regime was created to address the complexities of applying current taxi, private hire vehicle and public service vehicle legislation to passenger services that would operate without a driver.

Protecting marketing terms for AVs

Today, I launched a consultation, and an accompanying draft statutory instrument, on protecting marketing terms for AVs; the consultation will run for 12 weeks. The AV Act sets out an authorisation process to determine whether a vehicle can safely drive itself without being controlled or monitored by a human. We want to support the innovators and businesses that are building genuinely groundbreaking tech by protecting certain terms, so that they can only be used to describe authorised self-driving vehicles, boosting investor confidence, consumer trust and driver certainty.



This consultation aims to identify the words, expressions, symbols or marks that should be used to describe only authorised AVs. The Government expect to bring forward secondary legislation following careful consideration of consultation responses. Our aim is for these regulations to come into effect in early 2026; they will be subject to the negative procedure.

Statement of safety principles for AVs

Today, I have published a call for evidence on the statement of safety principles, which will consider the safety outcomes that should be sought by self-driving vehicles; the call for evidence will also run for 12 weeks. Public confidence in the safety of these vehicles will be essential to take advantage of the huge economic opportunities they will present. The Department for Transport’s monitoring and annual reporting will consider performance against these principles. The AV Act specifies that the safety principles must be framed with a view to ensuring that authorised AVs achieve a safety level equal to or higher than careful and competent human drivers, and that road safety in Great Britain will improve due to the presence of these vehicles.

I intend to publish a further consultation on the statutory principles in the coming months that will be informed by stakeholder feedback from this call for evidence. The final statutory guidance will be laid in Parliament and will be subject to parliamentary approval.

Transport AI action plan

The announcements made today are a cornerstone of the Department’s new transport AI action plan. This publication is a 23-point plan that sets out how the Government are using AI to improve transport for everyone in the UK. The plan builds upon the transport data strategy and the AI opportunities action plan to align the transport sector with the broader AI agenda, drive economic growth and deliver on the plan for change.

A copy of these publications and associated annexes will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS692]

A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing today’s debate on the A66 northern trans-Pennine project, and I thank him for his powerful arguments. It has been some time since I travelled on the A66, which tells me that it is time for a trip to the Lake district sometime soon—although I will be rather wary now about how much time to allow for that journey.

My hon. Friend has been an incredibly determined campaigner for this project, which runs through part of his constituency. As he acknowledged, we have already met to discuss the importance of the project to the region, and indeed its wider national significance. He has written to me to reiterate its value to business users, including freight, and highlighted the need to address safety concerns, which I take very seriously, as does the Secretary of State.

Although the Chamber is rather empty this evening, I am pleased to take the opportunity to thank other right hon. and hon. Members with constituencies along the route, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for their correspondence and for our meetings to discuss their aspirations for the A66. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway and others that they have convinced Ministers of the overwhelming local support for this important project.

Rebuilding Britain means modernising our transport infrastructure. This Government will maintain and renew our road network to ensure that it serves all users, remains safe and tackles congestion. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, the financial inheritance that this Government received is extremely challenging. Communities up and down the country have been given hope for new transport infrastructure with no plans and no funds to deliver them. We will not repeat that mistake.

This Government will rebuild our economic foundations while restoring transparency and public trust. That is why on 30 July 2024 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a multi-year spending review. But let me be absolutely clear: the A66 project is being considered as part of the second phase, which will conclude on 11 June. A decision on the A66 cannot be taken separately from that process, and whatever has been claimed by other local politicians, I can assure my hon. Friend that the project has not been shelved.

The spending review will support the development of our new long-term strategy for transport, developing a modern and integrated network with people at its heart. Within the north of England, the A66 link between the M6 at Penrith and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner is a key artery in our strategic road network, providing a vital east-west connection across the Pennines. It links ports on the east coast of England with north-west England, southern Scotland and ferry links to Northern Ireland. The nearest alternative east-west motorway is the M62, which is much further south, and, looking northwards, the M8 in Scotland. Today the A66 between the M6 and the A1(M) is approximately 50 miles long and a mixture of single and dual carriageways. Approximately half of the route has already been dualled, leaving six sections of single carriageway to be upgraded.

National Highways notes that collision rates on the single carriageway sections tend to be higher than on the dualled sections and, tragically, a number of lives have been lost on the route in recent years. More than 22% of the vehicles on the route are goods vehicles, which is approximately twice the average proportion of such vehicles on the strategic road network as a whole. As my hon. Friend knows, the A66 is a vital link for people living along the route, enabling them to reach shops, services and employment in nearby towns. For many living along the route, there is no alternative rail connection.

Upgrading the trans-Pennine A66 would enable traffic to flow more quickly. The scheme would make the A66 a more viable option for freight operators as they move goods across the country, aiding economic growth. As my hon. Friend noted, the economic case for the scheme could be improved if higher values for the freight value of time were included in the transport analysis guidance. We aim to do that in the future, but I am pleased to be able to assure him that the economic assessment of this project for spending review deliberations included a sensitivity test to show the impacts of using higher values for freight value of time. Dualling the remaining sections would make the route more resilient when incidents occur, as most collisions would be confined to one carriageway, allowing traffic to pass on the other—although we would of course prefer that there were no collisions at all.

My final point on the A66 northern trans-Pennine project is that National Highways estimates that the scheme could support the building of thousands of houses and the creation of thousands of jobs as part of growth deals and local plans along the route. It could also support Carlisle’s planned St Cuthbert’s garden village—an ambitious proposal to provide 10,000 new homes and create economic opportunities.

Until the conclusion of the spending review, the interim settlement is the framework for the £4.8 billion investment for National Highways for the current financial year. The investment includes more than £3 billion for capital enhancements, including the A66 northern trans-Pennine scheme. This is a one-year settlement while we prepare to return to the road investment strategy settlements in a sustainable way.

The A66 northern trans-Pennine project is being considered alongside other future road projects as part of the spending review. Until that concludes, the Department is not in a position to make a judgment on individual schemes, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of this mission-driven Government. I am determined to ensure that we build the transport infrastructure needed to drive economic growth and opportunity in every part of the country, including the rural north.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing this debate, and thank him for the important contribution he has made. I hope that he is reassured that the Department fully appreciates the proposal’s importance to his constituents, to people in other constituencies along the route and to the wider country, and that the scheme is being considered carefully. I thank him again for this debate.

Question put and agreed to.