Rail Freight

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this debate, and I thank her for providing this welcome opportunity to discuss the critical role that rail freight plays in strengthening supply chain resilience and supporting our economic and decarbonisation goals. Many hon. Members have taken part in the debate to highlight the important role that rail freight plays in their constituencies and the potential for its greater use, and to acknowledge the role of rail freight workers, on whom the industry depends.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove set out clearly, rail freight is at the heart of our transport and logistics networks. It moves materials to build our homes, food to stock our shelves and fuel to keep our lights on, and it does that with significant environmental and social benefits. It emits far less carbon than road freight. It takes lorries off congested roads, leading to less wear and tear on our local roads. Many communities recognise that it is valuable to shift heavy goods from road to rail, and that they would benefit from it.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Teesport is one of the country’s most important freight gateways, yet freight from the east coast main line, which is very congested, still has to travel via Darlington because the Northallerton to Eaglescliffe line lacks full W12 gauge clearance. Will the Minister commit to meeting me to discuss that issue and see what we can do to get those upgrades in place?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that concern in his part of England. I will ensure that the Rail Minister writes to him about that matter, or arranges a meeting if that is more appropriate.

In a world of increasing uncertainty and geopolitical volatility, it is vital that we have secure, resilient supply chains. Rail freight, which is a fuel-efficient way of transporting goods, is a core node in those supply chains. That is why the Government have been absolutely clear about our ambition to encourage the growth of the sector and to strengthen its role in our transport network. To that end, we have committed to the target of increasing rail freight by at least 75% by 2050.

Rail reform is a significant opportunity to realise that ambition. Members have been closely scrutinising the Railways Bill over the past few months, and it will of course return to this House for further debate shortly. Members know that the current system has failed to unlock fully the potential of rail freight, and lacks the incentives and the structural framework to drive growth. Nor do we have a single entity with strategic overview of the railway deciding what network capacity should be made available for freight.

The current model for network access is an application-led first come, first served market model with no whole-system oversight. The concept of strategic freight capacity, designed to reserve space on the railway for new freight, is broken. Train paths labelled as strategic freight are not actually strategically planned—often, they do not even join up to form useful routes—and even those limited paths are nigh-on impossible to safeguard because they are given the very lowest priority in the timetable rules. That has meant that, over time, the capacity earmarked for future freight has been eroded.

Great British Railways can and will deliver better outcomes for freight. It will have two freight-specific statutory duties: first, to promote the use of rail freight and, secondly, to have regard to the freight growth target set by the Secretary of State for Transport. Taken together, those duties will ensure that freight is embedded at the heart of GBR’s decision making.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It was great to welcome the Minister to my constituency to visit the east midlands rail freight terminal, which has huge potential to take vehicles off the road and on to rail.

Bardon has a quarry, and a private spur of the Ivanhoe line is used. In the conversation about reopening the Ivanhoe line, only a passenger assessment has been undertaken. Will the Minister consider both freight and passenger rail in future conversations about bringing rail lines back into use?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. She is a great champion for the freight industry more broadly, and I know how important it is to her constituency. I will certainly ensure that the Rail Minister, my noble Friend Lord Hendy, considers the issues that she raises.

A representative on GBR’s board will have responsibility for freight, and a central freight team will provide customers with a single point of contact for promoting freight across the organisation. Taken together, those measures will ensure strong leadership at the top and advocacy at the heart of the organisation.

The sector will also benefit from a new capacity allocation framework. That framework will support a more strategic and proactive approach to allocating capacity. It will have one single directing mind—Great British Railways—taking a whole-system approach to make best use of the available capacity. The access-and-use policy required by the framework and by the Railways Bill is being developed and will be consulted on in September.

We know that we alone cannot achieve our ambitions for the sector. That is why we are setting up GBR as an astute commercial entity. It will be equipped with the right incentives and mechanisms to engage with private investors and offer them commitments that secure a return on investment. That will encourage third parties to invest in rail, helping to drive modal shift and grow rail freight, which many Members, including the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, have called for.

The hon. Lady raised a number of questions, a few of which I will attempt to pick up on. She asked about the expansion of more modern signalling, which will be helpful. The east coast digital programme is fitting signalling in a number of locomotives. That will be the first part of the network to have the signalling that she described, which can then be rolled out further. I recognise the importance of modernising our rail network to ensure that we take advantage of the new technologies available to enable trains to run closer together, for example, and therefore to create more capacity.

The hon. Lady also asked about the freight growth target. Under the duty set out in the Bill, GBR must have regard to the freight targets set by Ministers. It is expected to demonstrate how it has considered those targets and how its activities align with the goals set out by Ministers. Additionally, GBR’s business plan will be expected to demonstrate how it plans to work towards achieving the freight growth target. The Secretary of State will sign off that plan only once they have received expert advice from the Office of Rail and Road and are satisfied that the plans set out meet the Government’s expectations and priorities for the railways, including on rail freight.

Of course, the ORR has powers of appeal where freight operators are not happy about the way in which GBR has carried out its duties or feel that it has not taken decisions that are consistent with its policies. GBR is obviously bound by the Competition Act 1998, and will not be able to prioritise its own services. Its decision making must be fair, transparent and subject to challenge in the ways that I have set out.

I also want to take this opportunity to touch on the ongoing crisis in the middle east and the impact that it might have on the rail freight sector. The effects of the crisis have highlighted the importance of having a strong rail freight sector as a node in our resilient, diverse supply chains. Last month, the Chancellor cut fuel duty for red diesel users, such as rail freight operators, by more than a third until the end of the year. That means that rates are at their lowest level in more than 20 years. That will help to keep costs down and protect those vital businesses. As I think we all recognise, the economics of freight transport have sometimes disadvantaged rail freight. My officials will continue to work closely with rail freight operating companies on routine resilience planning as a sensible precaution to protect supply chains.

Finally, I emphasise again that rail freight will continue to be an integral part of our transport network as we transition to a new operating model for the railway. Our ambitious programme of reform will mean that rail freight can continue to prosper under a transformed rail sector. That will bring benefits for all our constituencies, including that of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. I recognise the importance of aggregates, not just in her constituency, with the example of tarmac, but across that whole part of the country, stretching into the east midlands—I have been and seen that for myself. That is why we want rail freight to thrive and prosper, and why, in setting up Great British Railways in the way that we have—with important duties in relation to rail freight—we are confident that we can grow this sector for the future, delivering the many benefits that she and other hon. Members have set out.

Question put and agreed to.

High Speed 2: Impact on Communities

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing this debate, and grateful to other hon. Members for their contributions. I will try to address the points that she and others have raised.

I want to begin by fully recognising the change and upheaval that major infrastructure projects such as HS2 bring to the communities they pass through. I understand the concerns raised by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents. As my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary set out to the House earlier today, taxpayers, passengers and communities along the route have been let down by years of mismanagement on HS2. The failures of the past mean that HS2 will now cost more and take longer to be delivered. The most important thing we can do for communities now is to get a grip on the programme so that the job can be done and the disruption brought to an end.

Over the past year, the Government have been working closely on a full reset of HS2 to bring effective oversight and start rebuilding public trust. HS2 has faced significant challenges, but this Government have been clear that infrastructure development is at the heart of our strategic missions and priorities. It will deliver significant benefits once delivered. While those benefits are undeniable, we know that they come at the cost of disruption caused by construction. We have to do right by the residents who are impacted, through a range of programmes made available to them. I appreciate that right now HS2 construction is at its peak in many areas and, regrettably, so too is the level of disruption. That includes road closures, lorry movements and other visible and audible signs of construction in affected areas.

Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) mentioned the damage done to the highways. HS2 has put in place measures to address that with the establishment of a highways deterioration fund, which should resolve some of those issues quickly and easily.

Inevitably, there are some unwelcome impacts on local people when there are major projects. The Rail Minister is determined to ensure that HS2 Ltd does its utmost to reduce impacts as much as is reasonably possible. HS2 Ltd must be a good neighbour to affected communities and treat them with respect, even if that has not always been the experience of residents whom Members present are representing. HS2 should listen to local concerns and be accountable for its actions at all times.

We expect communities affected by the construction of the railway to be at the heart of the delivery plans of HS2 Ltd. I know that both the Rail Minister and the chairman of HS2, Mike Brown, are taking a personal interest in those issues. They want to ensure that residents, who have sometimes endured very lengthy periods of disruption, are treated with fairness and respect, and that the issues around compensation are resolved as promptly as possible. We want to see HS2 Ltd leaving a positive legacy for communities, such as through the community and business funds, which have already provided millions of pounds in support for local projects, from sports clubs to children’s play facilities.

The hon. Lady raised the specific case of one of her constituents who runs a music studio and his experiences. My officials have briefed me on the situation, and I appreciate it has been a long-standing case that has been difficult to resolve. I am pleased to hear that, based on these discussions, HS2 Ltd and the hon. Lady’s constituent are on a path to resolution. My Department is committed to resolving the situation, while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer and fairness for her constituent.

The long-term solution that HS2 Ltd is focused on is facilitating and funding an alternative studio in the grounds of the constituent’s property. I appreciate that this is taking some time and that there may be a difference in expectations between HS2 Ltd and the hon. Lady’s constituent as to what constitutes a reasonable replacement of the existing studio. However, we are committed to doing the right thing and delivering this at pace. There is a further onsite meeting planned shortly, and I am hopeful that an agreement on the way forward will soon be reached.

Alongside that, HS2 Ltd has made further commitments in recent weeks to carry out any vibration-causing works earlier in the day, in order to avoid the times that would be most disruptive to the constituent’s business. Frankly, I have great sympathy with the constituent in question. Disruptive works have continued longer than anticipated, and the issue has taken longer to resolve than we would wish. We hope to find resolutions that will expedite future cases.

I will turn to more general concerns about compliance with undertakings and assurances. The Secretary of State takes compliance with HS2 undertakings and assurances very seriously. There are rigorous structures in place to manage compliance and the performance of HS2 Ltd is monitored closely by the Department. In the vast majority of cases, compliance has been good: out of nearly 5,000 undertakings and assurances on HS2, compliance has fallen short in less than 1% of cases, but that is 1% too many. However, the Department remains confident that people can rely on the commitments that were made to them. Those commitments and assurances were given by the Secretary of State to Parliament during the HS2 Bill process, which is why HS2 Ltd’s delivery of them is overseen by the Department and why the Secretary of State is ultimately answerable to Parliament in these matters.

I really regret that we have very limited time to answer these questions. I want to assure the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and other hon. Members that there are layers of independent scrutiny. HS2 Ltd is held to account by the Secretary of State, who has the independent statutory appeal function between HS2 Ltd and other parties. It is notable, I think, that only one assurance compliance case—the one the hon. Member refers to—has been escalated beyond the Department to Mr Speaker, as the representative of Parliament. We need to ensure that these cases are dealt with properly, so that people have a fair outcome.

I am very conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me just say that we recognise the impact of the construction of HS2 on communities living along the route and we thank them for their patience. We understand how frustrating this prolonged disruption is. We will ensure that all the issues that have been raised by hon. Members today are considered by the Department and will continue to do the job of holding to account HS2 Ltd, monitoring its performance and ensuring that, where it falls short, it does better in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

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.