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.

Railways Bill (First sitting)

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We have two minutes and 30 seconds left if anyone wants to creep in and get a response to any further questions.

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

Q Good morning, panel. Do you think that the new passenger watchdog will provide a more effective route for passengers and their representatives—including all of us, as Members of Parliament—to have their voice heard when raising concerns about poor service and, equally importantly, getting their concerns resolved?

Alex Hynes: Yes is the short answer, because the current consumer landscape in rail is fragmented. Transport Focus, the Rail Ombudsman and ORR each have a role. The Bill creates a single watchdog for passengers that has more power and resources. My understanding is that MPs will be able to refer matters to it. Essentially, it puts all the passenger-facing consumer obligations into one organisation and strengthens the accountability that Great British Railways will be subject to in the event that it delivers sub-standard service.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Q Do any other members of the panel want to comment?

John Larkinson: From our point of view, some of the things that we do now will transfer over to the passenger watchdog. That is a straight transfer. The Rail Ombudsman is a contract that we let. Effectively, in the future, that contract would move over to the passenger watchdog—that is very clear. When the passenger watchdog finds a problem and wants that problem resolved, and cannot resolve it with GBR, the enforcement role is with us. The Bill effectively aligns enforcement in a number of areas through us, through the licence. That will be done through the licence, so that provides a very clear role when the passenger watchdog wants to move something across. There will be a process to deliver that and we are working with the watchdog on how that will work in practice.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Q That makes the passenger watchdog a very effective champion for passengers, whereas, as the ORR—the regulator—you have to hold everything in balance. Is that right?

John Larkinson: When it comes to some decisions that are on the way, there will still have to be a balance—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that we are at the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Keith Williams and Richard Brown gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Does anyone else on the panel disagree with that assertion?

Michael Roberts indicated dissent.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Q I am proud of the passengers and accessibility duty and pleased that it was welcomed by accessibility groups. Am I right in saying that there is no comparable statutory duty that applies to Network Rail or the TOCs—in other words, that this would be an entirely new requirement?

Alex Robertson: You are right that we are introducing a new duty and that that is extremely important in terms of accessibility. The general point I would make is that it is important that Parliament and the Government set out their intent in the legislation. How that is enacted and delivered will depend on a lot of things that are not in the legislation, such as the culture of the railway and how disabled passengers are engaged in the co-creation and delivery of it. As the passenger watchdog, we are very conscious that we have a duty to make sure that we do that as well. It is a definite step forward, but whether it delivers on the ground for disabled passengers in the way that is intended depends on a lot of things that are yet to come.

Emma Vogelmann: An important consideration is the Transport Committee’s finding that the reason accessibility standards are failing and disabled people are having really negative transport experiences is that there are no statutory obligations. I completely agree that the Bill is a big step forward, but the duties themselves are very vague and do not necessarily at this point look at enforceable rights and corporate actions.

Ben Plowden: It is welcome that there is a duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled people in the Bill. We think there is a case for strengthening that duty so that it aligns with the duty in relation to freight, which is to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers. There should also be an equivalent duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target, as she is required to do in relation to freight, so that, as we picked up on a minute ago, GBR does not end up being incentivised not to grow the network in order to meet its crowding and reliability duties, for example. It seems to us that giving it a statutory incentive to increase passenger use over time would be very helpful to build on the existing duty in the Bill.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Q I have a quick follow-up for Transport Focus. Will you be able to work effectively with the ORR to deliver for passengers?

Alex Robertson: Yes, definitely. We are already in dialogue with the ORR about its change in responsibilities and the transfer of functions from it to us. We will put in place an MOU to make sure that works in practice. We are comfortable with it. As you will have heard from the earlier panel, it aligns very well with our general consumer functions, which I think makes sense. Having one single enforcement body on the licence in the new system also makes sense.

[Olly Glover]

Q Emma, further to your previous comments, will you say a little more about the current general duty in the Bill to promote the needs of disabled passengers being vague and unenforceable? Do you have any further suggestions for how it could be strengthened, perhaps using examples from other sectors? I am interested to hear what the rest of the panel has to say about that as well.

Emma Vogelmann: In the Bill now, the power is very much centralised with the Secretary of State. We feel that there is already a lack of sufficient safeguards in place to make sure that accessibility does not become beholden to political will and the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill as drafted depends too heavily on discretion, future strategies and changeable licences. We want to make sure that the accessibility considerations and requirements are meaningful and enforceable and do not leave disabled people politically vulnerable.

Michael Roberts: For my part, rather reiterating my earlier comments, what is important is the expression of what GBR wants to achieve in accessibility, which is not necessarily to be written on the face of the Bill but should be part of the long-term rail strategy or the business plan. Alongside a duty, however it is expressed in the legislation, there must be some clear milestones and outcomes to which GBR aspires—for example, a milestone for the proportion of stations that should have step-free access by a certain point in time, as the Mayor of London and TfL currently have in the capital, or aspirations for the quality of provision of passenger assistance. There has been a rapid increase in the demand for that sort of service by mobility-impaired passengers, but the level of resource has woefully fallen behind the need. Expressing the stepping stones to a truly more accessible railway in strategic documents needs to go alongside the duty, however it is expressed.

Alex Robertson: I agree with Michael about the important milestones. We need to see real shifts in the ambition on accessibility. One of the other things that has been mentioned is that we will have the ability to set the consumer standards for accessibility. Alongside taking over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman, I want to see a really good, strong set of standards on which we would consult and engage with disabled passengers. If they were not complied with, they would be passed to the ORR for enforcement.

On complaint handling, at the moment, if you have a failed passenger assist, it is possible for some of the train operating companies to refund you only the price of your ticket, and not compensate for the distress and inconvenience that caused you. That is completely wrong. We would be in a position where that could be looked at properly and changed, so we could take an individual’s complaint and get better redress for them, but also use it to identify systemic issues that might be affecting other people as well. It puts us in a stronger position to do all those things.

Ben Plowden: It is not clear to us that the Bill gives GBR a sufficiently strong incentive to increase accessibility over time, in the same way that it does not give an incentive to increase passenger use over time. One issue might be whether you could amend the Bill to require an increase in accessibility over time to be determined through the other documents that the Government and GBR will produce.

Michael Roberts: I want to pick up a point that Transport for All made separately on the public sector equality duty, which GBR will be obliged to fulfil. The observation from Transport for All is that the impact of that duty is felt retrospectively and depends on disabled members of the travelling public challenging a failure in service when they find it. There might be some merit in the industry—GBR, ORR—co-creating a definition of what the exercise of that duty feels like in practice. That should be up front, as part of the strategic documents against which GBR will be held to account, with the passenger watchdog monitoring and the ORR enforcing.

Horse and Rider Road Safety

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd; I know you have a deep personal commitment to road safety. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) on securing this debate and thank him for raising the vital issue of road safety and vulnerable users, specifically horse riders. It is clear that this concern is widely shared across the House. I do not know how I am going to do justice to it in the next eight minutes. This debate is aptly timed, as we published our new road safety strategy last week.

I stress the importance of road safety around animals. I know how vital horses are to rural areas, such as West Berkshire, and I have been very sorry to hear about collisions involving horses and riders. I pass on my condolences to all those who have been affected by these tragic incidents, including the death of the racehorse Knockalla in Lambourn. We also heard about Laura, who lost her horse Angel, Katie, who lost her horse George and Maddy, who lost her horse Blaze. We were all horrified to hear the description by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) of what happened to his constituent, Susi. I recognise how horrible it must be to lose an animal in that way, and stress the importance of keeping our roads safe for all road users.

As has been noted, the highway code was updated in 2022 to improve safety, particularly for the most vulnerable road users. The Department for Transport introduced the hierarchy of road users, which sets out that those who can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to reduce the potential threat that they pose to others. The highway code changes included strengthening the guidance on safe passing distances and speeds when overtaking horse riders. I encourage everyone in the country, especially drivers, to look at the “Rules about animals” section of the highway code.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

The highway code needs proper signage to remind drivers of their obligations. Does the Minister agree that it is important the council maintains signage properly, warning users of where there are likely to be horses—such as in Heddon in my constituency, where unfortunately the county council is dragging its feet on getting appropriate signage in place?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I agree with him.

As has already been noted, despite the investment of £2.4 million in paid advertising raising road users’ awareness of the changes to the code, it is clear that more action is needed. As set out in the strategy, we are considering options to improve the safety of both riders and their horses. We will work with stakeholders such as the British Horse Society as we undertake that work.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

What we have heard today is really the business case. We need horses in rural areas for businesses; if we lose a horse, we do not protect our local economy. Would the Minister agree and take that into account when thinking about the future?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has made his point very well.

We will also continue to encourage safer road user behaviours in order to improve safety for all vulnerable road users, including horse riders, motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians and road workers. Our flagship road safety campaign, THINK!, will continue to do that, alongside the use of social media channels and other partner organisations.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency also does important work to promote awareness of horse and rider road safety. The DVSA publication, “The Official DVSA Guide to Driving: the essential skills”, contains a section on horses, and horses also feature in the hazard perception tests that all drivers have to take to obtain their licence.

We have already dealt with a number of the statistics. In 2024, there were 63 collisions involving ridden horses, in which 71 people were seriously or slightly injured. That is according to STATS19 data, and it is completely unacceptable. We know that, through targeted action on speeding, drink and drug-driving, and mobile phone use, alongside the education piece we have already discussed, those tragedies can be prevented.

Experts and campaigners have long called for a comprehensive strategy that treats road safety as a priority. Our new road safety strategy shows that this Government are not only listening but leading to build a safer future for all road users, including horse riders. Hon. Members will know that the strategy sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035. I think that the vital work we will do—and I take on board all the contributions that have been made—will save lives on Britain’s roads and make them safer for absolutely everyone, including horse riders and their horses.

In the short time I have left, I turn to some of the questions that have been raised. The hon. Member for Newbury asked about equestrian representation on the national road safety board. That is yet to be considered; however, he makes the important point that we must ensure we hear the voices of all road users as we undertake that work. I will certainly take that point away.

There was a question about whether equine road safety is included in initial driver training for those who drive for work. I have already described how it is incorporated within the driving test, and I will consider what further work we can do to strengthen the guidance and advice that goes to those who employ drivers and riders. I was pleased to hear about the VR headsets in use in Leicestershire; I absolutely agree that understanding how frightening a close pass can be is really valuable. I saw a video produced by Cycling UK on close passes on social media just yesterday. Frankly, it sent a shiver down my spine. Vulnerable road users need that safe space.

The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) asked about speed limits. They are obviously a matter for local councils, but we are updating our guidance on setting such speed limits. I will take account of the point she made.

A number of matters raised today fall outside my remit. However, I will ensure that my DEFRA colleagues are alerted to the concerns raised regarding the provision and management of bridleways, and indeed the issues my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) raised about uncontrolled dogs. I apologise if I have missed any of the questions raised; I will ensure that I work with my officials and write to Members if I feel that I have not provided them a sufficient answer in the time available.

As I conclude, I again pass on my condolences to all those who have been affected by this issue. Improving road safety is one of my highest priorities, and this Department will continue to work hard to bring down deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I again thank the hon. Member for Newbury for raising this vital issue and congratulate him on what has been a very fulsome debate.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I thank everyone for their flexibility; we managed to get everybody in.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered horse and rider road safety.

Road Safety Strategy

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our new national road safety strategy.

It is a sad truth that, by the time I finish speaking and we hear the Opposition’s response, it is likely someone will have died or been seriously injured on our roads. It is an even sadder truth that that would likely have been entirely preventable. Even though we have some of the safest roads in the world, more than 1,600 people died on our roads last year, and nearly 28,000 were seriously injured.

Over the course of my lifetime, road safety has improved immeasurably—in no small part thanks to a titan of my party, Barbara Castle—but it is safe to say the last 10 years represent a lost decade. Death and serious injury numbers have plateaued despite improvements in vehicle safety. The UK has slipped from third to fourth in Europe’s road safety rankings, and the human cost of too little action and too much complacency is clear: lives taken too soon, lives altered beyond recognition, and lives grieved by the families left behind.

If that was not enough, a decade without a comprehensive road safety strategy has meant that the country lost out on nearly £7 billion in economic output last year. That should not just give us pause; it should spur us to action. We would not tolerate that on our railways or in our airspace, and I am determined to ensure that we no longer tolerate it on our roads. That is why I am standing here today: to say quite simply that enough is enough.

The targets that we are setting match the full measure of our ambition. We want to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035, and by 70% for children under 16. Our vision is clear: any road user—however they choose to travel—should be able to move safely on our roads. There are four main ways in which we will deliver that vision through the strategy.

First, we will put all road users at the heart of the strategy. When it comes to protecting vulnerable road users, we will be guided by the evidence. We know, for example, that young drivers between 17 and 24 are at a higher risk of death or serious injury on our roads. They account for 6% of driving licences yet are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions. That is why we will consult not just on a minimum learning period for learner drivers, but on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers. I would also recognise the important debate on young driver safety that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) secured last January.

Another key area is the safety of older drivers. In 2024, about 24% of all car drivers killed were aged 70 or older. While driving is rightly seen as a vital form of independence in older age, it cannot come at the expense of safety, so we will consult on mandatory eyesight tests for drivers over 70 and explore options for cognitive testing, recognising the risks of driving with conditions such as dementia.

We also will not ignore the fact that motorcyclists are 40 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on our roads compared with car drivers, so we will reform the motorcycle training, testing and licensing regime. That starts today with a consultation, including on removing the ability to ride on L-plates indefinitely.

Let me move to advances in technology and data. We will consult on mandating 18 new vehicle safety technologies under the GB type approval scheme—a change that could prevent more than 14,000 deaths and serious injuries over 15 years. That includes autonomous emergency braking, a proven safety technology that Meera Naran has tirelessly campaigned for as Dev’s law, after the tragic loss of her son. I am delighted to see her in the Public Gallery; she has been an incredible campaigner on this issue.

To learn from collisions and prevent future harm, we will establish a data-led road safety investigation branch covering the whole of Great Britain. It will draw on data to carry out thematic investigations and make recommendations. To give those involved in collisions the best chance of survival, we will ensure that police-recorded collision data and healthcare data are shared more effectively.

The third theme is about infrastructure. Safer roads and effective speed management are essential pillars of the “safe system” approach that guides the strategy. That starts with investment. The Government are providing £24 billion between 2026 and 2030 to improve motorways and local roads, building on record funding for pothole repairs. We will also publish updated guidance on setting local speed limits and the use of speed and red light cameras, supporting local authorities to make evidence-based decisions.

Because rural roads remain among the most dangerous, with motorcyclists often navigating sharp bends, we will build on the success of Project PRIME—perceptual rider information for maximisation of enjoyment and expertise—in Scotland, which saw real safety improvements thanks to new road markings.

Finally, let me talk about enforcement. We know that most drivers are safe, and we do not want to get in their way. However, they need to feel confident that the Government have their back, so my message to the minority of drivers who are unsafe and reckless is simple: if you drive dangerously, if you drive illegally or if you make our roads less safe, you will face the consequences.

Take drink and drug-driving. We know that it was a contributory factor in 18% of road fatalities in 2023, so we will consult on lowering the drink-drive limit, which has not been changed in England and Wales since 1967. We will review penalties for drink and drug-driving offences and explore the use of alcohol interlock devices. New powers will be considered to suspend licences for those suspected of the most serious offences.

We also propose tougher penalties for those who drive without insurance—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) for his persistent advocacy on this issue. We will also look at penalty points for failing to wear a seatbelt and failing to ensure that child passengers are wearing theirs, too.

Thanks to the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), we are tackling illegal number plates. We will increase penalties for using illegal plates and ensure that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is empowered to carry out more robust checks on number plate suppliers.

These rightly bold ambitions cannot be met by Government working alone. We call on the support of Members from all parts of the House and extend our hand in partnership to the devolved Governments, mayors, local authorities, the police and other stakeholders. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her support on behalf of the Transport Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety for his advocacy on this important issue.

I have sat with families torn apart by deaths and serious injuries on our roads—it is one of the hardest parts of my job. Even through intolerable pain, they campaign, fight and demand change so that others can be spared their sense of loss. This strategy is for those brave families. I truly believe that this is a turning point for road safety in this country, when we finally put victims at the heart of policymaking, see road safety as a shared responsibility and understand that, while driver or rider error is inevitable, fatalities and serious injury are not. A multilayered system, from safer speeds and vehicles to safer roads and robust enforcement, is how we protect every road user. That is how we ensure that people walk away from collisions rather than being carried and how we deliver safer roads for everyone who relies on them. I have laid copies of the documents in the Libraries of both Houses, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, although obviously some of it was reported in The Times earlier this week. I welcome the fact that the Government have published the road safety strategy, and I welcome the broad ambition, shared right across the House, to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. As a former Roads Minister and as a local MP, I too have met many grieving families torn apart by deaths on our roads. The fact that we have seen a 10% to 15% reduction since 2010 does not mean that we do not need to go further.

In that spirit, I welcome the comprehensive look at motorcycle training that the Minister has announced, as well as the expansion of Project PRIME from Scotland on motorcycle safety. That will be a major improvement to our road safety. I also welcome stiffer fines and enforcement against bad faith drivers, particularly those on ghost plates, as has been mentioned, and against those trying to evade justice via the use of dodgy number plates and other things to conceal their identity. I also welcome the road safety investigation branch and the better use and collation of data and data sharing—those are incredibly important. I also welcome the inclusion of Sharlotte’s law, which will help to prevent people trying to evade justice by ensuring that timely blood testing can take place in the most serious of cases.

It is clear that there will be concern about some of the new moves announced and whether they are wholly related to road safety, and I would like to look at a couple of those. In oral questions, the Minister appeared to suggest that part of the reason for the six-month delay after getting a theory test was to ensure that more driving tests are available. In reality, it will mean an even larger group of people waiting to book driving tests, so I fear that the Government have not fully thought through the consequences of that. I remember meeting a woman aged 60 who had just lost her husband of 40 years. She lived in a small village with no bus service. She had always relied on him to drive. Are we really telling her that she will have to take a theory test and then wait six months after passing it to take a driving test?

I can think of women in similar circumstances—men take more driving tests than women at an earlier stage in life—who maybe only take a test when they move for jobs or after having children. We need to properly think through the consequences of some of what the Government are proposing. It is important that we look at this broadly to ensure that we are not restricting freedoms via legislation to fix problems that are the result of not sorting out driving tests.

No one in this House disputes that drink-driving is totally unacceptable, but I hope that Ministers and the Secretary of State will reflect on the experiences in Scotland, where changes in this space have already been made, and on the concerns right across the hospitality sector that there is no clear evidence of improved road safety outcomes following those changes. In fact, it is extraordinary that the Department—to quote an answer to one of my written questions—

“has not made an assessment of the impact on the economic viability of pubs in Scotland”

as a result of the changes that have already happened up there. Changing the legal limit alone will not change behaviour, and any reform must be based on a thorough examination of the evidence and impacts, not on attempts to look tough.

Alongside alcohol, the House must not lose sight of drug-driving, and I welcome some of the measures announced today. However, the commitments to testing seem rather vague. It would be great to hear more from the Minister on that because the police are pushing for more roadside drug testing. Governments of all stripes have pushed for an emphasis on education and behavioural change. However, that sits uneasily with this Government cutting the budget for the THINK! road safety campaign by £1.2 million last year, particularly when lifelong learning and changes are so critical to many of the plans that the Government have announced today.

That brings me to my final major point, which is around enforcement. This place can pass all the laws it wishes, but if they are not enforced, all that does is undermine faith in our democratic institutions. The House will be aware that police numbers under this Government are down by around 1,300 in the latest figures. Enforcement sits at the heart of any credible road safety policy, so are there are plans to ensure additional roads policing to ensure that enforcement happens?

Finally, there are some omissions. Why still exclude vulnerable road users and motorcyclists from bus lanes in many areas? There is a real missed opportunity to improve safety and survival for those people. There is also a glaring absence when it comes to tackling the scourge of unlicensed and uninsured criminals driving with impunity. Measures such as requiring proof of identity to register a vehicle could have been included, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) might mention that in her remarks, too.

Road safety is not delivered by strategies and consultations alone; it is delivered when the law is clear and evidence-based, enforcement is consistent and the Government are willing to confront difficult issues, rather than relying on process and pre-briefed headlines. While we welcome many of the measures, there are still many questions to be answered, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I welcome the support from the shadow Secretary of State for our measures to tackle road harm. I was slightly surprised by his comment about the coverage in the press because we did of course publish the strategy yesterday, giving him the opportunity to have a full 24 hours to read it. Nevertheless, I note his comments and welcome his support. I also note his comment about the reduction in those killed and seriously injured over the previous Government’s term. I welcome the fact that the numbers went down slightly, but they are nothing to the level of ambition that this Government are showing and the seriousness that this problem requires.

The right hon. Member questioned why we are introducing a minimum learning period for new drivers. This is a safety measure. It is about saying that in order to set people up for a lifetime of safe driving, whenever they take their driving test and learn to drive, they need to get a range of pre-test practice in a variety of conditions. We want people to take the time to learn properly, to ensure they know how to cope with things like extreme weather, driving at night and driving on different sorts of roads. We think that that is the right thing to do. Nevertheless, it is, of course, subject to a consultation, and we will listen carefully to all the views expressed in that.

When it comes to drink-driving, of course we do not want to stop people going out and enjoying our hospitality sector. What we are clearly saying is, “If you’re going to go out and have a drink, leave your car at home.” Reducing the drink-drive limit would simply bring England and Wales into line with Scotland and the rest of Europe. We are the only countries, except perhaps Malta, that have this higher drink-drive limit—

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

We are one of the safest.

[Lilian Greenwood]

We are no longer the safest. We have been dropping down the rankings, and progress has stalled compared with other countries across Europe. Sir Peter North’s review in 2010 estimated that reducing the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg would save an estimated 43 to 168 lives each year and avoid a very large number of serious injuries—a conservative estimate put it at 280. We are acting on the evidence.

When it comes to drug-driving, we are looking at how we can make better use of testing. I know that too many people who have suffered as a result of someone drug-driving wait a long time for their case to come to court. It takes too long to process, which is why we are looking at things like roadside testing. Through our award-winning THINK! campaign, we continue to target publicity at those who cause the most danger: young men aged 17 to 24. At the end of last year, we did an anti-drug-driving campaign—the first in 10 years—using the sorts of media channels that get to those we are trying to target, including TikTok and Instagram.

Finally, the shadow Secretary of State is right to speak about enforcement. That is why this Government are investing in additional police officers—an extra 3,000 police officers by March and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are responding to the requirements of the police. We are giving them the legislation and the powers they need to crack down on those who cause danger on our roads. I am pleased to see that our strategy has been welcomed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for roads policing, Jo Shiner. I welcome the right hon. Member’s other comments, and we look forward to reading the official Opposition’s comments in response to our consultations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

This strategy and the many elements within it are hugely welcome, and I congratulate the Government on addressing what the previous Government spent 14 years not properly addressing, during which time too many people have been killed or seriously injured on our roads in preventable incidents. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Transport Committee previously, she spoke positively about London’s “Vision Zero” strategy. Now that the road safety strategy has been published, are the Government planning to adopt a “Vision Zero” strategy nationally, and if not, why not?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support, and she is right to commend Transport for London. Indeed, a number of mayors and local authorities have adopted “Vision Zero” strategies. Of course, we want to get to a position where the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads is zero, but in setting out this strategy, we have established national road safety targets that we think are achievable. Of course, in the longer term, we want to work towards a position where no one is injured on our roads.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench know that they have two minutes, not two minutes and 50 seconds or three minutes and 10 seconds.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. Let me be clear that we are consulting on a number of the measures in the road safety strategy so that the public and stakeholders have an opportunity to share their views. The intent is not to delay. The consultations will be open for 12 weeks, and then we intend to take concrete action as a result of the feedback we receive. Some of the measures in this strategy will take very little time and do not require legislation. Others will require secondary or, indeed, primary legislation, but we intend to take action in order to meet the ambitious targets we have set for just nine years’ time.

I totally understand what the hon. Gentleman says about older people. We do not want to restrict older people’s independence, and we know how important driving can be, but the truth is that we need to keep people safe. We do not want anyone on our roads whose medical condition means that they are not safe to drive. Some people may be unaware that their eyesight has deteriorated and poses a danger to others. I know that many families find it difficult to have those conversations with an older relative about when is the right time to stop driving. We hope that the measures we are proposing on eyesight testing will help in those circumstances.

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about rural areas and the need to ensure that these measures are rural-proofed. When it comes to potholes, he is right: they are not only very annoying for all our constituents but a real danger to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. That is why this Government are investing £7.3 billion over the spending review period in local roads maintenance, on top of the additional £500 million this year. We are giving local authorities that long-term funding settlement so that they can improve the shocking quality of the roads we were left with by the previous Conservative Government.

When it comes to young drivers, we have considered carefully the right balance between protecting young people, who we know are at particular risk, and not curtailing their opportunities for work, education and social activities.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for all her hard work on this strategy—I have no doubt that it will save lives. I have spent the last year campaigning against ghost number plates, which make drivers invisible to speed and police cameras. These plates are great for car racers and criminals and terrible for the rest of us. They have spent years going under the radar, but today they have been rumbled, and I am delighted the Minister has announced a massive crackdown on these plates. How soon will these dodgy ghost-plate drivers start to get penalty points on their licence and their vehicles seized for using these plates, and when will we start to see these MOT number plate checks?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and, as I said earlier, for the outstanding work that she has done to bring this issue to national attention. As she knows, alongside the road safety strategy, yesterday we launched five consultation documents, one of which is about motoring offences. It includes our intention to have tougher penalties for those who use illegal plates, and to strengthen the role of the DVLA in looking at number plate suppliers and taking action. I do not intend to delay, but we must obviously await the end of the consultation, and some of those measures will require legislation.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her time in discussing these issues. As a former police and crime commissioner who funded a dedicated roads policing unit, this issue is close to my heart. I wish to make two points about drink and drug-driving. First, I fear that reducing the alcohol limit for England and Wales is potentially a red herring policy that will distract from focusing on where the real harm and damage comes: from those who ignore the drink-drive limit no matter what it is. Secondly, I thank the Minister for the focus on drug-driving. This year, after their Christmas operations, police forces will be reporting more drug than drink detections for the first time. It is good that that is being detected, but it is scratching the surface of the problem and we must focus in on those who take drugs and drive cars. I would welcome any further details from the Minister on the specifics so that we can start doing that as soon as possible and get those people off our roads.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continued interest in these areas. As I said earlier in response to the shadow Secretary of State, when it comes to drink-driving, we are drawing on evidence. The UK is an outlier when it comes to our drink-drive limit, which has been the same for almost 60 years. This measure will simply bring us into line with Scotland and most of the rest of Europe. In Scotland, drink-drive fatal collisions halved in the decade after the drink-drive limit was reduced, and as I have said, evidence from Sir Peter North’s 2010 review estimated that the measure would save dozens of lives. That is what the road safety strategy is about. It is not about curtailing people’s freedom to drive; it is about saving lives, as are the measures that we are looking at on drug-driving, which we know is a growing problem. We are determined to crack down on it.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and her great personal commitment to this vital issue. It is clear that the Government have listened to families and the road safety community and followed the evidence. She rightly recognises the importance of local partnerships in delivering on the ambitions of the strategy. Unfortunately, in Lancashire the Reform-led county council insists on waiting for fatalities and serious injuries to occur before acting, seemingly regardless of concerns raised by residents. Does the Minister agree that to deliver on this strategy and save lives, local authorities such as Lancashire must have a more proactive approach by listening to communities, identifying risk areas and acting before people are killed or injured?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the incredible work that he has been doing through the all-party group for transport safety. He raises concerns about Lancashire’s Reform council, and true to form, no Reform Members are here today to debate this issue. I have been concerned that some local authorities hide behind national guidance on setting speed limits and the deployment of speed cameras, and say that they have to wait for a fatality to occur before they can take action. That is not the case. We are intending to strengthen the guidance that we provide to local authorities, to enable them to listen to community concerns and act to save lives.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I welcome all efforts by the Government to make roads safer for pedestrians and motorists, but I heard nothing about roadkill of wildlife, horses, pets, and other animals that can also cause collisions involving the deaths of human beings. In my constituency, Havering-atte-Bower is a rural Essex village with a lot of horse riders. I am told that up to 700 horses have been killed on the roads in recent years, and up to 50 riders. We also have a lot of roaming deer in areas such as Harold Hill and Noak Hill. Apparently, up to 75,000 deer are killed on the roads, along with hedgehogs and other animals, so there is a lot going on with wildlife which needs to be considered. We know that some creatures do not have to be registered if they are run over by a motor vehicle, so will the Minister consider amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 to include cats and other wild animals?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that on rural roads in particular dangers are posed by drivers who hit animals, and right to raise concerns about horse riders. He will know that the highway code was strengthened to ensure that those who are driving are mindful of horse riders and the need to pass them safely, slowly and with sufficient room. We will look at what more we can do to strengthen the advice and guidance, and ensure that people are aware of those issues in the highway code. I have listened carefully to many people who have raised with me their concerns about cats, and work is under way in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look at further research on that issue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call David Williams, who is permitted to leave early so that he can deal with his cough.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

That is really kind of you, after a full morning in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I warmly welcome the road safety strategy, which will save the lives of thousands of people across the next decade. As the Minister knows, because we have had countless meetings, I have been campaigning alongside Claire, the incredibly brave mother of six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky Naglis, who was so tragically killed by a motorist in my constituency. Under the current law, police are unable to test the blood of unconscious suspects until they are in a position to give consent, and in their deepest moments of grief, Sharlotte’s family could not get the answers they needed. Does the Minister agree that through consultation we now have an opportunity to change that, and to bring justice and a lasting legacy for Sharlotte and her family, so that no other families have to face such pain and anguish?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for the work that he has done to ensure that that case was brought to my attention. Claire’s voice, and those of many bereaved families, have been in my mind as we have been devising this road safety strategy. My hon. Friend will have seen that in the consultation on offences we are looking to introduce Sharlotte’s law, to ensure that no other family suffers what they suffered.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

In light of what was essentially a very sensible statement, may I ask the Minister a point of clarification? She talks about data technology and innovation, but have the Government considered an experiment in mandatory black box technology for very young drivers? The AA and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association say that that could save money and reduce the number of accidents by 35%.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The right hon. Member is right that many young drivers will seek lower insurance as a result of having a black box in their car. That issue was considered as part of Driver2020 and research carried out by the previous Government. The results from that were not conclusive in suggesting that such a measure would make a difference, but I remain open to being evidence-led, and if further information comes forward, we would be happy to consider those issues.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I recognise the Minister’s dedication to this issue over many years, and I am glad that today she is in a position to introduce this strategy, which rightly focuses on reducing death and injury on our roads. We all know of places in our communities that are accident or speeding hotspots, where it is only a matter of time before something happens, yet too often safety improvements follow only when there has been a serious injury or a fatality. That mentality has to change. How will this strategy give communities the power to take action before it is too late?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. Clearly, local authorities can and should draw on historical collision data when assessing road safety measures, but proactive measures to reduce risks should not be contingent on a fatal or serious incident occurring. Local authorities have the power and the funding to carry out interventions, so it is vital that they listen to the concerns of local people and act to prevent serious incidents before they occur, rather than just responding to them afterwards.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Ryan Saltern was hit and left for dead by a drunk driver in 2019. The perpetrator received a four-month suspended sentence. In 2021, Ryan’s family launched their Ryan’s law campaign to increase sentences for hit-and-run offences, and in October I introduced a Ryan’s law amendment to the Sentencing Bill. We all know that there can be lots of talk in this place, but not always much action. Last year, I met the road safety Minister with the family; she clearly listened and has now acted, and I thank her. I pay tribute to my incredible North Cornwall constituents Mark and Helen, Ryan’s parents, and Leanne, his sister, for never giving up—they are a true inspiration. Once the consultation closes, how long will it take the Minister to bring draft legislation to the House?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for the work that he has done to support the Saltern family. It was humbling to meet Mark, Helen and Leanne, and to hear about their work supporting other victims of road traffic collisions. As he knows, we are consulting on strengthening the law around those who fail to stop and report a collision. What happened to Ryan is tragic and I am keen that we act as quickly as possible. Where legislation is required, we will have to wait until parliamentary time is available, but I am determined to act.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and I welcome the strategy, particularly its focus on speed management. While icy and ungritted roads currently make speeding less of an issue, thanks to the Reform-led county council’s failure to grit roads across large parts of my constituency, excessive speed in our rural villages, such as Chebsey, has long put residents in danger. How will the Minister ensure that rural road segmentation works effectively with local speed limits to reduce dangerous driving in those areas, so that safety is delivered by this Government’s policy and we can get past local or county council failure?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sorry to hear about the failure of my hon. Friend’s council to take action that would prevent further collisions. We know that rural roads are more dangerous, and that is why we are determined to take action to support local authorities to introduce measures to make them safer.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Another way to improve road safety is to reduce driver frustration caused by roadworks, particularly those that overrun. That is why in 2022 I launched a campaign to “Can the Cones” and introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to tighten up on roadworks regulations. I lobbied the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and after the election I lobbied the road safety Minister, who kindly gave me a hearing. I welcome the fact that the Government have just announced that they are tightening the regulation of roadworks, particularly by increasing the fines for those that overrun, which was integral to my Bill. I give credit where it is due and I thank the Minister personally for listening. The measures will not solve the whole problem of roadworks, but they should certainly help, and my constituents and I will be grateful.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am not entirely sure I heard a question, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words. I am proud to be part of a Government who listen and act.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I welcome the strategy published yesterday. It will save lives and, as a secondary impact, reduce insurance premiums, which is a non-trivial challenge for many people. I want to talk about the notion of a cognitive test that is set out in the strategy. In 2020, Xander Irvine, who was just three years old, was looking through a shop window in Edinburgh with his mother, when a car mounted the pavement, killing him and injuring his mother. The driver was aged 91 and she died around a year later of natural causes. Despite having dementia, she was able to renew her driving licence just a few months before the accident. The fatal accident inquiry was clear in its recommendation that cognitive tests should be introduced. I believe that all deaths on our roads are preventable; this death was absolutely preventable. The strategy talks about “developing options”, but will the Minister go further today and guarantee that we will deliver in this area? Will she go even further and talk about a timeline for delivering that change?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I dealt with the prevention of future deaths report relating to the utterly heartbreaking case that my hon. Friend refers to. While there is not currently a suitable test of cognitive ability to drive safely, I recognise the need for us to do further work on the issue. We plan to reconvene the older drivers taskforce and expert groups on this subject to consider suitable options. I do not intend to delay—I intend to take evidence and to take action.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising optometrist. I thank the Minister for this wonderful statement. I wholeheartedly agree with it, especially the ambition to reduce road deaths by 65%. The Minister mentioned various figures, including 1,600 fatalities, but according to the RAC, 280 crashes every year are caused by glare from headlights, so can she shed some light on that matter?

The UK is one of the only countries in Europe that does not have mandatory sight tests until people have to renew their licence at the age of 70, so somebody could pass a driving test at 17 or 18, then not have an eye test until they are 70 years old. Does the Minister agree that people should have a sight test every time their driving licence is renewed, which is every 10 years, to ensure that they are safe on the road?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. No one should be driving on our roads whose eyesight does not meet the required standard. We have chosen to consult on eye tests for those over 70, but it would be good advice for everyone to have their eyes tested on a regular basis. We have undertaken research on headlamp glare. I know that this is a growing problem, and I certainly recognise it as a driver myself. We are going to consider the outputs of the research that we already have and do further work, in addition to looking internationally at work on vehicle standards, but I absolutely want to take further action on headlamp glare.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We definitely need to speed things up or colleagues will not be able to get in.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her written statement about enforcement on pavement parking, which is a huge issue in Luton South and South Bedfordshire. I welcome the launch of today’s road safety strategy, particularly the emphasis on tackling drug-driving. There was a trebling of fatal collisions between 2014 and 2023 related to drug-driving, so will the Minister elaborate further on how that will be enforced under the new strategy?

[Lilian Greenwood]

We know that drug-driving is a growing problem. We have already done further publicity on the dangers of drug-driving, because not everyone appreciates how dangerous it is, but we also want to crack down on those who do drive with drugs in their system. We are looking to improve testing and processing so that we can bring more convictions, and more importantly to deter people from ever getting behind the wheel of a car when they have taken drugs.

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

Dangerous driving and speeding are among the biggest road safety issues in my constituency. Despite that, the local Cheshire councils frequently say that they cannot introduce further safety measures because the police are unable to enforce them. What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office to ensure that police forces have the funding and resources necessary to enforce existing, as well as new, driving laws as part of the road safety strategy?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I know that the hon. Lady has been a real campaigner on road safety during her time in the House. The ambitious targets that we have set can be delivered only by working in partnership with the police. I have had a number of meetings with the Minister for Policing and Crime. We both agree that this is an important issue and we will be working with police forces to ensure that it is enforced.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for taking pity on my throat. I recently held a public meeting about road safety in Polesworth, where there have been reports of illegal street racing. Constituents shared with me their concerns about the illegal number plates used by criminals to get away with dangerous driving. That is why I strongly support the Government’s strategy, which will introduce tougher checks to ensure that number plates can be read by cameras and to crack down on the use of ghost plates. Will the Minister outline what support my local police force in Warwickshire will receive to crack down on criminal street racing and the use of illegal number plates?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done at a local level. We are consulting on new powers to give the police precisely the tools that they need to crack down on the criminals who feel that they can get away with illegal activity by using ghost plates.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Road safety in Woking is regularly raised with me by my constituents, so I am pleased that the Government have announced ways to toughen up our drink-driving laws. However, police forces, including mine in Surrey, cannot adequately police the drink-driving laws as they are, and these changes will be less impactful if they are not able to do proper enforcement. With police forces increasingly deprioritising policing on our roads due to budgetary pressures, has the Minister conducted a review of current enforcement? If not, will she do so?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Government have done a great deal of work in collaboration with the Home Office on road policing. We know that this strategy will be effective only if there is enforcement. I cannot instruct chief constables on how they deploy their resources, but we are determined to work in partnership to ensure that this road safety strategy is effective, including the measures around enforcement.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for all her hard work over many years to bring this excellent statement to the House. Some 500 people are killed or seriously injured on Birmingham’s roads every year, including in my constituency. Sadly, due to the historical layout of many of our estates, schools, shops and other amenities are in some of the areas at the most acute risk. Can she assure the House that her Department is working with other public agencies to ensure that efforts are targeted at those most at-risk areas? Once the consultation has closed at the end of March, will every effort be made to respond to them as soon as possible?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We are working very closely with those who have expressed a similar desire to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads, including the Mayor of the West Midlands, who has shown real leadership on this issue. I can give my hon. Friend the commitment that we intend to act to ensure that the measures we have set out lead to the changes needed.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, and I welcome and commend this Government’s road safety strategy. Late last year, there were three incidents outside Lydgate junior and infant school, Headfield school and Westmoor primary school in my constituency—thankfully, there were no fatalities. I joined West Yorkshire police, local councillors and the affected schools to conduct a road safety campaign outside those schools. In some parts of the country, roads outside schools are temporarily closed for 30 minutes at the beginning and end of the day, and other schools have no-parking zones that extend to ensure that there are no safety risks. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government will take to increase road safety outside schools?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Local authorities already have the powers to introduce school streets, as the hon. Gentleman described, or to reduce speed limits outside schools. They have our full backing to use those powers to improve safety outside schools, including those in his constituency.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the proposals in the strategy, which I have no doubt will save lives. May I thank the Minister for her statement on pavement parking earlier today? Many of us have raised that issue over many years.

I am particularly pleased to see moves to crack down on unlicensed and uninsured drivers. The Minister will remember that she kindly met my constituents John and Karen Rowlands last year to talk about the death of their son Andrew. As the Minister knows, they want to see better oversight of insurance and licensing, especially in relation to car sales on social media. Would she welcome further representations on this issue as part of the consultation?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her words and for the incredible work she has done to advocate on behalf of those who want safer streets and pavements and to raise the particular case of John and Karen Rowlands. I would be very happy to see their response to the motoring offences consultation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for the statement; there is much positivity in it. Anyone who has to declare a health issue on their driving licence will know that it becomes much more complex—I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. They need a full MOT and an eyesight test before they get their driving licence renewed, but that does not mean that they cannot drive; the point I am trying to make is that it has to be regulated. The current waiting time for medical tests and feedback for driving licence renewals to be processed is 16 weeks. I know two lorry drivers who had to wait six months before they got their licence due to their health changes, so they were not able to work. What plans are in place to address this issue and to speed up the process?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Roads and Buses Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), who has responsibility for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, is sitting next to me. I recognise that there have been delays in dealing with some medical licensing. The DVLA is introducing a new IT system, which will certainly help to speed up the licensing investigations that the hon. Gentleman talks about.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

More needs to be done to clamp down on dangerous driving. Oldham has seen far too many lives lost as a result of drivers treating the roads as racetracks. There is much to be welcomed in this strategy, and I congratulate the Minister on the work. However, I am not convinced that the proposal to introduce a practical test waiting period holds. Drivers are already waiting an unacceptable 24 weeks, and surely tests should be taken at the point when drivers are ready to meet the required standard. In many areas, driving is not a “nice to have”; it is essential to get to work or college and to go about daily life. May I ask that this work is not rushed into and that more is done to end the 24-week wait experienced by drivers in Greater Manchester?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend will know that the Government are already taking action to address driving test wait times, which I know are incredibly frustrating. However, we need to ensure that young drivers are set up for a lifetime of safe driving. We know from evidence that a minimum learning period will save lives and improve safety. That is why we are consulting on it, but we will listen as part of that consultation.

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

Every 17 minutes, someone is killed or seriously injured on our roads. That is a national scandal, which this Labour Government are tackling through this road safety strategy. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Rochdale trading standards, which, together with local police, led the country in exposing how ghost number plates are used by criminals, groomers, drug dealers and others to avoid detection? Will she thank all those bereaved families who campaigned with me and fellow MPs to ensure that we have mandatory eye tests for over-70s and much tighter drug-driving laws?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am very happy to commend those from my hon. Friend’s constituency who do such fantastic work to campaign, as well as the police and trading standards on the work that they do. We are determined to act on the things that they have led on.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

This year marks 13 years since the most incredible bestie that anybody could wish for—the ray of sunshine that I was lucky enough to have in my life—was killed on our road, leaving her two young boys. Ashya Vanner, I think about you every day. I also pay tribute to Amie Pearson and Chelsea Carlisle, who were killed in Pleasley in November, with a nine-year-old boy being left with life-changing injuries. I thank the Minister for this work, but can we please get the legislation passed as soon as possible so that we can work on preventing unnecessary deaths?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I hope my hon. Friend will send my condolences to those in her constituency who have been affected by such a terrible loss. There is no question but that too many people are killed and seriously injured on our roads, and we intend to act to reduce the number as soon as possible.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank her very much for presenting the strategy. Road safety is a frequent and serious concern across Erewash. Following the tragic murder of Samuel Wilson by a driver under the influence of alcohol and drugs in Ilkeston marketplace in December 2023, I have been supporting a local campaign for safer road rules and stronger pedestrianisation in our marketplace to prevent such events from ever happening again. Will the Minister comment on how her road safety strategy will make our town centres safer for pedestrians?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and am very sorry to hear about that road traffic collision in his constituency. One of the things we are doing as part of this strategy is reissuing the manual for streets. That manual supports local authorities to introduce road safety measures, particularly in urban areas, extending things like pedestrianisation. We will ensure that pedestrians are put at the heart of our road safety strategy.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

In my constituency, 19 people died on the roads between 2018 and 2024. It is usually assumed that that is because we have some motorway in the constituency, but in fact people are six times more likely to die on a rural road. I thank the Minister very much for the measures within the strategy. I know there will be those who push back against changes to drink-driving limits, so does she agree that when people talk about personal responsibility in respect of driving, they fail to understand the depth of damage that is caused—both to families and to the wider community—when there are so many deaths of young people in my constituency?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Deaths and serious injuries resulting from road traffic collisions tear apart families and communities, and they come at great cost to our national health service and our country. Those are just some of the reasons why we are acting to reduce them.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and join her in paying tribute to the bereaved families who, in the face of unimaginable loss, have campaigned for these road safety improvements. At the end of 2025 there were a number of serious accidents at Moor Farm roundabout in my constituency, leading to hospitalisations and serious delays on the network. The Minister is well aware of my campaign for improvements at Moor Farm—improvements that were long neglected by the previous Government, and which I will continue to push for as part of the road investment strategy. Can she say a little about how these two strategies will interact and, hopefully, unlock those vital improvements?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Safer roads are an essential pillar of the safe system approach that underpins our road safety strategy. We have had a number of conversations about investments in infrastructure, and road safety remains the top priority for National Highways as it devises its road investment strategy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Can we have super-short questions and super-sharp answers? I call Sarah Edwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and happy new year.

Although I welcome the road safety strategy, it sadly ignores school minibus safety, despite my raising this issue with the Department last year. I have been campaigning with my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald since 2023, following the tragic loss of their daughter Claire in a minibus accident. Private schools follow strict O licence rules, yet state schools can use weak section 19 permits. Will the Minister remedy this failing in the law through mandatory national safety standards for all school minibuses?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Minister for Roads and Buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), was listening carefully and will be happy to write to my hon. Friend or meet her to discuss it further.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) described the Government’s plans to reduce the blood alcohol limit as “absolutely ridiculous” and “wholly unacceptable”, and said that the current system worked “pretty effectively”. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the families of the 260 people who tragically died last year as a result of intoxicated drivers’ behaviour would strongly disagree, and that we should reject those claims?

[John Slinger]

I did, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is noticeable that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not here, but I would invite him to sit down with any of the families I have sat down with and claim that there is no need for action— 260 lives were lost last year, and every single one of those deaths was preventable.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for taking the time before Christmas to talk to me about my constituent Jamie Nolan, who sadly lost his life last October, aged 17, when his vehicle left a rural road in the dark. His parents, Sam and Paul, are obviously devastated, but they are really keen to make sure things improve for other families so that they do not experience this kind of tragedy. Can the Minister advise them on how they could get involved once they get through the worst of their grief, to ensure that the excellent measures in the strategy to focus on young people, rural roads, signage, road markings and local speed limits can be implemented across Lincolnshire’s roads?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and my heart goes out to her constituents. I would be very happy to meet them and her to discuss what further action can be taken at whatever time they think is appropriate.

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

One of the first people I met when I became an MP was my constituent Janine, whose son Leon was tragically killed on a road in my constituency in 2020. I am proud that, working with her, we were able to get the speed limit changed on that road, but much more needs to happen nationally to ensure that this never happens again. As such, I welcome the road safety strategy. The strategy acknowledges that there is a relationship between deprivation and casualties, so when it is being implemented, will resources be targeted at the communities that need them most across the country?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have called for action to tackle, in particular, the death and serious injury of children on our roads, and we know that they are at far greater risk in more deprived communities. I will consider further his point about funding.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

As the Minister knows, my constituents Mary Cunningham and Grace Foulds were killed by a driver who had been told several times that his eyesight fell far below the legal standard to drive. Eyecare professionals are not currently required to inform the DVLA if someone’s vision is so poor that they cannot safely get behind the wheel. Will the Minister consider mandating eyecare professionals to report directly to the DVLA all drivers with insufficient visual acuity and an inadequate field of vision, no matter their age?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I pay tribute to the campaigning work of Terry Cunningham and his sister, Sue Rimaitis, who have acted following the sad loss of their mother Mary and her friend Grace. He is absolutely right that medical professionals have an important role to play, and we want to make sure that we work with their professional bodies to ensure that they report to the DVLA in those circumstances.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for publishing this strategy. I recently met with the community in Tintwistle in my constituency, who are concerned about speeding and unsafe driving on the A628. I have also had similar conversations with communities in Peak Forest and in Padfield. They desperately want road safety measures, but every time we ask, the answer that comes back is, “I’m afraid somebody has to die first.” That is the very thing that we are trying to avoid, so could the Minister reassure me and my constituents that this road safety strategy will put the power back into those communities so that they can protect local people?

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is local authorities that have the power to act in relation to road safety. We are determined to give them the guidance they need to take action in a proactive way to save lives in communities such as my hon. Friend’s.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

In Blackpool we have seen year-on-year increases in the number of uninsured drivers, skyrocketing our premiums and the cost of insurance. Can the Minister outline to my constituents what her Department is doing to clamp down on this problem, and has it done any assessment of what this will mean for the pockets of my constituents?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Arm’s length bodies of the Department for Transport and the police work together closely on Operation Tutelage, to take people who are driving uninsured off the road. We are proposing tougher measures to deal with uninsured drivers. Frankly, if there were fewer road traffic collisions, that would reduce insurance costs for everyone.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I very much welcome this strategy, and the Minister’s commitment to making the changes necessary to bring down the tragic and avoidable loss of life on our roads. I have launched a survey for Road Safety Week, and I have already heard from many constituents across Cannock Chase who do not feel safe on our roads, with speeding and dangerous junctions causing particular concern. Will the Minister join me in encouraging people in my towns and villages to fill out my survey so that I can take up their specific concerns, and does she agree that the knowledge of local people will be vital to achieving the Government’s mission of sharply reducing deaths on our roads?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am happy to encourage my hon. Friend’s constituents to complete that survey. It is vitally important that the views of local people are heard by those local authorities who have the power to act to save lives.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. Over the past 17 months, I have supported my constituents Nevgül and Bora Bicakci. In August 2024, a bus mounted the pavement in Bexleyheath and killed their nine-year-old daughter, Ada. The driver of that bus was subsequently found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and driving while unfit through drugs. I pay tribute to the family’s campaign work on issues relating to drug-driving. Will the Minister confirm that the strategy includes a review of the penalties for drug-driving offences and the exploration of alternative methods for collecting and processing drug-driving evidence?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has done to support his constituents, whom I had the pleasure of meeting at the Livia awards last year. I can confirm that we are taking the action he sets out to curb drug-driving and to ensure that those who act in such a reckless manner feel the full consequences of the law.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for bringing forward the first road safety strategy in more than a decade, alongside specific and measurable targets for cutting the number of deaths on our roads. Evidently, one of the experiences we share across the House is the first time we meet the family of a child who has been killed on our roads. In my case, it was a child from Middlewich who was just cycling to school when he was hit by a young driver racing another car. What will stay with me—as it will stay with his friends, the school and our community for ever—is not just the sense of utter devastation, but the sense of determination from the parents that it cannot be allowed to happen to another family. The strategy sets out a broad range of measures that the Government want to bring in. Will the Minister commit to publishing a timetable for when each consultation and each measure is likely to come in, so that we can give reassurance to families that we are going to do this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I can provide my hon. Friend with the assurance that we are going to do this. We will establish a new road safety board, which I will chair, to ensure that we make progress on the measures we have set out in the strategy and that we look at how soon we can act to ensure that those people see change happening.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

As I have previously discussed with the Minister, the A505 is one of the deadliest roads in the country, and the stretch between Baldock and Royston in particular has seen tragedy after tragedy in my constituency. Will the Minister set out how the road safety strategy will empower local highways authorities to take the necessary actions to finally make the A505 safer?

[Lilian Greenwood]

This strategy will be delivered in partnership with local authorities. We are strengthening the guidance that we provide to them so that they can put in place those measures that are needed to save lives.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister on this strategy; I know how much tireless work she has put into it. I represent residents on Stonebridge Lane in Farnley, Dixon Lane in Wortley, Green Lane in Lofthouse and Westerton Road in Tingley. They all tell me that the speeds on their roads are far too high, but they are repeatedly told by the highways department that the mean average speed is too low to do anything about it, despite the fact that the mean average speed is often slightly higher than the speed limits on those roads. As a former maths teacher, I know the value of data, but I also know the limitations of the mean. What will the road safety strategy do to alleviate my residents’ genuine concerns?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He raises very familiar concerns on behalf of his constituents. We know that the guidance on setting speed limits and on taking action needs updating. That is why we have committed to do that as part of this road safety strategy.

Pavement Parking: Consultation Response

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Written Statements

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

This statement provides the House with an update on steps the Government are taking to tackle pavement parking. In short, we are giving local authorities the powers they need to address pavement parking more effectively, while ensuring consistency, clarity, and fairness for all road users.

I am today announcing the publication of the Government response to the 2020 public consultation, “Pavement parking: options for change”. The response demonstrates our commitment to improving transport users’ experience, ensuring that our roads and pavements are safe, reliable, and inclusive.

The Government are taking forward a new, devolved approach to pavement parking, reflecting our commitment to decisions being made closer to the communities they affect. Local leaders know their communities best, so they are in the strongest position to meet local needs effectively. Our overarching objective to make pavements accessible and safe remains unchanged, but rather than introducing a “one size fits all” national prohibition, which was one of the consultation options, we will instead enable local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking across their areas at the next legislative opportunity.

In strategic authority areas outside London, the power will be vested in the SA as the local transport authority. In non-SA areas, the power will be vested in the LTA, which is either the unitary authority or county council. This will support more responsive and inclusive transport planning in the interests of local communities.

In the meantime, secondary legislation will be introduced in 2026 to enable local authorities to enforce against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement. This provides a practical and proportionate interim solution, allowing councils to act where pavement parking is observed by uniformed civil enforcement officers. This power will sit alongside existing traffic regulation order making powers, enabling councils to enforce pavement parking restrictions both where TROs are in place and in other areas where obstruction occurs. The Department will issue statutory guidance to support local authorities in using this power.

Taken together, these steps will give local authorities the powers they need to address pavement parking effectively and fairly in their areas, and I commend the Government response to the House.

[HCWS1226]

Ely: Railway Upgrade

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for securing this important debate on the Ely area capacity enhancement programme—EACE. I want to recognise her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents, rail passengers and freight operators across the region on a matter that affects many rail users, in one way or another.

As the hon. Lady said, the Ely area plays an essential role in our national rail network. It is a gateway for freight from the port of Felixstowe—one of Britain’s largest container ports—and is a key connector for communities across East Anglia and beyond. The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the constraints at Ely, which limit passenger capacity and hold back the full potential for rail freight growth in the east. Indeed, East Anglia is one of the fastest-growing parts of the country and this Government are extremely ambitious for the future prosperity of the region. Rail will continue to play a vital role in supporting new housing, unlocking jobs and strengthening sustainable freight links. The hon. Lady rightly highlighted the potential environmental benefits of moving freight from road to rail and, indeed, the safety benefits.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) for securing this debate. As she said, there is a lot of support for this scheme across the political spectrum, and it has been on the books for a very long time—as a good indication, the number of years she just mentioned is longer than I have been alive. Can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise the huge growth that the scheme could unlock not only in my region of Cambridgeshire, but more broadly across the country, and that we therefore want to bring it forward as soon as the financial situation will allow?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for growth in his constituency and his region. I can assure him that this scheme is in the pipeline of future rail enhancements and will be reconsidered as further funding becomes available.

[Steve Barclay]

The Minister seems to be citing a lack of funding as the reason for the scheme not being funded, but when I spoke to the Rail Minister in his previous role as chair of Network Rail, it was a priority for Network Rail. Can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that schemes with a worse benefit-cost ratio were funded in the spending review? In other words, did the Government choose to fund transport schemes with a lower BCR over funding the Ely junction?

[Lilian Greenwood]

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of considerations that go into making decisions about which schemes go forward.

[Steve Barclay]

What about the BCR?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The BCR is, of course, one of the things that is considered, but wider strategic issues are always brought to bear. It is just one of the tests that is considered. I would not for a moment suggest that this scheme does not have a good BCR.

Improvements to East Anglia’s rail network will benefit not only local passengers, but communities and businesses across the midlands and the north. I commend the collaboration shown by local partners, councils, industry and residents who have come together to present a united voice behind the scheme.

However, it is important that we address the funding position directly. On 8 July, the Secretary of State updated Parliament on which road and rail infrastructure schemes will progress following the spending review; as the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire is aware, the EACE programme has unfortunately not been allocated funding at this stage.

As the hon. Lady rightly noted, the previous Government committed to a range of major schemes in their October 2023 Network North announcement, knowing full well, with a general election on the horizon, that there was no funding to deliver them. That, unfortunately, included the Ely area capacity enhancement. I recognise and share the frustration that has caused locally, and this Government are determined to ensure transparency regarding the future of this programme. We are committed to delivering infrastructure with the greatest benefit to passengers, freight and the wider economy as quickly as possible and within a fully funded and deliverable programme.

I appreciate that it is disappointing for the hon. Lady and the many supporters of this scheme, but it is not the end of the story—I want to be absolutely clear on that point. We fully recognise the strategic importance of the Ely area capacity enhancement programme, which is why, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), we remain committed to supporting its place in the pipeline of future rail enhancements, and the programme will be kept under active review and considered carefully as further funding becomes available.

As the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire pointed out, the scheme has a strong business case. Indeed, EACE would increase freight capacity from 36 to 42 daily trains to and from the port of Felixstowe, which would deliver huge benefits including supporting the economy, cutting emissions, reducing HGV congestion on roads like the A14 and strengthening our supply chains; the passenger benefits would also be substantial, delivering more reliable journeys and supporting growth across the region from Norwich and Ipswich to Cambridge and beyond.

I want to recognise, as the hon. Lady set out, the powerful and united voice of local and regional stakeholders, including Transport East, England’s Economic Heartland, local authorities, ports and freight operators, and indeed MPs from across the political spectrum. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) brings great knowledge and experience to this debate. The hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire herself has been vocal in championing this investment, and of course that local support strengthens the case for future funding.

The Rail Minister recently met the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to discuss how the Ely programme could support housing and economic development in the east of England, and the potential for raising third-party funding to support the scheme. Given the strong local support for the scheme, and the real development and growth opportunities it could unlock across the region, it is important that all sources of funding are fully explored. But I am sure the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire will recognise that any private finance or alternative funding proposals would need to demonstrate value for money to the public sector.

As the hon. Lady may know, 44 level crossings would need to be upgraded or closed to deliver the increased capacity envisioned by EACE. I note that it has been suggested in the media that the cost of upgrading Ely North junction has ballooned from £25 million in 2012 to almost £500 million, but let me be clear that that is not the case. As one of my officials put it, this is like comparing apples with deck chairs, as the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme comprises a much wider series of interventions, including upgrades to bridges, signalling and Ely station itself, as well as additional track and the upgrading and closure of level crossings, alongside the Ely North upgrades that were announced in 2012.

That is likely to be one of the most challenging and costly aspects of the scheme, particularly the planning consent, and securing local agreement to ease the delivery of these works on level crossings could radically reduce the cost of the scheme. The Rail Minister has asked the mayor to work with local highways authorities to explore how the required works around level crossings could be simplified or rationalised.

As we have observed, the investment case for EACE is strong. However, no development work has taken place on the scheme since it was closed by the previous Government in 2022. Upgrading the business case, including revised cost estimates, demand forecasts and benefits assessments, would be a positive first step in bringing the programme forward.

The Rail Minister has recently written to the mayor suggesting that he meets the chief executive of Network Rail to discuss how the EACE programme’s business case could be updated, and the mayor’s office would be well placed to co-ordinate other stakeholder engagement with Network Rail on that update. To that end, I encourage the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire and other hon. Members to continue engaging with the mayor. It would also be important to time any business case updates to align with the potential release of funding at future spending reviews.

While we consider how best to progress EACE, I reassure the hon. Lady that Cambridgeshire is already benefiting from significant rail investment. The new Cambridge South station is forecast to open in June 2026, improving access to new housing and one of the most important life sciences campuses in the world. The Government have also reaffirmed their commitment to East West Rail serving Cambridge and allocated £2.5 billion of funding for the next stages of the project at the last spending review.

Investment in East West Rail demonstrates Government support for enhanced connectivity across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, and that project can enable up to 100,000 new homes and is expected to boost the regional economy by £6.7 billion a year by 2050.

[Charlotte Cane]

It is wonderful that East West Rail is coming, but my constituents need to be able to get to it in Cambridge, which is why we need the upgrade at Ely junction.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Lady has made a compelling case for Ely junction and the wider Ely area capacity enhancement scheme. It is about ensuring that it is affordable and deliverable, which is precisely why we are keeping it in the pipeline for when further funding is available. We inherited terrible economic pressures and, in the Department for Transport, billions of pounds of schemes that were simply unfunded, which I am afraid is the position with the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme.

Let me finish by thanking the hon. Member again for securing this debate and for the passion with which she continues to champion the Ely area capacity enhancement scheme. I understand the disappointment that she and other stakeholders have expressed following the spending review earlier this year, but I hope that I have reassured her that the Government recognise EACE as a key strategic enhancement, that we see clear value in its future delivery, and that we will continue to work constructively with regional partners as we consider how and when best to take the programme forward.

The case that the hon. Member and others have articulated this evening and on many other occasions will remain central to ensuring that when future funding becomes available, the scheme will be well placed to progress. I look forward to continuing that dialogue and to unlocking the full potential of rail passengers and freight in the Ely area, and indeed wider Cambridgeshire, in the years ahead. My noble Friend the Rail Minister has notified me that he will be happy to meet her to discuss this further.

Question put and agreed to.