Transport

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Written Corrections

[Jim Shannon]

First of all, I thank the Minister for those suggestions and for the direct help from Government. I know that this is not in the Minister’s remit, but I ask her to ringfence the moneys being sent to Northern Ireland in Barnett consequentials, because if they are ringfenced, they go to where they should be.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I note the hon. Member’s question, and I understand that support is provided to mountain rescue services within Northern Ireland, but that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 167WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood):

[Lilian Greenwood]

I note the hon. Member’s question, and I understand that support is provided to voluntary search and rescue services within Northern Ireland, but that is a matter for the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

Gambling Advertising

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to respond to this debate, standing in for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on securing this debate and setting out their concerns so clearly and thoughtfully. We have had a genuine debate, with an exchange of different viewpoints on this important issue.

I recognise that gambling advertising is a key area of focus for the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform and many other Members of this House, who have met the Gambling Minister to discuss the issue. The Government thank all Members for their ongoing work in this area, as their contributions are vital for informing the development of Government policy. I note that the APPG this week published a report setting out its case for change, and I know that the Gambling Minister will want to consider that work carefully. I also note the passionate call from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West for gambling to be considered from a public health perspective.

This Government are committed to supporting a gambling industry that is modern, responsible and sustainable. However, the industry must also demonstrate that it can operate without exacerbating harm among the most vulnerable. Getting that balance right is crucial. We are focused on further enhancing protections for those at risk of harm, but we also want to enable the sector to bring value through providing jobs, boosting the economy and providing a leisure activity for adults to enjoy.

That is why, since the election, we have been focused on supporting the licensed sector to further enhance protections for the young and vulnerable. This has included raising standards in a number of areas to ensure that gambling advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. However, we also recognise that, as a legitimate industry that makes a significant contribution to the economy, the gambling industry should also be able to advertise the services that it offers. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) set out that case in his contribution.

Let me start by explaining the robust rules in place to regulate gambling advertising. All gambling operators in the UK must comply with advertising codes, which are enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority, independently of Government. These advertising codes apply across all platforms, including broadcast, online and social media. When the ASA deems that the codes have been breached, the Gambling Commission has the power to take enforcement action.

These mandatory advertising codes are further supplemented by the voluntary industry code for socially responsible advertising, which has been strengthened in recent years. This code includes a number of measures such as the whistle-to-whistle ban, which prohibits gambling advertising during the pre-watershed televised broadcast of live sports events. I note the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen has raised about its effectiveness, and I also note the statistics shared by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French).

In the past two years, the Gambling Commission has introduced a range of new controls to regulate gambling advertising. These new measures further raise standards to better protect vulnerable people from harmful gambling practices. From 1 May 2025, operators have been required to provide customers with options to opt-in to the specific types of marketing they wish to receive. This choice gives customers greater control in order to lessen the risk of harm.

From January this year, the Gambling Commission has also banned operators from bundling different gambling products—such as betting and slots—into single incentives. This is because mixed promotional offers were often confusing and led customers to engage in higher-risk gambling behaviours. This measure boosts fairness and openness to ensure advertising does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling.

I am aware that a number of Members have focused specifically on advertising standards within sports, and we know how important that issue is. Since the election, we have seen a number of developments in the regulation of gambling marketing and advertising within sports. These include gambling sponsorship codes of conduct within all major sports, and the landmark introduction of the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from the start of the 2026-27 season. These changes reduce the prominence of gambling advertising within mainstream football matches, acknowledging that the connection between sport and gambling must be managed with care. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these measures over time.

The Government are also conscious of the need to be vigilant and responsive to the fast-evolving digital landscape. I want to address directly the concerns raised about social media, which are likely front of mind for many Members, particularly given its potential impact on children and young people. I want to be clear that gambling advertising on social media must adhere to the same standards set for other mediums. This means that advertising rules apply in full to paid social media adverts, to operators’ own social media content, to content marketing and to affiliate marketing carried out on their behalf. However, they do not apply to editorial content, which is not deemed to be selling a product or service.

Advertising codes also require operators to ensure that targeting is used responsibly, using tools available on platforms to exclude under-18s and other vulnerable groups from exposure wherever possible. Where operators fall short of these standards, the ASA can take action or refer to the Gambling Commission for possible enforcement action. We continue to work across Government, with platforms and with industry to measure the effectiveness of these rules.

Last year, the ASA significantly strengthened its rules specifically to address the rise of influencer marketing. That includes a change to prohibit any influencers or personalities with social media followings totalling more than 100,000 under-18s across different platforms from advertising gambling. The further strengthening of these rules ensures that children’s exposure to gambling is limited, and that gambling is not marketed to them by aspirational figures as a risk-free pastime or lifestyle choice. This sets higher standards to prevent gambling-related harm.

Nevertheless, I recognise that many Members would like the ASA to go further in its regulation of the sector. I know that the Gambling Minister is meeting the ASA shortly, and I am sure she will raise some of the issues we have discussed today. I am also sure that she will be paying attention to this debate.

We are also very conscious of the need to address the illegal market, and specifically the advertising of illegal gambling in an ever-changing digital landscape, which a number of Members have mentioned. Advertising is one of the primary advantages that licensed operators have to distinguish themselves from operators in the unlicensed sector, particularly when the risks associated with the illegal market are growing. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), made that argument this afternoon.

Although estimates suggest that, historically, the illegal market in the UK has been relatively small, the issue of illegal gambling is of course a concern for this Government. That is why, since the Budget, we have increased efforts to tackle the illegal market. As the websites and advertisements of unlicensed operators can fall outside the scope of the robust rules that we have in place for licensed operators, we are paying particular attention to the issue of illegal gambling advertising through the work of our illegal gambling taskforce.

[Esther McVey]

I ask this question through the Minister, as she obviously does not have the relevant figures because she is not the Gambling Minister. What has been the growth of illegal gambling in the UK in the last few years? As I understand it, there has been a considerable increase in the illegal market.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the right hon. Member for her question, and I will ensure that she receives a written response.

By bringing together industry, platforms, regulators and Government, we will identify ways to clamp down on illegal advertising. We hope to ensure that exposure to illegal gambling advertising is reduced, particularly for vulnerable individuals. The Gambling Commission also continues to engage with online platforms to support the removal of illegal gambling content, which remains an ongoing priority. An additional £26 million has also been allocated to the Gambling Commission across the next three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market.

More recently, we announced our intention to consult on banning sports sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators. By reducing awareness of and exposure to unlicensed operators, such a ban would further protect vulnerable consumers from the unregulated illegal market.

It is important that we do what we can to ensure that all advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. Where there is evidence to support it, the Government would like to see more action being taken to ensure that advertising does not adversely affect the young and vulnerable. In the coming months, we will continue to explore this alongside our wider work on reducing gambling-related harms.

[Mr French]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady is covering for another Minister. However, I made the point in a previous debate that the Government seem to be saying that they are keen to reduce the harm to children from gambling and that they particularly recognise the issue of social media, which I raised in my speech today. Why do they not just back the Conservative party’s proposed ban on social media for under-16s?

[Lilian Greenwood]

As the hon. Member will know, we are currently consulting on measures to protect young people from online harms. He is aware of that work, which is continuing. Of course we want to protect children and young people, but we need to make sure that any measures we bring in will be effective.

We recognise that the regulatory framework must keep pace with technological change. That is why we are working with the Gambling Commission and the ASA to ensure that existing rules are applied to new and emerging channels. We are also clear that all policy and regulatory decisions must be made after considering a wide range of impartial, accurate and up-to-date research about the scale and impact of gambling advertising. We must ensure that our interventions are as impactful as possible.

As Members may be aware, last year we introduced the landmark statutory gambling levy, which has raised just under £120 million in its first year. This funding will be ringfenced solely for independent research into and prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms; 20% of the funding collected will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling-related harms, which includes research on the impacts of gambling advertising. We will therefore consider next steps in the context of this strengthening evidence base.

Where appropriate, our approach will also include comparison with regulation in other jurisdictions. A number of suggestions were made, and examples have been given of the way in which other countries are doing this. However, just because a particular country has moved further than us on advertising restrictions, that does not mean that we should automatically attempt to match it. We should instead be guided by the lessons that such jurisdictions offer, and we should consider what has and has not worked.

An important point that I want to stress is that if we decide to encourage or take further action on advertising, we want to do so in a way that is supported by the evidence available. We should avoid putting in place too many restrictions that could have unintended consequences. Where standards can be raised in a careful way, we should look to do that. The Government remain open-minded about how that can be done, and we will reflect on the points that have been raised today, including in the important contributions from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

I want to address a couple of questions that hon. Members have raised. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup raised concerns about the introduction of financial risk assessments. FRAs of online gambling customers are a widely supported principle and a key consumer protection measure from the White Paper. We are aware of concerns about so-called operator affordability checks; new financial risk checks would replace those and are better for customers and for racing. The Department has worked closely with the Gambling Commission throughout, to ensure that FRAs remain in line with the clear principles in the White Paper. If the Gambling Commission decides to introduce FRAs, it will work with operators on guidance. That guidance will ensure a proportionate approach when deciding how to manage consumers where financial risk is present and the customer continues to spend at a high level.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup also asked a number of specific questions. I will ensure that, where I have not already dealt with them in my speech, he receives a response in writing.

[Mr French]

On financial risk assessments, also known as affordability checks, will the Minister pass on a query relating to the gambling White Paper? My understanding from the previous Gambling Minister and from the then shadow Gambling Minister, who is now the Sports Minister, was that the checks could go ahead only if they were truly frictionless, hence the pilot. Can the Government confirm whether the Gambling Commission has the authority to proceed if that is not the will of Parliament?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I can tell the hon. Member that FRAs have been piloted to ensure that they are genuinely frictionless before implementation and that they are targeted at those showing signs of harm, rather than simply those spending high amounts safely. The FRA pilot found that only 3% of all gambling accounts would be subject to an FRA where their losses were significant enough to warrant it, and 97% of checks would be frictionless without any change to customer experience. Nevertheless, if there is further information that the hon. Member requires, I am sure he will follow that up.

I conclude by reiterating our commitment to working with a wide range of stakeholders, including industry, on this issue. We will continue to do what we can to ensure that gambling advertising, wherever it appears, is socially responsible and does not exacerbate the risks of gambling-related harm. I am grateful for the contributions from all hon. Members today; it has been a genuinely interesting and constructive discussion. The Government look forward to continuing this work in the months ahead.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I call Alex Ballinger to wind up briefly.

Mountain Rescue

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation. I thank hon. Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions and for shining a light on the vital work of volunteer mountain rescue teams. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) who secured this debate and in doing so has provided not only an opportunity to consider the challenges facing mountain rescue, but to recognise and celebrate the extraordinary contribution that those volunteers make to our national resilience. Of course, I acknowledge not only mountain rescue, but also lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and lifeguards for the vital work that they do.

Like the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I very much enjoy the Peak district’s magnificent hills. I thank the Kinder Mountain Rescue Team who keep people safe on those hills, which are such a wonderful attraction for walkers, fell runners, mountain bikers and climbers, but can also change very quickly, particularly at the top of Kinder Scout. When the clouds come down, it can become quite a frightening and disorienting place.

Many hon. Members have raised concerns about potential regulatory changes that may affect the work of mountain rescue, principally, the removal of regulatory exemptions around Care Quality Commission registration. The Care Quality Commission will commence a consultation from 8 May to 12 June, which will provide further opportunities for groups and individuals affected to discuss their concerns. I hope that I can offer some reassurance to hon. Members that that will include a separate stream specifically for mountain rescue, made up of focus groups and wider engagement. That feedback will then inform how the changes will be implemented to avoid such groups being disproportionately impacted, including through new guidance being developed by the CQC.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That sounds like progress in the right direction, but can the Minister address the absolute cost of registration, which we have assessed as being between £10,000 and £20,000 per organisation? How will that be reduced by the Government’s actions?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I understand the concern that the hon. Member and other hon. Members have raised but, as he will appreciate, that falls outside my Department’s remit. However, I will ask my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to respond on that point and on other questions that have been raised. I note the request for a meeting from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and I will ensure that that is drawn to their attention.

Search and rescue in the United Kingdom is, at its heart, a collective national endeavour. It is not delivered by any single organisation or Department acting alone, but by a partnership that brings together Government, emergency services, charities, local responders and, critically, thousands of committed volunteers who stand ready day and night to help people in distress.

I am glad to say that, while I have not had to be rescued from a mountain, I have witnessed a rescue and had the opportunity to enjoy the hills thanks to support, help and guidance from the national mountain rescue centre, which I believe is probably in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). That is a really wonderful place that has some fantastic staff who can guide people through some of the trickier aspects of conquering Tryfan or, indeed, any of the other hills in Eryri.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the many hundreds and thousands of volunteers up and down this country, some of whom I will be meeting again this weekend on Sunday as I join them on a training exercise in Warwickshire. I pay tribute not only to the work they do in the search and rescue, but to the other organisations that they get out for and help. They drove the vehicle for our local Father Christmas, who went round raising money for local charities in Bedworth this year; that is where I joined them for the first time. I thank the Minister for her kind words about the volunteers and the fantastic work that search and rescue does up and down this country.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Indeed, I met Warwickshire search and rescue when Lowland Rescue visited the House of Commons earlier this year or late last year.

The partnership embodied in UK Search and Rescue, or UKSAR, brings together Government Departments, statutory responders and voluntary organisations from across the United Kingdom. Through its strategic board and operators group, it provides a forum that supports alignment between policy, operational delivery and those who respond on the ground. It is an important mechanism for ensuring that different parts of the SAR system—maritime, inland and specialist—can work together effectively while respecting the different responsibilities and remits that apply.

Through UKSAR, a wide range of workstreams are taken forward to support volunteer search and rescue organisations. As has already been acknowledged, they include mountain rescue, lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and others that collectively form the backbone of our national response capability. That work spans interoperability, national operating guidance, medical response, volunteer support and the recognition of SAR organisation. While much of that work is necessarily technical and often unseen, its purpose is simple: to support volunteers to operate safely, professionally and effectively when the public needs them most. UKSAR has provided guidance on insurance for voluntary organisations, which is available on gov.uk. Indemnity requires a much wider discussion across Government, but I will ensure that the question about insurance is addressed by my colleagues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) recognised that responsibility for different aspects of search and rescue sits across Government. Inland search and rescue is not within my Department’s direct policy remit. However, that does not lessen the depth of respect that we have for those who deliver these vital services, nor does it diminish the importance of recognising the practical support that Government can provide where it is appropriate to do so. It is very welcome that the APPG for volunteer rescue services is bringing the issues facing services to our attention. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for search and rescue will respond to my hon. Friend’s kind invitation to join a future meeting.

In that context, it is right to highlight some of the tangible progress that has been made in recent years to support volunteer SAR organisations across the UK through the work of UKSAR. A significant milestone was announced in the recent Budget, as has been acknowledged in the debate: a vehicle excise duty exemption for volunteer search and rescue services. That exemption will apply to mountain rescue, lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and the RNLI. It is the outcome of sustained and collaborative work led by UKSAR and the all-party parliamentary group for SAR volunteers, and it reflects a clear recognition of both the public value of search and rescue volunteers and the practical costs they bear in carrying out their vital work.

Volunteer SAR organisations have also benefited from the VAT rebates introduced in 2015, which remain an important element of financial support. In addition, practical enablers are in place to assist operations on the ground, including access to radio spectrum at reduced or nil cost. That access allows teams to operate compatible communications during incidents, improving safety, co-ordination and effectiveness through the UKSAR band plan. Those measures might not always attract attention—they sound a bit techy—but they matter enormously to those who rely on them in the field.

[Jim Shannon]

First of all, I thank the Minister for those suggestions and for the direct help from Government. I know that this is not in the Minister’s remit, but I ask her to ringfence the moneys being sent to Northern Ireland in Barnett consequentials, because if they are ringfenced, they go to where they should be.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I note the hon. Member’s question, and I understand that support is provided to mountain rescue services within Northern Ireland, but that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

As a number of hon. Members have rightly said, it is important to recognise that resilience is not only about equipment or interoperability; it is about people. Search and rescue can be physically demanding, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned a search and rescue volunteer who sadly lost his life. I certainly offer my condolences to him and his community, who will have been affected by that terrible incident. We know that it can be incredibly physically demanding work, but it can also be emotionally challenging, particularly for volunteers who balance the responsibility alongside family life and employment. That is why mental health and wellbeing principles for SAR volunteers have now been published on gov.uk, setting out expectations and guidance to support those who so often run towards risk on behalf of others.

All that sits alongside the central truth that has been reflected throughout the debate: volunteers lie at the very heart of search and rescue in the UK, and nowhere is that more evident than in mountain rescue. Mountain rescue volunteers operate in some of the most challenging conditions that our country offers: remote terrain, hostile weather, long and often complex incidents, frequently far from the spotlight and always without expectation of reward. They respond at night, in severe weather and in circumstances that demand both technical excellence and personal resilience, and many do so at considerable personal cost, stepping away from families and working lives at a moment’s notice, carrying responsibilities that most of us thankfully never have to shoulder. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who, as has been mentioned already, volunteers with the Patterdale Mountain Rescue Team.

It is right that we acknowledge the pressures that volunteers face. As we have already heard, demand is rising, incidents are increasingly complex and volunteers are balancing that extraordinary service with the realities of modern life, including cost of living pressures and the cumulative emotional impact of repeated exposure to traumatic incidents. Those challenges are real, and they deserve to be recognised honestly and respectfully. Despite those pressures, mountain rescue volunteers and volunteer search and rescue teams more broadly continue to respond with professionalism, humility and compassion. They are not a peripheral part of our emergency response system; they are one of its greatest strengths, and they exemplify public service in its truest sense. I am proud to be here on behalf of the Minister responsible for maritime search and rescue, and I am proud of the volunteers and supporting organisations that form such an important part of the UK search and rescue community. I pay tribute to those who respond on the frontline and to those working behind the scenes to ensure these life-saving services continue to be there whenever they are needed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) asked a number of questions in support of Bolton Mountain Rescue Team, which I know does vital work in his area. I concur that Winter hill and Rivington pike offer many beautiful walking routes. He raised a number of questions about the high cost of insurance, access to rehabilitation services, and medical supplies. Although those issues are not within my Department’s remit, I will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of relevant ministerial colleagues who can write to him on those matters. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) called for greater support for mountain rescue, and I hope I have set out how the Government are responding to the needs of the mountain rescue community.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) represent some of the UK’s highest and most popular mountain regions. They rightly drew attention to the dangers of exploring not only the fells and ridges, but caves and quarries, particularly if doing so without proper equipment and without knowledge and guidance.

Social media does bring our wild places to wider attention, but we know that it is also leading to more people, particularly younger people, putting themselves in danger. That means that we need to look carefully at the channels that we use to ensure that safety guidance and warnings reach the people who need to see them. There is of course experience in Government of doing that—I speak as the Minister with responsibility for road safety, where we are trying to reach young men aged 17 to 24, who are particularly at risk. We are using completely different channels than perhaps we would have used in the past, because we know that we can reach them better through social media or YouTube or other methods. Perhaps the same can be applied to the sorts of warnings we are offering about the hills, mountains and caves.

I conclude by once again thanking hon. Members for raising these important issues. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for securing today’s debate and giving the House the opportunity not only to debate Government support, but to recognise and celebrate the remarkable contribution of our mountain rescue volunteers.

SS Richard Montgomery: Masts

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am responding on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), who is responsible for maritime matters and has led this work within the Department but is not available this evening. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for securing this Adjournment debate and for the constructive way in which he has continued to engage with the Department on this long-standing and sensitive matter.

Frankly, it was fascinating to read the briefing for today and to see the photograph of the masts sticking up from the surface of the Thames. My hon. Friend has consistently articulated, on behalf of his constituents, the importance of safety and the strong local attachment to the SS Richard Montgomery as part of the area’s history. Those views are obviously shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) and his constituents.

It is entirely right that these matters should be discussed in this House, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach. As we have already heard, the wreck has been the source of intrigue, speculation and concern for a number of years, both regionally and nationally. I understand that it is even the subject of a Bollywood drama. I reassure hon. Members that my Department monitors the SS Richard Montgomery 24 hours a day, every day of the year; carries out annual surveys; and publishes reports detailing its condition. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to hear that those reports show no significant worsening of the wreck, and there is no reason to suspect that there will be any increase in risk.

None the less, the SS Richard Montgomery has spent more than 80 years lying on the bed of the Thames estuary, and will corrode over time. That is why the expert advisory group recommended in 2018 that the three masts should be removed to reduce stress on the overall structure and avoid the risk of heavy material collapsing on to the cargo of munitions.

Following that recommendation, a project was initiated to carry out mast removal, with contracts put in place to carry out the works. However, detailed investigations during the planning phase found that the site was more complex than originally thought, due to legacy munitions from both world wars present below the seabed. The project paused in 2023, to allow my Department to consider the best way to manage that risk.

Since 2024, the Government have invested time and resource in understanding as much as possible about the SS Richard Montgomery. That has included the most comprehensive survey programme ever undertaken on this wreck site, a thorough review of all available information, and revised modelling of a worst-case scenario.

The revised modelling, using the latest advanced techniques for simulating an explosion in water, has been peer-reviewed by experts at the Ministry of Defence. That might well be welcome news for any of my colleagues currently enjoying a drink on the House of Commons Terrace, because I reassure my hon. Friends that this latest modelling shows that even in the absolute worst-case scenario—considered highly unlikely—damage onshore is likely to be limited to potential minor breakages to single-glazed windows, with no debris expected to reach Sheerness or any other town, and waves unlikely to breach flood defences.

However, based on that modelling, the Government decided in May last year to introduce a restriction on flying above the wreck site. Rather than there being a concern about the dangers of aircraft flying over the site with any intent, that decision was made on the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority to protect any aircraft in the vicinity in an absolute worst-case scenario.

I stress that the risk of an incident related to the SS Richard Montgomery remains low, but the Government are committed to reducing that risk as far as possible. The SS Richard Montgomery programme has progressed a procurement at pace since mid-2025 to deliver mast reduction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby, the Minister responsible for maritime matters, set out in correspondence to local Members of Parliament and councillors in November 2025, the Department was clear about its intention to procure a specialist salvage contractor to carry out these works in a safe and controlled manner. That correspondence explained that the decision to progress mast removal was based on expert advice, reflecting the age and condition of the wreck and the need for proactive intervention to manage risk. It also made clear that the Department intended to launch a procurement process to identify a contractor with the specialist capability required to operate at such a complex site, while continuing to monitor the condition of the wreck.

The procurement was designed to prioritise safety and risk reduction while ensuring appropriate oversight, value for money and resilience in delivery. It also reflected the Department’s commitment to transparency and to keeping locally elected representatives informed as decisions were taken and the programme progressed.

As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear at the time, this would be a cautious, evidence-led process shaped by expert advice and informed by the unique risks associated with the SS Richard Montgomery. Consequently, a leading global salvage company, Resolve Marine, was appointed recently and is currently preparing detailed plans to undertake the work. The solution put forward by Resolve Marine is considered to provide the best chance of achieving mast reduction safely by 2027. It may be completed earlier than that, but that depends on the conditions, the weather and so on as the work is carried out.

My hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and for Southend West and Leigh both raised important questions about what will happen to the masts once they are safely removed from the wreck. I recognise the strength of local feeling about preserving them as a cultural and historic feature. I want to be clear that at this stage, the Government’s focus must remain firmly on reducing risk and delivering the operation safely. Decisions about the treatment, storage or potential future display of the masts will depend on their condition once they are recovered, the way in which they are removed and what can be done safely and practically.

Furthermore, our salvage advisers have made clear that the masts will require specialised treatment and storage once removed to prevent decay. The conservation process required will not be clear until the masts can be studied after they have been removed, and it is therefore not possible at this stage to commit to displaying the masts in a particular location. However, my Department fully recognises the interest of the local authority, heritage bodies and the community, and I know how important this issue is locally. I have seen photographs of the mermaid mural, which is impressive, and I congratulate Sheerness town council and the Criterion theatre, which have both been involved in working with my hon. Friend to celebrate that local landmark which, as he said, is such a source of local pride.

As the project progresses, my officials will continue to engage with my hon. Friend and local stakeholders to explore what options might be feasible without compromising safety or prejudicing the primary objective of risk reduction. It would not be right to prejudge those outcomes now, but I assure him we understand that those conversations are important and will continue alongside delivery of the works. As my hon. Friend recognised in his speech, the wreck remains the property of the United States Government, and any decisions regarding the future of the masts and the wreck must be taken in consultation with the United States Maritime Administration. I assure my hon. Friends and the wider community that this programme is being taken forward with seriousness, transparency and a clear sense of responsibility.

The SS Richard Montgomery is not an issue that can be resolved quickly or simply, but the Government are addressing the situation in a careful, evidence-led way, informed by expert advice and supported by sustained engagement with those most affected, including my hon. Friend’s constituents and others with an interest. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to raise the interests of his constituents. My Department will continue to engage with him as the project moves forward.

I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate and for his constructive contributions on behalf of the people of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh on his contribution today. I look forward to updating the House as this project makes further progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Rural Roads

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I shall attempt to do that. It is a pleasure to serve, with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing today’s debate on the condition of roads in rural areas.

First, let me respond to some of the hon. Member’s points. He suggested that his local authority, Shropshire council, has seen its funding for local roads maintenance cut. It has not. In 2024-25, Shropshire received £23.2 million. For 2025-26, the figure is £33.7 million—more money to fix more roads and to undertake preventive maintenance.

The hon. Member suggested that Shropshire council does not have certainty of future funding. It does. For the first time, councils have multi-year funding for local roads maintenance. We have given them four years of funding, specifically to allow them to plan ahead.

The hon. Member also suggested that Shropshire will not receive its incentive funding. There is no reason to believe that is the case. Last year, only one local highway authority out of 154 did not receive its incentive payments. If an authority does what we have asked of it, there is no danger of it not receiving that incentive payment.

[Stuart Anderson]

rose—

[Lilian Greenwood]

Let me make a bit more progress and then I will, of course, come back to the hon. Member.

We all recognise that rural Britain depends on reliable, safe and resilient roads. When those roads fall into poor condition or suffer flooding, the impacts on rural residents and businesses—often with limited alternative routes—can be significant. As numerous Members highlighted, potholes are costly and dangerous to drivers, bikers, cyclists and pedestrians.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not just now. I am going to make some progress.

There is no question but that severe and persistent bad weather has taken a real toll on highways in all parts of the country. The very wet start to 2026 has made repairs more difficult and maintenance windows shorter. Local authorities in many areas have been working around the clock to make emergency repairs and keep local people safe.

But weather alone does not explain the scale of the problem. We must also be clear about the historical underfunding of our local roads networks. The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), talked about neglect, and he is right to do so, because that is precisely what happened under the previous Government. Years and years of short-term funding settlements have made it difficult for councils to plan ahead, invest in preventive maintenance or build resilience into their networks.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Not right now.

Rural residents are all too familiar with the reality, which is why this Government have taken decisive action. We are providing record funding for local highways maintenance, supporting councils not only to repair damage caused by recent winters but to break the cycle of deterioration that has built up over more than a decade.

[Sean Woodcock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Of course I will.

[Sean Woodcock]

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the steps the Government are taking to make up for the years of underfunding of council highways by the Opposition parties. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson tried to defend Oxfordshire county council; will the Minister address what that council has done? I get complaints from constituents about the quality of the work. The newly repaired Stratford Road in Banbury has already disintegrated to expose under-street cables.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is right to raise his concerns. It is of course the case that, where local authorities undertake repairs, we want them to be proper, permanent repairs that do not immediately deteriorate.

[Dr Mullan]

Does the Minister accept that the changes to the funding formula have made rural areas worse off—yes or no?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The funding formula for local roads maintenance has not changed under this Government, and all local authorities, urban and rural, are receiving additional funding—an additional £500 million for local roads maintenance this year—as part of the largest uplift to the highways maintenance block in England’s history. Over the next four years, we are delivering a record £7.3 billion funding package, giving local authorities the long-term certainty they have asked for time and again. This is not a one-off: it is a sustained shift in how we fund roads, designed to empower councils to move from reactive repairs to genuinely strategic network management.

[Matt Rodda]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Not right now. The Transport Committee in the previous Parliament specifically asked for that change.

We are also making sure that taxpayers know how money is being used. Every local highway authority is now required to publish clear, accessible information on the condition of its roads, its maintenance plans and how it is investing the uplift it has received. That goes precisely to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) on accountability.

The transparency reports help residents to understand what is being delivered, and ensure that authorities remain accountable for the outcomes they achieve. The reports are a tool for public confidence and a driver of improvement, and there are already encouraging signs. Last year, for the first time since 2017, the proportion of local roads receiving maintenance treatment increased.

Alongside better reporting, we are updating the well-managed highway infrastructure code of practice, which is the cornerstone guidance for risk-based asset management. We want to ensure that it reflects new technologies, climate adaptation needs and modern expectations of highway resilience. The UK Roads Leadership Group and industry experts are leading the comprehensive refresh. We are working with AtkinsRéalis, which has 20 representatives in the World Road Association, so I hope we are learning from the international best practice raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). We expect the new guidance to be issued later this year.

The focus on improving guidance goes hand in hand with strengthening the capability of the sector. Last summer, we provided funding for the UK Roads Leadership Group to deliver a programme of climate resilience workshops for local highways authorities. The sessions brought together practitioners and experts to strengthen emergency response and to improve preparedness for the increasingly severe weather and climate-driven hazards we face, supporting our wider climate adaptation strategy for transport, which was published in December.

As we improve resilience, we are also helping councils to adopt new and innovative approaches to managing their networks. Rural authorities are directly benefiting from the Government’s £30 million Live Labs 2 programme, which tests new ways to decarbonise local highways. Maintenance projects include a Devon county council scheme that is using the A382 upgrade to trial new materials, digital technology and working practices to cut emissions across construction and operations. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, I have seen for myself how teams are exploring low-carbon street-lighting alternatives such as solar-powered studs and highly reflective markings, to reduce reliance on traditional lighting on rural routes.

Similarly, I have seen local authorities across the country using new machinery and new technology to improve the quality of their road repairs. In West Sussex and South Gloucestershire, the Greenprint project is developing and testing sustainable construction materials with direct application to mixed rural networks.

To conclude, this Government will continue to stand behind rural communities and the councils that serve them. We will continue to invest at record levels and to support local authorities to improve and maintain their roads, so that every rural resident, no matter where they live, benefits from a network that is safer, stronger and built for the future.

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank the Minister for winding up, and I want to respond to two of the points she made. We talked about the funding, but we were calling for funding up to 2032, not 2030; and the incentive payment that was withheld is still withheld—it is not with Shropshire council, so it cannot plan when it does not know that the money will come through.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stuart Anderson]

I would, but I do not have the time, so I will talk to the Minister afterwards. I invite her to South Shropshire to see the roads, many of which are not suitable for driving many cars on. Whatever plan she outlined, it is not suitable to my constituency. The rural services delivery grant really hurt South Shropshire. The removal of “remoteness” in respect of local government funding is absolutely hammering us. We are not able to provide the services that our constituents need. Roads are now in a state, and people are cut off and remote. The roads are in a state and I invite the Minister to come to see them. They are in a bad way, with an impact on cars, business, the economy and safety. This is a major issue, as we heard throughout the debate. We need more funding in South Shropshire to sort out the problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the condition of roads in rural areas.

School Minibus Safety

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing a debate on this important subject. I pay tribute to her campaigning. I know that she has shown real determination in working with her constituents, education unions and others on this issue throughout her time in the House.

The minibus collision on the M40 in 1993 was a truly dreadful incident, and my heart goes out to all the parents and families, including Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald, who suffered such an awful loss. We all want to do everything we can to ensure that such an incident never happens again.

Since the tragic crash, many improvements have been made to enhance the safe operation of minibuses, including mandatory seatbelts in minibuses and coaches; a ban on the crew bus where minibuses had two benches facing each other; and improvements to the driver licensing regime. Road safety statistics show an overall decrease in the number of incidents and serious collisions involving minibuses in the last 10 years, but I recognise that there is always more to do. I strongly believe that road safety, and the safety of students, school staff and teachers travelling in minibuses, are extremely important.

I will start by setting out what the Government currently do to support the safe use of permits. The permit system that is set out in the Transport Act 1985 recognises the value of not-for-profit organisations that provide services for community, social and charitable benefit. There are section 22 permits used for community bus services, and the more common section 19 permits. Those permits allow the holder to operate transport services that would otherwise require a full public service vehicle operator licence.

Users of section 19 permits will include schools, but also a wide range of charities and community transport operators that support trips every day across the country, such as dial-a-ride, social club trips or camping trips by youth groups. The permit system was designed because we recognise the value of those activities, and that small, non-profit-making organisations do not always have the capacity of larger, commercial ones.

Driving a minibus usually requires D1 entitlement on a licence, as my hon. Friend said, but a vehicle with a section 19 permit can also be driven by someone with two different types of entitlement. First, prior to 1997, car driving licences came with an automatic form of D1 entitlement. Secondly, there are more limited circumstances in which a minibus can be driven on a car—category B —driving licence. Those circumstances include being 21 or older, having held the licence for at least two years, driving on a voluntary basis where a minibus is being used for social purposes by a non-commercial body, and meeting vehicle weight restrictions.

Even though permits are not a full operator licence, holding them comes with important responsibilities and obligations. Operating and driving minibuses is never to be taken lightly. To support permit holders with their responsibilities, we publish guidance to promote and support the correct and safe use of vehicles operating under permits. That guidance sets out the permit rules and the responsibilities of permit holders, including schools, for ensuring the safe operation of vehicles. Those responsibilities include vehicle maintenance, for which the guidance sets out recommended arrangements.

The guidance also covers the need to ensure that drivers are correctly trained, have the correct driving licence and take adequate breaks. It notes, for example, that drivers should plan more rest breaks than are set out in the regulations if they do not drive for a living, and that drivers should be given clear, written instructions about their responsibilities covering all aspects of vehicle operation. The guidance further sets out that all drivers should be aware of the risk to passenger safety from driving when tired, and that it is not sensible to start a long trip after a full day’s work, whether that work involves driving or not. I might add that no driver—teacher or otherwise—should ever be put under pressure to drive a minibus.

In addition to the overarching sections 19 and 22 permit guidance, we have specific guidance for schools and local authorities on driving school minibuses. That was published jointly with the Department for Education, and it outlines driving licence entitlements, training, insurance and other legal requirements. It is of course important that all our guidance is as clear, direct and helpful as it can be to end users, and I am always open to hearing about ways in which anyone thinks it could be improved. I also acknowledge the work of the minibus driver awareness scheme—MiDAS—administered by the Community Transport Association and, I understand, used by many schools, in contributing to the improved safety of minibus drivers.

Notwithstanding everything that is currently done to support permit users, my hon. Friend raised important and well-expressed challenges, and they warrant further thought. I acknowledge, for example, her argument about different rules applying to different sorts of schools, and the importance of children being safe regardless of such distinctions. The section 19 permit framework has wide-ranging benefits, but it is right for us to keep challenging ourselves to ensure that the system is striking the correct balance between flexibility and safety. I know that my hon. Friend recently met the Minister for School Standards, and I can commit that Ministers in both Departments will meet to discuss the subject further. I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestions, and I am sure that they will form the basis of part of that meeting.

The Government take road safety very seriously, as shown by the publication of our road safety strategy last month, which my hon. Friend recognised. The strategy sets out a clear and ambitious path to improve road safety in Great Britain, and its targets include a 70% reduction in the number of children under 16 killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 2035. As she will know, the strategy also includes measures around safe road users and safe vehicles, and proposes further action in relation to those who drive for work. We plan to develop and launch the national work-related road safety charter later this year, and I will raise with my officials the point that she raised in relation to schools.

I thank my hon. Friend again for her continued interest in, and advocacy on, this very important subject.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I wish all colleagues a peaceful and productive recess in their constituencies and, I hope, some time with their families as well. I look forward to spending time with my nephews, Ali and Aadam, who are superfans of Bad Bunny—they make me listen to his music non-stop, and they are looking forward to teaching me the dance moves next. I am not sure whether that is good or bad.

Question put and agreed to.

Road Safety

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for her powerful and moving speech in opening today’s debate, and thank so many Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful and heartfelt contributions. I wish we had more time for the debate; I know I will not be able to respond to all the points raised, so I will endeavour to write to people if I do not manage to answer their questions today.

It is evident from the discussion that road safety is a subject that affects everyone. Members have shared the effect of road collusions on their constituents and on themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is one of too many people who have lost family members on our roads, and I extend my sympathies to her and to all constituents whose tragic cases have been raised by hon. and right hon. Members. I have met many bereaved families, and it is without doubt the hardest part of my job, but I will continue to do so.

I am proud that this Government have published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, which sets out our vision for a safer future for all. Although Britain has some of the safest roads globally, the last 10 years of complacency mean that our road safety record has dropped. As we have already heard, four people are killed on our roads every single day. It is not acceptable, which is why we have set ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65%, and by 70% for children, by 2035. The strategy is rooted in innovation and underpinned by the “safe system”, which recognises that although driver error is inevitable, deaths and serious injuries on our roads are not. A new road safety investigation branch will analyse data to identify causes of danger, and to generate safety solutions, in order to cut deaths and serious injuries.

Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), have spoken about the need for action to reduce speed. We will update guidance for local authorities, which have the power to set speed limits on their roads, to inform decision making at local level. It is for councils to determine what measures are appropriate, because they have local knowledge. It is right that they focus on areas of highest risk, which may be where fatal collisions have occurred, but there is nothing to stop them implementing road safety measures elsewhere. I can assure the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) that we have already committed to updating the guidance on speed camera deployment.

The enforcement of road traffic law is the responsibility of individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners, taking into account the specific local problems that they face. We are investing in additional police officers, with 3,000 to be recruited by the end of March and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. Like my hon. Friend for Shipley, I pay tribute to Alison Lowe, the deputy mayor for policing and crime in West Yorkshire, for her personal commitment. Last month I visited West Yorkshire to see at first hand the work being delivered, and last week I joined the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to talk about our strategy and how we can work together.

Tragically, as we have heard, young drivers are over-represented in the number of people killed and seriously injured, and crashes involving young drivers also result in deaths and serious injuries among other road users. This issue was raised by numerous Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), and the right hon. Member—I will probably murder the name of her constituency—for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).

Graduated driving licences vary around the world, as does how they are implemented; there is not one standard type. For England, Scotland and Wales, we are consulting on introducing a minimum learning period to ensure that learner drivers get the necessary time and training to prepare themselves for a lifetime of safe driving. We have to strike a balance between protecting young people and impacting their opportunities to get to work, education and social activities. We already have a two-year probationary period for all novice drivers once they have passed their test, and we are now seeking views on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers in England and Wales. I am very aware of the recent announcement in Northern Ireland, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned. My officials regularly meet their counterparts in Northern Ireland, and I have asked them to keep me updated on the progress and on the impact of the measures once they have been implemented.

At the other end of the spectrum, drivers aged over 70 account for around 24% of all car drivers killed in 2024. That is why we are consulting on mandatory eye tests for drivers in this age group, and we are also exploring cognitive testing. As well as improving safety, these measures could support families to broach difficult conversations with older relatives who are still driving.

Drink-driving continues to cause too many deaths and injuries. The drink-drive limit has not been lowered since it was first legislated for in 1967, and our understanding of impairment has developed. To support a shift in social acceptability, we will work with our THINK! campaign and alcohol brands to encourage people to choose drinks with 0% alcohol content. Drug-driving has also increased, without sufficient measures in place to curtail it, so we are consulting on alternative methods of testing for drug driving and on licence suspension for those suspected of the most serious offences. There is so much more I would like to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but may I just say that we are seeking opinions on tougher penalties for motoring offences? usbI thank my hon. Friends who raised those issues, in addition to raising the issues of pavement parking and vehicle safety.

Although the Government are leading the charge, this will be a collective effort in partnership with local authorities, the industry, the emergency services, communities and the devolved Administrations. I assure everyone in this House that action is beginning now to make our roads safer, as we put the commitments in the strategy into place. I will chair a new road safety board that will be set up in the coming months to support and monitor the commitments, and we will announce further details of its membership and other arrangements in due course.

Finally, as hon. Members are aware, many of the measures on which we are consulting will require primary legislation, and we intend to bring this forward when parliamentary time allows. However, where we can deliver change faster through secondary legislation, we will do so. I encourage hon. Members to respond to our consultations. We will listen to this feedback, alongside evidence and recommendations from the Transport Committee’s inquiry.

I again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, and I look forward to updating the House when we have considered the findings.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered road safety.

Transport in the South-East

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this debate, and thank all hon. Members for giving us a tour of the south-east and of its residents’ concerns. I welcome this opportunity to highlight all the important work that this Government are doing and have already done to deliver transport improvements in the region.

Of course, we are aware of the importance of the region to the UK and how it helps to drive the country. It adds £200 billion annually to the economy, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and is home to the nation’s two largest airports, vital port links and more than 300,000 businesses. That is why we have taken important steps to support and enhance transport in the region, backing airport expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow, and committing to deliver the vital lower Thames crossing—the most significant road building scheme in a generation.

I understand hon. Members’ disappointment that two major A27 schemes were cancelled in 2024, as both were rated poor value for money and unaffordable. As hon. Members know, the status of pipeline schemes, including the Chichester bypass, will be confirmed when road investment strategy 3 is published next month.

This Government will be investing over the coming years in major road schemes in the south-east that will bring real benefits to local people, including by unlocking housing, supporting economic growth and tackling local congestion pinch points, which many hon. Members have drawn attention to. We have approved funding for schemes, subject to the necessary business case approvals, in East Sussex, Brighton, north Thanet and Bognor Regis to Littlehampton. In addition, we are also shortly due to announce the outcome of our major road network programme review, which will provide clarity over other major road schemes in the south-east. The new structures fund is intended to deal with precisely the sort of unforeseen problems affecting the constituency of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden).

The Government are also committed to ending years of poor service and fragmentation on the railways by creating a unified and simplified system that puts passengers first, rebuilding trust in the railways and, in doing so, helping to build up local economies. The new passenger watchdog, which is probably being debated at this very moment in the Railways Bill Committee upstairs, will be a powerful champion for rail users and will hold Great British Railways to account. Publicly owned Southeastern is driving forward a £2 million station improvement programme that benefited more than 100 stations between March 2024 and March 2025, and is investing a further £2 million in fleet improvements.

As the hon. Member for Chichester confirmed, the Government froze rail fares this year for the first time in 30 years. I am sure that the Rail Minister will be very familiar with the bottleneck in Croydon and will be happy to write to hon. Members to respond to the points raised, including by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). I am sure that the noble Lord the Rail Minister will also be happy to write to the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) on her station proposals.

This Government have recognised the importance of listening to what local government needs. We are simplifying local transport funding to bring decision making over local transport closer to the people who use it and to empower local leaders to drive change in their communities. We are providing all local transport authorities with multi-year consolidated funding settlements, delivering our commitment in the English devolution White Paper to simplify funding. Those consolidated local transport settlements will give those authorities greater freedom and flexibility to make the strategic decisions that best impact their areas.

I welcome the determination of the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) to bang on about potholes. Our roads matter to us all, whether we are drivers, bikers, cyclists or pedestrians, and the previous Government left our roads in a parlous state. That is precisely why the spending review settlement includes a record £7.3 billion investment in local highways maintenance funding over the next four years, including £1.5 billion in the south-east region.

Crucially, that four-year funding certainty gives councils the confidence to plan ahead, move away from costly short-term fixes and invest in proper, preventive treatments that stop potholes forming in the first place. That is a major step towards delivering smoother, safer roads for everyone who depends on them. As my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) noted, the Government’s rating system enables local people to hold their council to account and ensure that they are using the additional funding effectively to make a visible difference to all road users.

We also reaffirmed our commitment to invest in bus services for the long term, confirming more than £3 billion from 2026-27 to 2028-29—including £369 million in the south-east—to support local leaders and bus operators across the country in improving bus services for millions of passengers. We are giving local authorities the power and funding to address precisely the issues that hon. Members have raised: lost services and the need for new routes to serve housing growth.

The Government are also providing funding to investigate the use of franchising in rural areas. That will be combined with our recently announced active travel grant of £626 million across the UK, with more than £133 million going to the south-east; our record investment in the local transport grant, which sees all south-eastern authorities’ funding increase year on year; and electric vehicle infrastructure funding to create a large funding pot for all local transport authorities so they can decide what to spend it on in line with their priorities.

Active Travel England, which the hon. Member for Chichester mentioned, works to support local authorities to improve their capabilities and benefit from the additional funding that we are investing. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) said that pavements are for people, and I could not agree more. That is why this Government have acted where the previous one failed to. On 8 January, we announced that we will give local councils new powers to crack down on antisocial pavement parking. I remember, alongside a former Chair of the Transport Committee, looking at some of the problems in his area and on the south coast where parking was not properly enforced.

I also want to pick up on the important concerns about SEND transport raised by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). I am sure he knows that the Department for Education, which leads on that point, is currently carrying out a review of home-to-school transport along with their wider review of SEND. He is right that we need to work across Government to ensure that we make the best use of the funding available.

In conclusion, this has been a wide-ranging debate; I have taken so many notes, and I am trying to pick up as many points as I can, but I am conscious that I will not have addressed every issue raised by hon. Members. I hope I have been able to demonstrate that south-east authorities have been given record amounts of funding to deal with their local transport issues and they have the flexibility to direct that funding towards the things that local people are most concerned about. To help to bring all that together in a coherent approach that sets out our ambitions for transport in the UK, we will shortly be publishing our integrated transport strategy.

I will also mention our recently published road safety strategy. In 2024, 192 people were killed and 4,754 were seriously injured on roads in the south-east. Our ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035 will aim to drive that number down. We want to work in partnership with all authorities and stakeholders in the region. I extend my thanks to the chief constable for Sussex, Jo Shiner, who is also the National Police Chiefs Council lead for roads policing, for her work in enhancing road safety to keep those in the south-east and across Great Britain safe on our roads.

I finish by thanking the hon. Member for Chichester for giving me the opportunity to discuss transport in the south-east region. I apologise that, as the Minister for Local Transport, I am no longer the Minister for Roads—that is my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood)—but I am sure he will be interested to read this afternoon’s debate and respond to any points that I have missed. He, I, and my ministerial colleagues are always happy to receive invitations to visit hon. Members’ constituencies, and I look forward to future opportunities to see more of this vital and very beautiful region.

Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on securing this debate, and on speaking so enthusiastically and eloquently about regional transport connectivity, inequality and the cost of toll journeys such as those on the Tamar bridge and the Torpoint ferry in her constituency. She is a powerful advocate for the people she represents.

I recognise the importance of high-quality transport links and infrastructure, and the challenges people face with the cost of travel, especially those living in coastal and rural areas such as South East Cornwall. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these key topics with Members today, including many from the south-west—the far south-west—of England, such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and, of course, for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). It is good to have the opportunity to explain the Government’s position and ongoing approach.

Improving transport connectivity is a top priority for this Government. For too long, people living in rural areas like Cornwall have felt isolated and cut off from essential services and facilities, and we are determined to take steps to change that. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for North Cornwall, but I am no longer the Roads Minister. However, I certainly agree that roads matter, and I am delighted that in the spending review we have provided £24 billion of capital funding for 2026-27 to 2029-30 to maintain and improve roads across England.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on her great speech and on securing this debate. On the Government’s spend on transport infrastructure, those present and the Minister may know that I remain a very strong supporter of the lower Thames crossing project, which will, when built, hugely reduce congestion at the Dartford crossing and make the quality of life and the air quality for my constituents in Dartford massively better. I thank the Minister and her team for the progress made on that project. We expect spades to be in the ground this year, which is wonderful. Does the Minister agree, however, that when the lower Thames crossing is built, and we have it and the Dartford crossing over the Thames east of London, it will be particularly important that the tolls for both crossings are equalised so that there is no financial incentive to use one rather than the other, and traffic can flow freely through both across the Thames?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will make a diversion to the south-east of England to say that the Government are committed to delivering the lower Thames crossing, which is the most significant road-building scheme in a generation. It will provide access to more than 400,000 jobs within an hour’s commute of local communities, and of course it will ease congestion at the Dartford crossing. Although the charging regime for the lower Thames crossing has not been set, like other crossings in England, such as the Dartford crossing, it will have a charge applied in order to cover the cost of providing the infrastructure, and the development consent order made clear that it is our intention that both tolls will be equal when the lower Thames crossing opens.

Turning back to the south-west, a question was raised about the role of National Highways. The A38 on either side of the Tamar bridge is the responsibility of National Highways as part of the strategic road network, but the bridge itself is not. However, while the Tamar crossings themselves are not the responsibility of National Highways, it does make an operational contribution each year towards the Saltash tunnel tidal flow system, which is monitored by the board that manages the bridge and the ferry.

We saw the completion of the essential major road network scheme in Cornwall linking St Austell to the A30 last July and look forward to progression of the Manadon interchange scheme in Plymouth, which will benefit so many people using the road network. The Government are committed to supporting local authorities in maintaining and renewing the local highway network, which is why by 2029-30 we will commit over £2 billion annually for local authorities to repair and renew their roads and fix potholes, doubling the funding since we came into office.

[Ben Maguire]

I humbly ask the Minister to write to the Cornish MPs so we can see what proportion of that £2 billion—I think she said by 2030—might come to our region. Perhaps then we can see how it might contribute to reducing, or maybe even removing, the tolls on the bridge.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that Cornwall will benefit from up to £221 million of that £2 billion over the next four years, alongside over £24 million of local transport grant capital for maintenance and enhancements.

Of course we do not just need better roads; better links through high-quality public transport are also essential. People have a right to expect cohesive, reliable bus networks, enabling them to travel easily and comfortably to get to work, to school, to social clubs, to shops, and to see friends and family, and of course to visit hospitals and other health facilities, as a number of colleagues have mentioned.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said, under the previous Government many thousands of bus services were lost, leaving communities cut off and reducing people’s opportunities for travel and all that that means. That is why, despite the challenging financial position this Government inherited, we are investing over £3 billion for the rest of the spending review period to support local leaders and bus operators across the country to improve bus services for millions of passengers, including those living in rural areas. This is additional funding to the more than £1 billion we are already providing this financial year. We are also giving the certainty that local authorities and bus operators need to build their networks longer term through multi-year allocations under the local authority bus grant, totalling nearly £700 million per year. That puts an end to the previous short-term approach to bus funding, enabling councils to plan their spending more strategically, ensuring that outcomes for passengers are always the top priority.

Cornwall council will receive over £30 million of this funding from 2026-27 to 2028-29, in addition to the £10.6 million it is receiving this financial year. On top of that, we continue to see the benefits yielded by our decision to extend the £3 national bus fare cap until March 2027, making bus journeys consistently more affordable for passengers. As my hon. Friend has said, in many of these areas people have low incomes, and that is why it is so important that we are cutting the cost of bus travel.

Additionally, we are funding bus franchising pilots to test the viability of different franchising models so that we can understand how these can deliver better bus services, including in rural locations. That includes a pilot in Cornwall, and I await the results with interest.

Active travel infrastructure to improve walking, wheeling and cycling routes remains essential. Following on from almost £300 million that the Government provided for active travel schemes up to 2026, we announced an additional £626 million for such infrastructure in a four-year settlement to help local authorities further improve active travel facilities and support network planning. Cornwall council will benefit from over £4.5 million of this funding.

Connectivity through reliable rail services is equally important, and I acknowledge hon. Members’ concerns about resilience on the rail line in Cornwall and Devon, particularly given the recent adverse weather. Network Rail is responsible for maintaining the railway network and has established processes in place for ensuring that it is safe to use when incidents happen. It continues to work closely with rail operators to help affected passengers and restore services as quickly as possible.

We announced in the November Budget that for regulated fares rail, passengers will not be faced with the increased cost in rail journeys that they have become accustomed to year on year. We are freezing regulated rail fares until March 2027 for the first time in 30 years. Meanwhile, 26 class 175 trains are being introduced on to Great Western Railway routes in Devon and Cornwall during this year. They will replace older diesel units, improve capacity and reliability, and free up rolling stock for wider use across the south-west, providing resilience across the network. The introduction of these trains on the Newquay branch line is part of mid Cornwall metro, doubling the frequency of trains on this branch and connecting rural communities to employment and education in Truro and Falmouth. As part of our commitment to improving digital technology for passengers, we secured funding to fit all mainline trains with low-earth orbit satellite technology to upgrade on train wi-fi.

My hon. Friend rightly brought to my attention in recent correspondence road safety issues—in particular, the need to reduce speeding in rural areas. The Government recently released the first road safety strategy in more than a decade, setting out our vision for a safer future on our roads for all. This strategy sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035, with measures to protect vulnerable road users, updated vehicle safety technologies and a review of motoring offences. I know that these are particular concerns in rural areas, which are disproportionately places where fatal collisions occur.

In overarching support for delivering everything I have mentioned today, and to gain and maintain momentum in driving forward better transport for everyone, our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy has been informed by extensive engagement with the public and our stakeholders. It will set out this Government’s vision of putting people at the heart of everything we do, better connecting places and working in partnership with local leaders and experts to deliver. It will help drive improvements in the experience for all users of the transport system and empower local leaders to deliver good transport that is right for their communities—place is at the heart of our strategies.

I would like to turn now to tolls and, in particular, the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry, which I will refer to as the Tamar crossings, as these are tied together under the Tamar Bridge Act 1957. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for continuing to support local people who have understandably expressed concerns about increasing toll charges and network congestion, as many of them pay these charges to access essential services, which can be a financial burden. I recognise that the Tamar crossings are a very important issue for her, her constituents and the constituents of my other hon. Friends here this evening.

As we have already heard, the Tamar crossings are jointly owned and operated by Cornwall council and Plymouth city council, and between them they carry 16 million vehicles on the bridge and 2 million on the ferries each year. The crossings are operated together as a joint service and funded by users through toll income. No funding is received from the owners of the crossings, and there is no specific central Government funding stream for the upkeep of tolled crossings such as Tamar. In fact, over 20 road and ferry crossings in England have tolls or charges, and it remains Government policy that river and estuarial crossings normally be funded by tolls, recognising the extra cost of their construction and maintenance, as well as the benefits for users in connecting places that would otherwise require lengthy journeys.

Although increases in toll charges are understandably disappointing for the public, they remain essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of the crossings’ operation, which itself is essential to secure strong regional connectivity. The Tamar crossings are not alone in this; tolls and charges have increased or been introduced in many places over the past 12 months, including across the Humber, Mersey, Thames and Tyne.

Raising tolls is not done lightly. Rigorous processes are in place for assessing proposed toll increases. Applications can be made by asset owners to the Secretary of State not less than 12 months from the date of the previous increase, or a refusal to approve an increase, and the proposed change must be advertised in the local media before public consultation. Where objections are received but not resolved, a public inquiry is arranged, after which the inspector in attendance submits their recommendation to the DFT for a decision.

Issues relating to the crossings, including the tolls, are determined locally by the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee, established by the 1957 Act. The joint committee’s view is that, owing to inflation and other issues, there is a need for additional income via the toll. Given the cost of living pressures for so many people, I recognise that this is challenging, but it is vital to the future of the crossings. My fellow Ministers and I welcome any suggestions from the joint committee for improving the operation of the bridge and ferry services, and I commend its ongoing work in developing and delivering the Tamar 2050 plan, which aims to provide users of the crossings with a more stable and certain future.

I know that the Tamar crossings will become even more essential following the announcement last September that Plymouth had been named as one of five key national defence growth areas in the UK defence industrial strategy. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall and for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), in particular, welcome the fact that DFT officials are working collaboratively with the councils of Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall, alongside National Highways, Network Rail, Peninsula Transport—the sub-national transport body—and many others, to ensure that transport challenges in the south-west, including those concerning the Tamar crossings, are identified and addressed over the coming years through a joined-up approach, which I support and welcome enormously. I am sure that colleagues will have heard the call for more cross-Government working on these issues, and I hope that my remarks today will assure them that it is happening.

I will close by sincerely thanking my hon. Friend for securing this debate and allowing me to address the House on such important issues for communities in South East Cornwall and, indeed, across the country more widely. I wish to reassure the House that this Government are providing record levels of investment in roads, rail, buses and active travel projects across the country to connect people to jobs, education and opportunities. We will continue to drive forward improvements in transport, demonstrated by our multi-year investment to help support economic growth and our wider plan for change. I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friends in delivering our integrated national transport strategy, and to continuing to make transport provision better for everyone, right across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for raising this important issue and congratulate her on her appointment as violence against women and girls adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care. I look forward to working with her to help to drive forward the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.

I imagine that every woman here today will have recognised the issues under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) all described vividly what those issues mean for women in our daily lives. The fear of male violence is so normalised that it is easy to forget that it is anything but normal. I am pleased that many men, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), and indeed the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), are also committed to ensuring that the situation changes.

As we have heard, women remain under-represented in cycling due to persistent safety concerns: 58% of women feel that their cycle journeys are limited by such concerns, and more than a third say that roads do not feel safe. Harassment, intimidation and poorly lit routes all contribute to a sense that cycling, particularly in the evening, is simply not a safe or viable option. Research conducted by Dr Caroline Miles and Professor Rose Broad at the University of Manchester found that, over a two-year period from 2021 to 2022, 68% of women survey respondents said they had experienced abuse while out running, but only 5% of those women had reported the abuse to the police.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) have both referred to the excellent research by the University of Manchester. One of the most shocking findings of that research, which I discussed with the researchers last year, was that 19% of women runners had been followed and 7% had been flashed at. Does the Minister agree that, while women are often taking measures to mitigate the threat, whether through smartphones, special safety apps, or even changing their routes, the real answer ultimately lies in more visible policing, more CCTV, better lighting—crucial for local communities—and in tackling at source, as the violence against women and girls strategy does, the misogyny in our schools and workplaces?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. The scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable, and that is why this Government are treating it as a national emergency, but the most important change is a change in the behaviour of men, frankly.

The Government published our strategy to build a safer society for women and girls last month, and have set out a range of actions to prevent violence and abuse, pursue perpetrators and support victims. Giving women the confidence to report incidents is essential. The strategy includes an ambitious aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, which will require us to take a transformative approach to the way that we work across Government and with other partners. I can assure the shadow Minister that Ministers regularly come together from all Departments to discuss the action that we need to take.

Turning to active travel, in December we announced that we are allocating £626 million over the next four years for local authorities to deliver walking, wheeling and cycling schemes—enough for 500 miles of new walking and cycling routes. That is in addition to almost £300 million of funding that we announced in February 2025.

In November, we launched a consultation to develop the third cycling and walking investment strategy, which recognised the need to address the barriers to active travel, including for women and girls and proposed two new objectives to support the long-term vision for active travel: ensuring both that people are safe to travel actively and that people feel it is an easy choice. The consultation closed on 15 December; we are looking carefully at all the comments received and the final strategy will be published this spring.

Since its establishment in 2022, Active Travel England—ATE—has worked with local authorities to help them to make walking, wheeling and cycling a safe and attractive choice for everyday trips. That has included overseeing £435 million of investment to deliver more than 400 miles of routes and hundreds of safer crossings and junctions.

ATE has commenced a project focused on the need to design streets better for women and girls and to support local authorities in the delivery of that. The organisation is working with Living Streets and with Footways to pilot an approach to developing walking network plans. Through that project, women have highlighted issues with walking, including—these will be very familiar to hon. Members—poor lighting, isolated routes and limited visibility, which strongly shaped their willingness to walk and influenced route prioritisation. Those findings will inform an important part of the evidence base for planning walking networks that work for everyone. I welcome the examples of good practice highlighted by a number of hon. Members, including Members from West Yorkshire.

This year, through ATE, we have provided £2.5 million to Cycling UK to deliver the Big Bike Revival, which is now in its 10th year and has reached more than half a million people. The Big Bike Revival programme helps people across England to get back on their bikes and experience the many benefits of cycling. Since it began in 2015, more than half of participants have said they now feel safer cycling and 49% of participants have been women. Women who have taken part in the programme have described being made to feel comfortable, having their confidence and self-esteem boosted, and feeling empowered.

Last October, Cycling UK organised “My ride. Our Right”, and approximately 60 women-led glow rides took place across the country to increase the visibility of women’s cycling and demand better infrastructure. In my constituency, the cycling groups Women in Tandem and Pedals organised rides and are doing great work to give more women the confidence to ride a bike especially, or including, after dark. As Women in Tandem says, cycling should “feel liberating, not intimidating”—hear, hear!

We know that good street design can contribute to helping women to feel safe when walking, cycling and running, and enables safe access to public transport. We are currently working with MHCLG to update the manual for streets, which was first published in 2007. That will include advice on aspects of street design that can help to improve personal safety and perceptions of safety: how safe is it, and how safe does it feel?

[Anna Sabine]

I thank the Minister for giving way. It may be that she is coming on to this issue but, while everything she is saying on active travel is fantastic and I recognise the point about the manual for streets, does she recognise that if the overarching framework, the national planning policy framework, does not pay regard to women’s and girls’ safety, it is much harder to enact those subsets such as active travel?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. As I said, we are working with our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure we have a coherent approach.

I welcome the support of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, for our proposals to tackle pavement parking. Of course, the issue is not just safety on the street, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West highlighted, but having the opportunity to walk, wheel, cycle and run in our green spaces and parks, on canal towpaths and on greenways. Natural England’s “Green Infrastructure Planning and Design Guide” offers detailed guidance on creating accessible green spaces and, for teenage girls specifically, emphasises the need to design spaces that are not only safe and inclusive but also comfortable and welcoming. Sport England is also running campaigns challenging prejudice to make clear that sport is for everyone. That has included the “This Girl Can” and “Let’s Lift the Curfew” campaigns; the latter included 320 local events in October to amplify women’s voices and overcome barriers that prevent women from being active outdoors.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft for raising this important issue. It has been wonderful to see the level of contribution and the interest that has been shown in the debate. I look forward to continuing to work with her, with other hon. Members here this afternoon, and with my colleagues across Government to take further action on this important issue and ensure that for our daughters the opportunity to go out and walk, run and cycle is different from how it perhaps has been for our generation. We can, must and will do better.