Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Too many of my constituents feel they are being left to fend for themselves on unsafe roads. They are scared for their children, they are tired of reporting the same danger again and again, and they are angry that nothing changes until someone is seriously hurt, or worse. My message to the Government today is simple: people should not have to die or be seriously injured before something is done about dangerous speeding. Provisional estimates for 2024 suggest that 1,633 people were killed on Britain’s roads last year, while 56% of fatal road collisions in 2023 involved one or more speed-related factors.

I have three clear asks of the Minister today. First, the Government must move to taking a proactive approach to fixed speed camera placement, rather than waiting for a tragedy before allowing action. Secondly, I am asking that national guidance—specifically, Department for Transport circular 01/2007, “Use of speed and red-light cameras for traffic enforcement: Guidance on deployment, visibility and signing—be updated to reflect this proactive approach. Thirdly, I want the Government to make it easier for local communities, who know their roads better than anyone, to get the speed cameras they need without having to fight for years to be heard, if the data can back up the request.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on securing her first Adjournment debate. Many people in my constituency have written to me about this issue, particularly those in villages around the towns, such as Ferrensby. Does she agree that in rural areas like mine, there needs to be a proactive stance to ensure that where there are not footpaths and pavements, people are not at risk from speeding vehicles?

[Lisa Smart]

I absolutely agree. My constituency is suburban, but a number of our areas are semi-rural and have roads without pavements. When pedestrians are walking along a road because there is no pavement, the danger level is increased. I agree that communities need to be able to take proactive action to make our roads safer.

We should start with the facts. Speed cameras work. They reduce speeding, reduce accidents and reduce deaths—they save lives. The RAC Foundation and the Department for Transport have both shown that speed cameras reduce speeding and cut the number of crashes. Areas with cameras see up to a 42% drop in fatal or serious collisions. These are our children making it home from school or our grandparents crossing the road safely. This debate is not about whether cameras work, because we know they do.

The threat of dangerous driving remains clear, and I want to take a moment to thank the Brake campaign for its work on these issues. It continues to be a powerful voice for road safety, fighting for changes that prevent heartbreak and loss in communities up and down the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is right to mention the organisation Brake and the good work it does; it does the same good work in my constituency, and we all benefit. In Northern Ireland, speed cameras are primarily installed in locations with a demonstrated history of injury, collisions and speeding problems, so they are mostly on motorways rather than in country areas where there are more accidents, with the result that they are not as effective as they could be. Does she agree that the oversaturation in some areas and underusage in others has led to the general public losing confidence in the use of speed cameras as a tool for road safety, and instead, many see it as a revenue-raising exercise?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The safety of road users, be they vehicle users, cyclists, pedestrians or mobility scooter users, needs to be at the heart of decision making on speed cameras. I agree that safety rather than revenue needs to be at the centre of any decisions.

In my constituency of Hazel Grove, the danger is real and it is happening right now.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Martin McCluskey.)

[Lisa Smart]

Gill has lived on Moor End Road in Mellor for 25 years. In that time, she has seen people’s pets killed, cars smashed to bits and a stone wall destroyed by reckless drivers, but what keeps her awake at night is fear for local children and elderly relatives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) mentioned happens in his constituency, parts of Moor End Road do not have pavements, so people are forced to walk right alongside very fast-moving vehicles. For Gill, it feels like it is only a matter of time before there is an accident. We should not be waiting for that time to come.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Too often, the question of whether local authorities, combined authorities or police forces are responsible for funding speed cameras comes up. That has led to horrible delays in places like Thorns Road and Manor Way in my constituency, where, despite fatalities and decades of concern, we are still no closer to getting average speed cameras on those hot spots. Does the hon. Member agree that we need faster mechanisms to agree who pays for speed cameras, so that we can move quickly so that the people of Halesowen and Quarry Bank can feel safe?

[Lisa Smart]

I agree with the hon. Member that the bureaucracy of who funds cameras should not be what holds up making our roads safer. We should have an agreed way of funding them and communities should be empowered, so that if they can raise the funds themselves, whether through a parish council precept or otherwise, they should not be blocked from doing so. Given the costs incurred through loss of life and injury, the expense of such interventions should be looked at as a whole; the installation of a speed camera can prevent such costs further down the line, so is a matter of making an investment in order to save.

Another of my constituents, Christopher, also from Mellor, knows that all too well. He was involved in a terrifying crash with a stolen car being driven at dangerous speeds, and he told me that he thought his life was over. Nobody should have to feel that fear just for being on the road.

In Offerton, my constituent Chris is one of many who have contacted me about speeding on Offerton Road and Torkington Road. He is worried about HGVs thundering down residential streets, ignoring the 15mph limits on the Torky bends. He said kids are scared to walk home, near misses are all too frequent and many incidents go unreported. In Little Moor, Marion lives on a dangerous bend, where cars have been written off, they have destroyed the lamp post next to her house and a motorbike has torn up her driveway.

I cannot talk about speeding without mentioning the wonderful children of Mellor primary school. After I visited the school, the entire year 6 class wrote to me about speeding on Longhurst Lane—I had encouraged them to write to their MP about things that they cared about, and they did. Children aged 10 and 11 asked me for updates on what was being done about Longhurst Lane, and many of them told me that speed cameras would be an obvious part of the solution. If schoolchildren can see the solution, I think we should listen. These are just a few of the voices in my inbox—there are many, many more. Our communities are sounding the alarm, but they feel ignored and are desperate for someone to take action.

Here is the root of the problem: under current Government guidance, local authorities should not install a fixed-speed camera until after there have been three or more fatal or serious injury collisions, as per circular 01/2007. So three serious injuries or deaths have to happen before speed cameras are encouraged—that is a disastrously reactive policy. It is a policy that says, “We’ll only fix the danger once enough people have died or have at least come close to it.” That is surely both morally wrong and practically absurd. Residents on Strines Road, for example, have repeatedly raised concerns about unsafe driving. They have logged the dangers and shown the evidence, but because the road has not yet claimed enough lives in a sufficiently limited time period, the current guidance is of little help.

I should note that circular 01/2007 allows for the installation of fixed-speed cameras even before the usual thresholds are met, recognising that such cameras can play a valuable role where there is clear community concern. However, as the answers to several of my written parliamentary questions have made clear, that provision is treated very much as a secondary consideration. The Greater Manchester combined authority, which covers my own patch, frequently points to the national guidance when pressed on the installation of new cameras in parts of my constituency where local communities have made their concerns more than clear. The guidance fails to actively encourage or even enable local and combined authorities to prioritise that proactive approach as a central pillar of their road safety strategy, where it rightly belongs.

Both in theory and in practice, the Government’s approach does not value prevention; it responds only to tragedy. We need a better approach based on risk, not on death tolls. Let us listen when residents report repeated speeding. Let us take community complaints seriously. Let us use data such as average speed monitoring and near-miss records, not just crash statistics. My community welcomed the Government’s announcement that speeding would be addressed in the new road safety strategy. That is a good first step, but we need to see that strategy take a proactive stance.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for bringing forward this debate. I point out in particular that one of my residents—a man called Chris, who is now a friend—lost his wife Lorraine. She was simply cycling back from her work at school and was hit by a driver. In order to ensure that nothing so dreadful happened again, Chris paid for speeding signs on his piece of road. It really should not be for individuals to feel so desperate that they end up funding that themselves. Certainly in my area, it is very difficult for communities to prove that they need to have some sort of speeding restrictions. Those signs are really effective, particularly since they move around in parishes, which I have and which I know my hon. Friend does not have.

[Lisa Smart]

I am so sorry to hear that that happened to Lorraine and Chris. Of course Chris does not want that to happen to somebody else, and it is entirely understandable that he has taken action himself to remind drivers of the speed limit. My constituents on Strines Road have done something very similar—every single green bin has a speeding reminder on it. They have taken action into their own hands.

[Tessa Munt]

We do not have bins in rural areas. There is nothing bar the speed cameras.

[Lisa Smart]

The secondary point to the one that my hon. Friend raises is about local authorities being properly funded so that they can take the preventive action that works for them to make their communities safe. I am grateful for the points that she raises.

The guidance must be revised to give clear guidance to local and combined authorities, because until that changes, councils and local police forces will continue to feel that they cannot act. That is not good enough, and our constituents deserve more. My call to this Government is simple: update the national guidance to allow for the proactive, preventive placement of speed cameras based on risk, not on tragedy. Let us build a future where safety comes first, not after the fact. Let us give councils the tools they need to stop accidents before they happen.

We also need change at the local level, so I welcome the GMCA’s ongoing review of its speed camera guidance, which I pushed for for years as a councillor before being elected to this place. Frankly, that review is long overdue and has taken far too long. National reform will empower changes at the local level, and it is that change that I will keep fighting for and that I ask the Government for today.

Let me end where I began. Our constituents should not have to wait for tragedy before they get protection. They should not have to experience the death of an elderly neighbour, a child on their way home from school or another member of their local community to see the change that they need. Speed cameras work: they lead to lower speeds, fewer accidents and fewer deaths on our roads. I once again urge the Government to take a proactive approach to speed camera installation, to update national guidance to that effect—particularly circular 01/2007—and to make it easier for local communities to get the safety measures that they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

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

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

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

[Lisa Smart]

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

[Lilian Greenwood]

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

HS2 Reset

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

As I said in my statement, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate whether the James Stewart report raises any questions for the civil service or the wider public sector. My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the point about contracts being signed with construction companies even before the scope of the works had been agreed. It is little wonder that the country has ended up paying more. We signed a contract with a company to deliver works, yet there was no clarity whatever about what work the Government wanted them to do. This is a dreadful and woeful failure of oversight by previous Government Ministers, and I will not allow that to happen on my watch.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Before I was elected to this place, I was a member of HS2’s independent panel for the community and environment fund and business and local economy fund. The Secretary of State’s statement makes for pretty shocking reading. There is talk of fraud and shambolic mismanagement—things that should bring shame on everybody involved.

One of the problems with HS2 was always the name, which put the focus on speed, rather than capacity. My Hazel Grove constituents use the west coast main line, and they talk to me about the capacity problems that remain. Indeed, I see them every week when I come up and down to work. The Secretary of State says that she is not reinstating the line north of Birmingham. She also says that trans-Pennine work is under way. What specific work is being undertaken by her Department on capacity on the west coast main line north of Birmingham?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am aware that the Mayor of the West Midlands and the Mayor of Greater Manchester have put proposals to the Government on this issue. In the mid-2030s, we are likely to see severe capacity constraints between Birmingham and Manchester. We are reviewing those proposals, and I hope to be able to say more on them in the months ahead.

Stockport Railway Station

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way in this really important debate. I started my journey to the Chamber today at Stockport station. I completely agree with his comments, but I wonder whether he would go further. Our ambition for accessibility on our railway network needs to expand beyond the mainline stations. Stockport is an extremely important station for my Hazel Grove constituents, but we need to ensure accessibility at stations such as Woodley, Rose Hill Marple and Romiley so that all passengers can access our railway network, not just those who have two legs that can get them up a steep slope.

[Navendu Mishra]

I agree entirely. To go back to my previous point, if we want people to use public transport, we need to offer services that match their needs. I lived in Hazel Grove for several years, and I know the stations that the hon. Lady mentions. I agree that Stockport is a large station—it had almost 4 million entries and exits in the last reporting period—but we should not overlook the smaller stations. Unfortunately, over the last few decades, the north and north-west of England has been overlooked when it comes to transport investment. I agree with the hon. Lady, and there is a lot to be said about people commuting from smaller stations to larger stations and getting connections to Manchester airport, Birmingham, Cornwall, London or even Scotland.

Disabled passengers too often face faulty lifts and have no way to access the platforms, and that problem is persistent across my constituency. Sadly, three out of five rail stations in my constituency—Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South—do not have step-free access, and I want to see that addressed as soon as possible. It is simply unacceptable that disabled passengers, parents with pushchairs, older people and people who are less mobile than us are excluded from using their local stations with dignity and ease.

I want to put on the record my thanks to Nathaniel Yates, a local champion from the Reddish part of Stockport —I think the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has met him—who has done a lot of work on step-free access at railway stations, not just in Stockport but across Greater Manchester.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss Stockport railway station. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) for their interventions.

Let me start by talking a little bit about this important train station. Stockport station is a vital transport interchange in south Greater Manchester. Sitting on the west coast main line approach to Manchester Piccadilly, it provides access and connectivity across the country to commuters, leisure travel and freight. On average, 501 passenger and freight trains pass through the station per day. That is 10,000 paying passengers a day, with 5,000 to 6,000 passing through the station.

The industry is working collaboratively to engage with local stakeholders who have concerns and a vision for the station. Network Rail’s engagement with local stakeholders is fundamental to shaping plans for the future of the station, and it will continue to welcome input and to be transparent about timescales and issues as they arise.

The Stockport corridor is critical for a range of express, regional and local passenger services and freight. It supports some very important flows nationally as well as offering a key destination in the interchange hub at Stockport station itself. The route from Stockport into Manchester is very constrained, which means that it is extremely difficult to plan any additional services through it reliably. While other interfacing schemes might increase capacity and capability elsewhere on the network, the constraints at Stockport act as a bottleneck when trying to uplift service frequencies overall. Network Rail and the industry are working through the options to address capability and capacity, working with mayors and transport authorities on what future plans there could be for the Stockport corridor.

[Lisa Smart]

The Minister is talking about the assessment of various options. We know that the Treasury is looking at reviewing the contents of the Green Book that measures the benefits and disbenefits of any capital spending. Can he say a few words on how we can ensure that the north, particularly the Stockport area, gets its fair share of capital spending in the future to ensure that existing inequality is not baked into the calculations that the Treasury makes?

[Simon Lightwood]

We obviously want to see growth in every corner of the country, and we are awaiting the spending review outcomes, as is everybody else.

We are aware that our partners will have their own priorities for the future of railways in their areas, and we are open to engaging with them directly on their plans. The core aim of the Stockport station redevelopment scheme is to support future increases in rail patronage and green travel and to drive clean and sustainable economic growth. It will improve the accessibility, attractiveness and useability of Stockport station and reduce town centre severance.

There is an opportunity to leverage a package of works through the Greater Manchester authority’s sustainable transport settlement funding for delivery by March 2027, which would include a refurbishment of platform buildings, with a focus on platforms 1 and 2. Stockport council, Network Rail and Avanti are meeting today to further scope out that work. Avanti West Coast has funds available for the current financial year to undertake works at the station, which will focus on staff facilities that need upgrading and some accessibility enhancements. We will share further information as those plans are developed.

I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for her intervention, and I will touch on Passenger Assist. Avanti has seen a significant increase in passenger assistance over the last 12 months, and it is now reviewing its Passenger Assist process so that it can meet the needs of passengers on that service.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing the debate. His opening speech was thoughtful, and the speeches of so many Members from across the House were heartfelt and often heart-rending.

As Members from across the House have made clear, children across the country should feel safe when attending school, and parents, teachers and children should feel confident in cycling or walking to school. In many cases, however, that is very difficult. We know that walking and cycling to school brings huge benefits to children’s health—both physical and mental—and to the environment and the wider community, yet fewer children are doing it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made clear, in 1975 around two thirds of children walked or cycled to school, but today that figure is under 50%, with just 3% cycling.

The decline is not inevitable. In fact, many studies have shown that schools, parents and children themselves would like the ability to walk or cycle to school, but many barriers remain. Road safety around schools remains a key issue. Last year, 64 children under 16 were killed on our roads and more than 12,000 were injured—34 every single day.

It is concerning that the danger is greatest in the places where children should be the safest: near their schools. I have sadly seen the tragic consequences of that in my constituency. In July 2023, there was a tragic road incident at The Study school in Wimbledon, which took the lives of two beautiful young children. The matter is still under investigation by the police, so I will be circumspect in my comments. Suffice it to say that when I met school staff recently, they made it clear that further steps must be taken to improve road safety around the school to prevent such an incident from happening again. Many schools, especially in rural areas, sit on or near roads with 40 mph or even 50 mph speed limits. That is simply unacceptable.

We know that children are more at risk between 3 pm and 6 pm, on their way home from school, and yet Government action remains piecemeal, reactive and underfunded. The UK once led the world in cutting road deaths. Bold steps such as drink-driving laws, seatbelt rules, safer infrastructure and education campaigns massively reduced incidents in Great Britain, but we are falling behind. Countries across Europe have made active travel safer and more accessible, while our progress has stalled. The Liberal Democrats are consequently calling on the Government to publish the long-overdue road safety strategy without delay.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I add my voice to my hon. Friend’s call for the Government to get on with updating the road safety strategy. At the moment, they are suggesting that local communities must wait for three serious accidents or deaths for a fixed speed camera to be installed. Does he agree that we should shift the thinking, look at fixed speed cameras more as a preventive than a punitive tool, and update the guidance accordingly?

[Mr Kohler]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must be proactive, and not reactive to death. We must anticipate accidents and do something before they happen.

The strategy must prioritise children and active travel, and draw lessons from past successes, including the road safety plan of the year 2000, which had a transformative impact and helped halve fatalities in just a decade. The lack of specific active travel infrastructure is linked to that. We must continue to improve the provision of safe cycling and walking routes across our communities. We must improve parents’ and schools’ confidence in children using active travel to get to school.

Research from Cycling UK shows that the appetite is there. In rural areas such as Devon, 84% of people support more walking and cycling, but more than 80% feel that their local roads are unsafe. When the Department for Transport asked families what would help children walk to school, the most common answers were safer roads and safe crossing points. Improving the provision of designated routes, safer crossings and better lighting is vital to improving active travel.

The Government must also properly invest in cycling and walking infrastructure, and put a new comprehensive active travel strategy in place. Their increase in funding for active travel is welcome, but they must ensure that the money is spent effectively and targeted at where it is needed.

Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing a debate on this important topic for our constituents. Transport connectivity is about economic growth and opening up the world so that our constituents can make choices about their lives that allow them to fulfil their potential.

Reliable, affordable and accessible public transport is not just a convenience; it is an essential pillar of our economy, our communities and our future. Yet for too long the north-west has suffered from under-investment, unreliable rail services and disconnected transport networks that leave too many of our constituents struggling to get to work, school or essential services. That is why I am asking the Government for three things today. First, we need more frequent and reliable rail services with simple, affordable fares that encourage people back on to our trains. Secondly, I urge the Government to work with Stockport council and the Greater Manchester combined authority to bring Metrolink or tram-trains to my constituency. Thirdly, the Government need to make public transport the default for my constituents by expanding current bus and rail connections.

Many in my community and in the surrounding areas of Greater Manchester and beyond will remember the absolute chaos towards the end of last year when, almost every day, commuters on Northern-operated trains saw swathes of red cancellation notices. I received dozens of emails from constituents talking about how they could not rely on the trains to get to work or to pick up their children from school. Some even told me that they had to reject job offers because the trains were just too unreliable.

Since the pandemic, constituents commuting on the Rose Hill to Manchester Piccadilly line have faced an irregular timetable, and passenger numbers across the north-west have struggled to recover to pre-pandemic levels. I welcome the plan to integrate our trains, trams and buses, and I look forward to the streamlining of ticketing this will offer. However, it would be remiss of me not to mention that Metrolink does not yet extend into any part of Stockport. Our brilliant new interchange is Metrolink-ready, but we have no indication of when Metrolink will be ready for Stockport. We have even less idea of whether Metrolink or tram-trains will eventually reach into the towns and villages of my constituency.

Many of my residents have to rely on buses to get where they want to go, and some of those buses are not operated by the Bee network because we are right on the edge of Greater Manchester. We need more frequent bus services that link to our rail services, but the ridiculous traffic levels on the roads in my constituency will prevent them from reaching their potential. Whether it is the A6 or Stockport Road, journeys that normally take 20 minutes can take over an hour in the morning and evening rush hours. Public transport is the obvious solution. We should make it easier for those who can take the tram or the train so that the roads are freed up for those who cannot. Trams and trains offer commuters the ability to bypass rush hour congestion in a way that buses cannot.

Transport for Greater Manchester has an ambition to restore regular passenger rail services on the Stockport to Stalybridge line. This provides a unique opportunity to reduce rush hour journey times significantly for commuters heading to Stockport from my constituency. The rail line from Bredbury to Piccadilly crosses over the Stockport to Stalybridge line near Reddish Vale. I encourage the Department for Transport and TfGM to explore the possibility of linking those two lines, whether in the form of a new interchange station or a chord linking the two. The message from my constituents is clear: they need public transport that works for them. That means a railway system that people can rely on, bus routes that connect communities rather than isolate them, and investment in new transport links that drive economic growth.

Airport Expansion

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I am not usually quite so divisive at the Dispatch Box, but we inherited such a broken system it is almost untrue, such are the things we are finding out about the sclerotic nature of the previous Government. The Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), is investing £1.6 million in fixing potholes, while the Minister responsible for buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has invested £1 billion in buses. We are moving fast. We are fixing things and we are delivering.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

As a fellow Greater Manchester MP, the Minister will undoubtedly know that Manchester airport welcomed 30 million passengers through its doors last year, and that 84% of those passengers came to and from the airport by car. He will rightly acknowledge the valid concerns across the House today about the impact of airport expansion on carbon emissions. The carbon footprint of Manchester airport comes only partly from air travel, as a lot of it comes from road travel. What update can the Minister give my constituents on surface access improvements at Manchester airport, so that they can get to and from the airport, whether as passengers or to work, by bus or by train?

[Mike Kane]

Well, the Conservatives built a road, but it just floods all the time—maybe we can start by dealing with that. The hon. Lady is right that Manchester airport is in my constituency. Mine is actually the most visited constituency in the north of England; in fact, 30 million people visited it last year alone, although they may not have stayed as long as I would have liked. The airport has been on an incredible journey, especially with its decarbonisation. I hope to meet the airport operators shortly to continue that journey with them.

Road Safety: Young Drivers

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered road safety for young drivers.

Thank you for chairing this Westminster Hall debate on road safety for young drivers, Sir Desmond, and for allowing me to present the opening statement to our Minister for the Future of Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I thank her for giving up her time today to engage in this discussion.

Road traffic collisions are the biggest killer of young people aged 15 to 29 worldwide. In 2023, 290 young people were killed in the UK as a result of a road collision, and nearly one quarter of all road collisions involved young people. Although drivers under 24 make up only 6% of total licence holders, they represent 18% of all car drivers killed and seriously injured. That is because one in five newly qualified drivers will have an accident in their first year. For any other leading cause of death of our young people, we would declare a public health emergency and prioritise resources to tackle the crisis.

Unfortunately, young people are also more likely to be involved in crashes causing multiple injuries and those that involve a greater number of people. There is much evidence to suggest that younger and less experienced drivers carry a heavier risk. The road safety campaign Brake points to some development-related risks, including the level of brain development, overconfidence and poor assessment of hazards, that make young drivers more prone to serious accidents.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the way she is laying out her case. Does she agree that preventing young people from speeding is one way to prevent accidents? Like me, she knows that it is very difficult to get fixed speed cameras in place. The current Government guidance says that three serious accidents or deaths must occur before a fixed speed camera can be installed. Does she agree that a preventive approach would be much more successful than a punitive approach?

[Julia Buckley]

I agree that all measures that can prevent collisions, injuries and deaths should be explored. Prevention is often not only better but cheaper than dealing with the consequences of doing nothing.

Research from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has shown that young drivers have poorer visual awareness. They display a smaller range of horizontal scanning of the road, they check their mirrors less, and they focus more on stationary objects than moving objects.

In rural areas such as my constituency of Shrewsbury, the statistics are compounded by the disproportionate danger on countryside roads. According to National Farmers Union Mutual’s 2024 “Rural Road Safety” report, there were nearly 1,000 deaths on rural roads that year. Tragically, collisions on rural roads are four times more likely to end in a fatality. That report showed that rural hazards are often entirely different from those on urban roads, and require a specific set of skills and awareness—including the need to look out for livestock or agricultural vehicles, the lack of lighting or road markings, narrow passing points, the lack of visibility, blind corners and poor road quality. It highlighted the need for improved road maintenance and infrastructure.

Rail Performance

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

LNER’s reliability has improved in the past year, but I am not naive and do not think we are there yet; these are only the green shoots of recovery. The real improvements from these reforms will come when we can truly integrate track and train. LNER and the east coast are a perfect example of where the previous system was failing. Billions of pounds were spent on upgrading the east coast main line, but with absolutely no improvement for passengers. By integrating track and train, we can ensure that those upgrades to the east coast main line are fully realised for passengers and that the timetable and service from LNER are improved.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

My constituents have to rely on two of the most unreliable train operating companies: Northern and TransPennine Express. Too many of them are having to drive to get to work on time or get a taxi to get back in time for after-school club. When does the Secretary of State think my constituents will have the confidence to go back to using the train, rather than relying on an app on their phone?

[Louise Haigh]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Northern and TransPennine Express serve my constituency as well, and some of the most deprived parts of the north of England. Performance has not been good enough. TransPennine in particular has seen insignificant improvements since it was brought into public ownership, but neither operator is where it needs to be. We are working closely with them as a priority through the operator of last resort, not only to drive efficiencies, but crucially to drive performance. I was struck when I met Network Rail and some of the managing directors of the worst-performing operating companies that they made it clear that the previous levels of performance had simply been tolerated and accepted as normal across the industry. They are under no doubt that under this Government, that level of performance will no longer be tolerated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I would be delighted to arrange that meeting.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to improve transport connectivity within city regions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

Up again! The Government are making a five-year, £5.7 billion investment to improve the transport networks of eight city regions between 2022-23 to 2026-27 through the city region sustainable transport settlements. We have announced plans to introduce an English devolution Bill, which, alongside our major bus and rail reforms, will equip mayors with the powers and influence that they need to create an integrated local transport network and improve local transport in their area, in line with the Government’s missions.

[Lisa Smart]

When my constituents in Hazel Grove travel to the centre of the city region, they can use the train service—subject to landslide issues and, of course, the whims of the train operating companies—but when they are moving around my constituency, they must rely on the bus network. Can the Minister give the Greater Manchester combined authority and my residents clarity about funding for the bus model in Greater Manchester, so that it is not the 10 constituent local authorities who are burdened with paying the price for keeping the £2 bus fare cap?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am proudly wearing my Bee Network badge this morning, having visited Greater Manchester to meet the operators of the Bee Network and Mayor Andy Burnham; that is trailblazing work in Greater Manchester. In the year in which the network has been operating, we have already seen a 5% increase in passenger numbers, and buses are turning up on time, which is always great. The question of funding for the future will of course be part of the spending review.