Automated Passenger Services Permitting Scheme

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Written Statements

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

This statement provides an update on the Government’s work to enable the automated passenger services permitting scheme from this spring, a key step in implementing the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 and supporting economic growth through the safe deployment of self-driving technology.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are today publishing our response to the automated passenger services permitting scheme consultation and laying the Automated Vehicles (Permits for Automated Passenger Services) Regulations 2026.

Automated passenger services represent one of the most significant transport innovations of our generation. When introduced safely and responsibly, they have the potential to transform how people move around the country, improving road safety, widening access to transport, and supporting greener, more reliable journeys.

The APS permitting scheme establishes a dedicated licensing route for passenger-carrying automated services to operate on public roads. It was created by the Automated Vehicles Act 2024—a world-leading regulatory framework that sets out clear legal responsibilities, a robust safety framework and the regulatory powers necessary to support deployment while protecting the public.

Following consultation, one change has been made to the statutory instrument to increase the scope of data sharing and enable wider non-safety related information to be shared with emergency responders, ensuring that there is an awareness of how to interact with and respond to any incidents involving a permitted automated passenger service.

Safety will always be the Government’s highest priority. Automated passenger services will be required to meet stringent safety standards before they are permitted to operate, ensuring that passengers, other road users and the wider public are protected. This includes safeguarding considerations and a clear focus on the needs of vulnerable users. As services are introduced, safety will be independently assessed, monitored and enforced, giving the public confidence that these new services are operating responsibly.

The Government are also committed to ensuring that automated passenger services support a more inclusive transport system. These services have the potential to widen travel choices and increase independence for disabled people and older passengers. To support this commitment, the Department for Transport is establishing the APS accessibility advisory panel, a new non-statutory body that will provide advice on accessibility considerations and support the development of non-statutory guidance as services are deployed.

The APS permitting scheme is unlocking growth and significant economic opportunity. By providing businesses with the regulatory confidence to invest in deploying passenger-carrying automated vehicles, the Government aim to support innovation, attract private investment and create high-skilled jobs, while strengthening local economies and improving access to essential services.

The Government will continue to work closely with industry, local communities, user groups and experts to ensure that automated passenger services are introduced safely, inclusively and responsibly.

A copy of this publication will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.

[HCWS1537]

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade]

I have a taxi driver in my constituency who is stuck in a similar situation. This is not just about people who want to drive; it is about people who have to drive.

As our population is ageing, the scale of this challenge is growing. Last year alone, medical licence reviews increased by 16% to more than 850,000. The need to digitise this part of the system is not optional; it is urgent.

Some constituents are told not to worry, because they may be able to drive under section 88 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

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

indicated assent.

[Vikki Slade]

I can see that the Minister agrees. However, section 88 applies only in limited circumstances. It does not cover cases in which a licence has been revoked, and it creates real uncertainty. It forces people to navigate legal and insurance risks without a sat-nav to assist them. I have a resident who was travelling to Portugal and was not able to invoke section 88 abroad. I have another resident who was told that her no-claims discount on her insurance would be cancelled if it took much longer to get her licence back—she had worked on that no-claims bonus for 17 years.

This problem does not only affect older drivers or those renewing licences; young people are caught out too. My constituents Max and Maisie declared childhood medical conditions when applying for their provisional licences and waited for six months, with no progress beyond being told that information was required. In both cases, provisional licences were issued shortly after my office intervened, showing that the system can respond quickly when pressure is applied, but young people should not have to rely on interventions by MPs simply to take driving lessons and participate in everyday life.

These are not just anecdotes from constituency offices. The Public Accounts Committee found in 2023 that since 2020, 3 million people applying for licences by post or declaring medical conditions experienced significant delays. Over the same period, almost all of the 17 million people applying online without medical conditions had their licences processed within three working days. Great service should be available to everyone, not just the healthiest.

Various charities reinforce that picture. Epilepsy UK reports increasing calls from drivers who have complied with all the guidance and whose clinicians have returned all the information, and who yet remain unable to drive for months after being medically eligible. Diabetes UK has shared DVLA data showing that less than 5% of medically restricted licence reviews result in refusal or revocation, suggesting that the vast majority of people caught up in delays pose no greater risk to road safety.

That brings me to the second part of this debate. If the DVLA is to move beyond processing delays and play a meaningful role in improving road safety, we need to talk about eyesight. The UK’s eyesight testing regime is out of step with other nations and is largely unchanged since 1937. It relies heavily on self-declaration and a basic numberplate test, with no mandatory eyesight checks after passing the driving test. The Government’s road safety strategy suggests introducing mandatory eye tests at licence renewal for drivers over 70. I want to be absolutely clear that this is not about targeting older drivers; vision loss does not follow a special birthday, and focusing solely on age risks undermining public confidence and missing the real issue. If safety is the goal, an age-based approach alone misses the mark.

I have spoken to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam)—he could not be in the Chamber this afternoon—who is an optometrist. He told me that he frequently sees patients whose eyesight is far below safe driving standards. He described how some of his patients could not see the board, let alone the letters on it, yet he is unable to inform the DVLA or even those patients’ GP of their inability to see properly. I also met the Association of Optometrists, which welcomed the principle of mandatory testing but warned that limiting it to over-70s is short-sighted. [Laughter.] Thank you.

Vision can deteriorate at any age, so testing should be linked to licence renewal, which currently takes place every 10 years for most drivers. There is a wider opportunity here—eye tests can detect serious conditions such as glaucoma, cataracts, cancer and lupus. Allowing optometrists to share their results digitally with ophthalmology services could reduce pressure on the NHS and allow people to be diagnosed earlier, thereby lessening the impact on their sight, while also improving road safety.

Residents in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole agree. Alan told me that it is not just about reading a number plate at a distance; he raised the issue of reflex testing, and also said that

“It’s essential to read on the move—signposts, hazards and vehicle instrumentation”.

He raised particular concerns about night-time driving, which is not assessed as part of the driving test. Alison welcomed mandatory testing, because she had found that family members who were no longer fit to drive were difficult to persuade to give up their licence. She concluded that without a formal test and a medically trained person making the decision, unsafe drivers would continue to add unnecessary risk to the roads. A 2025 prevention of future deaths report described the current system for enforcing vision standards as “ineffective and unsafe”. While concerns about the impact that extending testing would have on the DVLA’s workload are real, safety has to come first.

I welcome the road safety strategy, which goes some way towards recognising the role of driver licensing in improving safety. However, it fails to address the issue of cognition, or to acknowledge that many people continue to drive because they have no alternative. Given that bus services in rural areas are patchy at best, and without joined-up working between the NHS and the DVLA, alongside full digitisation of the licensing process, serious concerns remain about whether the system is fair and whether the improvements to road safety that we all want to see will be fully realised.

As such, I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, can he update the House on when the long-promised digital medical licensing system will go live, and whether it will include automatic chasing of medical information and real-time status updates for applicants? Secondly, will the Minister confirm whether the system of medical licences and the list of notifiable conditions are under review, given how few cases result in revocation? Thirdly, on the issue of eyesight, how many of the 62 deaths linked to poor vision in the decade to 2023 were actually caused by drivers over 70? Given that 4,000 bus and lorry drivers had their licences revoked for eyesight issues in the past three years, none of whom is likely to have been over 70, why does the strategy focus almost exclusively on older drivers rather than on vision standards?

Finally, I have previously asked in this place whether we can expect a road safety Bill in the next King’s Speech, to turn strategy into reality, but I did not receive an answer. I urge my constituents to respond to the open consultation before 11 May, and I ask the Minister to set out the next steps, including how he is working with NHS colleagues and when this House can expect legislation to genuinely reduce the risks on our roads.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on the reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. I appreciate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee facilitating it.

The DVLA touches almost every household in the United Kingdom. It is one of the most advanced and large-scale digital organisations in Government, handling billions of interactions each year. Over 84% of transactions are now completed online and the system works well for most drivers. A standard non-medical driving licence application is typically processed in just two to three days, which demonstrates what a modern public service can achieve at scale. However, I want to focus on where the service has not worked well enough—in drivers’ medical services—and explain what it is being done to put that right.

Drivers’ medical services have been a source of significant concern for Members across the House and, more importantly, for our constituents. For many people, the ability to drive is essential. It supports independence, employment, caring responsibilities and access to healthcare. When a licence is delayed because of a medical investigation, the impact is immediate and personal. People can face lost income, isolation, missed appointments and prolonged uncertainty.

The Government are clear that the service levels in the drivers’ medical services have fallen below expectations for far too many drivers who are waiting for a licensing decision, often, as has been pointed out numerous times during the debate, after doing everything they have been asked to do. I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and make excuses or point at the previous Administration for the mess that we inherited, but I am going to say that I am sorry. I am sorry to all those who have been impacted by the delays. We are going to put things right—we are putting things right. Peoples’ frustration is justified, and it deserves both explanation and action.

It is important to understand the scale and complexity of the challenge. Demand for medical licensing decisions has risen sharply and consistently. In 2024 to 2025 alone, the DVLA made more than 830,000 medical licensing decisions, the vast majority of which did not involve MPs, and nor should they have to. Demand continues to rise, driven in part by an ageing population who quite rightfully wish to remain mobile and independent for longer.

As has been pointed out, not all medical cases are the same. Many straightforward cases such as those notified online for well controlled diabetes can be resolved quickly—sometimes within days—but an increasing proportion are complex and require detailed clinical evidence from NHS professionals or specialist reports and examinations, all of which, I will add, should be paid for by the DVLA. Those decisions cannot be rushed. The DVLA’s overriding duty is to protect road safety, and every decision must be based on sound medical advice.

That evidence is informed by six independent medical advisory panels covering key conditions that affect safe driving, including cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric and visual disorders. The expert panels ensure that decisions reflect modern clinical practice and support the introduction of new treatments. A good example is the recent change allowing drivers with diabetes to use continuous glucose monitoring, removing a significant burden for drivers while improving efficiency.

Despite the dedication of DVLA staff, at times demand has exceeded capacity. That pressure was compounded by the need to replace a legacy IT system. Introducing a modern casework system was essential, but it required investment, experienced staff input and training. In the short term, that has contributed to longer decision times, which rose to 71 working days, alongside increased complaints, call volumes and, of course, correspondence from hon. Members. What matters now is progress, and progress is being made.

Since September 2025, all new and renewed medical cases have been processed through a single modern digital casework system. Legacy cases have also been migrated, meaning that all driver medical teams are now working in one digital environment.

On 31 March, the DVLA launched its new digital medical services platform, which allows far more drivers to notify conditions, apply for new licences and renew licences online. It reduces errors, improves accuracy and enables staff to focus on the most complex cases. Initial case actions can now be taken within 24 hours. Staff are supported by decision-tree logic, and customers can be contacted by email, reducing uncertainty and ensuring that communication is flowing. On the email point, some sections of the law stipulate that communication must still be done in writing. The system will continue to be developed. Further automation of letters and medical questionnaires is planned, and more customers will be brought on to the platform over time, driving further efficiency.

Alongside digital reform, the DVLA has also increased staffing capacity. An additional 43 medical caseworkers are already in training, with a further 22 joining shortly. The steps that we are taking are already delivering results. So far in April, the average time to make a licensing decision in medical cases is 56.6 working days, which is a significant reduction from 71.4 days in February.

The DVLA will continue to prioritise cases where drivers need their licence for work or other urgent purposes. Hon. Members may also be aware that in many cases drivers are legally able to continue to drive while applications are being processed—when it is safe for them to do so—under section 88 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as has been mentioned. While the delays in the return of those licences, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), should not be happening, drivers should be covered by that section 88 ability. However, I am happy to pick up specific cases for my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the Chamber.

Some delays remain unavoidable, particularly when information from healthcare professionals is outstanding. The DVLA issues automated reminders, but safe licensing decisions depend on adequate medical input. That is why the DVLA is also working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology through the CustomerFirst programme, which is exploring further reforms to the drivers’ medical processes, including secure digital links with the NHS.

Those changes sit within a wider transformation of the DVLA. The new driver and vehicles account allows motorists to manage their details digitally and to self-serve more easily. By 2030, the DVLA intends to operate as an even more digital insight-led organisation that is faster, fairer and more consistent, while retaining safeguards for vulnerable drivers. No one underestimates the impact that the delays have had, but it is right to acknowledge that real action is under way and that real progress is now being delivered.

Every life lost on our roads is a tragedy. Younger drivers are disproportionately involved in serious road collisions. Drivers aged 17 to 24 make up just 6% of licence holders, yet they are involved in nearly a quarter of all fatal and serious collisions. Those figures are stark and demand action. That is why the Government’s road safety strategy includes a consultation on minimum learning periods before a learner driver can take their practical test, which would allow learners greater exposure to various conditions, such as driving in poor weather, at night or in heavier traffic, helping them to develop essential skills and judgment while preserving the freedoms that come with passing a test. We are also consulting on lowering the drink-drive limit for newly qualified drivers, alongside continued investment in the THINK! campaign, which targets those most at risk—particularly young men—by focusing on speeding and drink-driving.

Road safety is not only about young drivers, though; everyone deserves to feel safe on our roads, including older drivers and families. Around 24% of the drivers killed in 2024 were aged 70 or over. Although many older people drive safely well into later life, it is right to address risks linked to eyesight and cognitive change. That is why we are consulting on mandatory eye testing for drivers aged 70 and over, and developing options for cognitive testing, recognising that fitness to drive is about capability, not age. I encourage Members to ensure that their constituents engage with the consultation that is under way.

I will pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) made about optometrists. They are able to inform the DVLA of a medical condition, including eyesight issues, if a patient cannot or will not do so. It is important to point that out.

I turn to the growing concern around ghost plates and other non-compliant number plates, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) mentioned and which undermine road safety and enforcement. Let me be clear: it is already illegal to sell or display ghost or non-compliant number plates. Only DVLA-approved registered number plate suppliers may supply plates, and they must meet strict standards and keep records. Drivers who use illegal plates can face fines of up to £1,000.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This is not a party political point, because I am sure that blame could be focused on my party as well. Given that we have 34,000 registered suppliers, does the Minister recognise that it is an impossible task for the DVLA to keep any kind of meaningful record as to whether they are in fact compliant?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will address that point in a moment.

Enforcement at the roadside is a matter for the police. Supported by the DVLA, enforcement officers are working closely with trading standards to tackle illegal supply, so the Government are not standing still. We are working with policing partners to strengthen enforcement, including by funding the roads policing innovation programme. We are reviewing the registered number plate supplier scheme, considering a new British standard for plates and exploring how technology can identify illegal plates more effectively. We also understand the importance of accurate records. Although the vast majority of vehicle records held by the DVLA have up-to-date and traceable registered keepers, we are always looking at ways to improve their accuracy.

Drivers deserve timely and safe decisions, staff deserve modern systems that support their professional judgment, and the public deserve to have confidence that safety and fairness remain at the heart of our licensing system. Acknowledging where services have fallen short matters, but so does recognising the progress that has been made. I commend these efforts to the House.

Hammersmith Bridge

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who I have worked with extensively since taking up my post, for their contributions. I listened carefully to the remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Putney made about the future of Hammersmith bridge, which I appreciate is of particular interest to the constituents of all three Members that I mentioned, as well as the people in other constituencies across south and west London.

As my hon. Friend is aware, Hammersmith bridge is an historic, grade II listed suspension bridge. It opened in 1887, and was built on the foundations of an earlier bridge that opened in 1827. As has been said, the bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, with which the responsibility for maintaining and making decisions about the repair of the bridge ultimately lies. This unique wrought iron structure has served generations of Londoners for nearly 140 years, and although it is deeply unfortunate that it has been closed to motor vehicles since 2020, the safety of those using it is, of course, the utmost priority.

My Department has worked closely with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London to help to ensure the ongoing safety and stability of Hammersmith bridge. In March 2025, my Department provided the borough with £4.7 million for crucial repairs to Hammersmith bridge hangers. That funding has allowed the continued use of the historic structure by pedestrians and cyclists, and brought the total amount of Government funding for the bridge to £17 million to date. Furthermore, my Department has reconvened the Hammersmith bridge taskforce, which had been on hiatus for several years. That was instrumental in providing a forum in which interested stakeholders could discuss the next steps, go back to basics and look at all viable engineering solutions for the future of Hammersmith bridge.

Last year, my Department reached a spending review settlement with the Treasury, which provided the overall capital envelope for transport investment. As part of the settlement, we secured funding to create a structures fund. It was not about paying lip service for local elections, as suggested by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, but was established back in SR 25. It will inject urgently needed funds into repairing run-down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels across the country, making everyday journeys safer, smoother and more dependable.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work in setting up the structures fund, which is also important for a bridge in my constituency. That bridge is also grade II listed, but is older than Hammersmith bridge and is the largest cast iron bridge in the country. The Minister will be awaiting an application to that fund from Staffordshire county council. In response to comments made by the Opposition spokesperson, the council, which is under Conservative control, did not approach me before the spending review, meaning that we are having to go through the structures fund. I look forward to seeing the Department’s reply to that hopefully successful application once it goes in.

[Simon Lightwood]

I have felt strangely popular all of a sudden, since last week’s announcement opening the fund to applications from councils across England, which can apply for funding to repair or replace key transport structures that are failing, and that they cannot afford to fix alone. That is part of a £1 billion package to enhance England’s road network. The fund will target England’s most critical road structures and give councillors direct access to funding for proper, lasting fixes that make journeys safer and communities proud of the infrastructure that they depend on. For too long councils have known which bridges and flyovers need fixing, but they have not had the funding to do it properly. The structures fund will put funds directly into the hands of councils to fix those structures for good. That will allow people to get safely to where they need to be on infrastructure of which they can be genuinely proud.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will be aware, my Department considers Hammersmith bridge a good candidate for investment from the structures fund. We intend to consider the viability of future funding for the next stage of works through that route. However, to ensure absolute fairness, any funding for Hammersmith bridge will be subject to the same controls and eligibility criteria as other schemes funded through the structures fund. In addition, any funding for Hammersmith bridge will be contingent on identifying a cost-effective engineering solution within a reasonable timescale. It is important that any chosen engineering solution must be affordable within the constraints of the structures fund. It is also an expectation of the Government that the local contribution toward the cost of any future repairs for Hammersmith bridge is provided. That is the case for all projects being assessed for funding through the structures fund. Although at present there are no plans to specify a minimum level of contribution, my Department intends to assess higher contributions and additional third-party contributions favourably. Some hon. Members mentioned a historical agreement to split the funding into a third, a third and a third. Obviously that was under a different Administration; I just know where we are today.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney continues to call for a further meeting of the taskforce. Indeed, I think we have had many exchanges on that question. Following the previous meeting of the forum, my officials continued their work with key stakeholders to progress viable engineering solutions for the next stage of the works on Hammersmith bridge. A final decision on those solutions will now be made via the structures fund. I assure my hon. Friend—and my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—that when we are in a position to hold a further taskforce meeting, it will discuss issues of significance to the project and ensure that it remains a good use of stakeholders’ time. As such, I intend to convene a further meeting of the taskforce to discuss next steps once funding awards are made through the structures fund and agreed. My officials will be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney to arrange the specifics of that meeting in due course.

I will remark briefly on the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). It is a shame that he chose to make his response to this issue an overtly party-political broadcast. All I would say is that nobody is buying what he is selling in this instance. People have seen the history. They remember the history. They remember the inaction of the previous Government. We have a structures fund that will help to restore structures across our country. We are taking action; we are not just leaving it there on the desk with inaction.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for her continued dedication to highlighting the issues of the closure of the bridge to motor vehicles, and the issues that causes to her constituents and others in the surrounding area. I assure her that my Department will provide appropriate support to LBHF for the Hammersmith bridge restoration project as it looks to progress the next stage of repairs through the structures fund.

Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. These draft regulations are being made under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to lower the minimum age at which the Office of Rail and Road, or ORR, can issue a licence to drive trains on the British mainline railway from 20 to 18 years.

The conditions for driving trains under the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 2010 regulations, will remain the same. The conditions include the completion of at least nine years of primary and secondary education, or vocational training equivalent to level 3 qualifications, and proof of passing medical, psychological, fitness and general professional competence examinations.

I will begin by providing some background on the legislative regime and why the changes are being brought forward. The rail network depends on approximately 19,000 train drivers to operate passenger and freight services. The 2010 regulations require train drivers to hold a licence confirming that they are fit and competent, and an employer-issued certificate authorising them to drive specific trains on specific routes.

The 2010 regulations implemented the EU train driving directive, which sets a default minimum licensing age of 20 across the EU, and gives member states the option to adopt a lower age of 18 for domestic services. The UK did not take that option when it transposed the directive in 2009, but other countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, have since done so successfully.

In February 2024 the Rail Safety and Standards Board, or RSSB, published research on lowering the minimum age to be a train driver in Britain. It found that 18 and 19-year-olds can drive trains safely when held to the same standards as older recruits. Crucially, the research found that training, practice and exposure to train driving, not age, are the determining factors in whether a train driver will perform the responsibilities of the role effectively. Support for lowering the minimum age was reaffirmed in May 2023, post the implementation review of the 2010 regulations.

That research prompted the previous Conservative Government to consult on the proposal. The consultation, published in May 2025, showed broad support from major industry bodies, including ASLEF and the train operators.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister and the Government for bringing forward this secondary legislation. As he knows, there is a need to improve the diversity of the driving workforce and to address the challenges of an ageing workforce, so this is a much-welcomed change and a fantastic example of industry, Government and unions working together to deliver for workers and the travelling public. Will he join me in recognising the role that ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, played by working with industry and with the Labour party in opposition to help secure this important change?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are proud to be able to contribute towards diversifying the occupation of train driver and giving more people access to becoming drivers and working on the railway. Lowering the age of driving is just one step in the process, of course, and moves us closer to delivering a railway fit for the future. We are grateful to ASLEF for drawing this needed legislative change to our attention, and for working with us in Government to lower the driving age and to deliver the Railways Bill.

For the reasons that I have set out, on 7 May 2025 my Department confirmed that we will proceed with lowering the minimum age to be a train driver, bringing Great Britain in line with many international counterparts. To ensure a smooth transition, we asked the industry to prepare an implementation plan, which was used to inform a timetable for changing the law. The Rail Delivery Group gathered industry specialists, who confirmed that existing safeguards, testing and supervision remain appropriate for younger entrants, reconfirming that a lower minimum age for train driving can be introduced safely.

The Department and the ORR approved the implementation plan in December 2025 and published it on gov.uk on 19 March 2026. The plan proposed improvements that industry will implement to strengthen recruitment, assessment, management and training for all new drivers, not just younger applicants. The improvements include preparing formal guidance for operators to ensure recruitment, training, safeguarding and management practices are updated to support line managers and younger drivers, strengthening entry routes and training through revisions to the train driving level 3 apprenticeship standard, and the development of a new foundation apprenticeship.

Other proposed improvements include developing a communications plan to raise awareness of the new opportunities afforded by the change in law and how applicants can prepare, developing a new recruitment portal with resources and information to support applications for train driving roles, working with pathfinder operators to identify and share best practice, and running a long-term study to monitor the effects and experience of the change to help to refine the system over time. The industry has assured us that the arrangements will be in place by June of this year, which is why we have scheduled this legislative change to take effect on 30 June 2026. From that date, young people will be eligible to apply for train driving positions.

I turn now to the reasons why the Government are bringing forward these regulations. The rail industry is facing significant skills shortages, particularly in train driving. Around 25% of the current workforce are expected to reach retirement age by 2030. We project a deficit of 2,500 train drivers by the end of the decade unless action is taken. It is imperative to address that retirement cliff edge, which risks the industry’s ability to maintain current service levels; indeed, operators are already reliant on overtime for sustained timetables. Lowering the minimum age of train drivers will not on its own solve train driver shortages—it is the responsibility of operators to take steps to secure their workforce—but it is an important first step. The current minimum age of 20 acts as an arbitrary barrier to entry to the profession. By that age, many young people have already committed to other employment, vocations or study. Lowering the minimum age to 18 will allow operators to engage school leavers and offer a clear, structured route into a highly skilled and respected profession.

This policy is about not only creating new opportunities for young people, but taking decisive action to ensure that the railway remains resilient, safe and properly staffed for the future. Alongside this measure, we will be working with industry to support an increase in training capacity to ensure that more train drivers are trained into roles and put into service. The policy’s aims are therefore clear: to lower the average age of the driver workforce, increase the number of train drivers in the industry, and create a more stable and diverse profession that reflects the communities it serves.

I now turn to questions raised by the scrutiny Committees in their consideration of the draft regulations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the draft regulations on 4 March and did not draw special attention to them. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had some questions concerning implementation and policy aims. and wished to draw the special attention of the House to them in its 52nd report, published on 26 February. I will outline and respond to those questions in turn.

First, the Committee asked how regulations will support 16 and 17-year-olds into train driving, and whether the minimum age for the train driving level 3 apprenticeship could be lowered. Since our announcement, my Department has worked with the Rail Delivery Group, Skills England and the Department for Education to explore that. As a result, the minimum entry age for the train driving apprenticeship will be reduced from 18 to 17 and a half, with the intention that that should take effect alongside the regulations. The practical effect of that is to allow young people to begin classroom learning and supervised practical training earlier, while remaining fully compliant with the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Secondly, the Committee asked when the implementation plan would be published. The plan was issued on 19 March and is available on gov.uk. The period between the laying of the regulations on 10 February and 19 March was needed to finalise the apprenticeship offer and ensure that it aligned fully with the new licensing arrangements.

Thirdly, the Committee asked whether there will be a clear pathway for 16-year-olds, so that the train driving apprenticeship becomes a viable option for school leavers. Alongside lowering the eligibility age for train driving apprenticeships, the industry is developing a rail foundation apprenticeship for 16-year-olds, providing a structured skills route into driving. Additional access courses have also been developed to help school leavers to build the non-technical skills needed for driver assessment and selection.

Fourthly, the Committee asked for assurance on operational safeguards and oversight. I can confirm that all existing testing and competence requirements will remain in place. In addition, the implementation plan specifies that operators will update internal procedures and safeguarding arrangements for younger trainees. We expect operators to share learning and best practice to support long-term implementation. That will be formalised through a 10-year longitudinal study to monitor the progression, wellbeing and performance of younger drivers, providing a clear mechanism for oversight.

Fifthly, the Committee asked about the timetable for wider reforms to the train driver licensing regime, noting concerns about training capacity and projected shortages. Reasons for projected shortages and capacity issues vary across operators and across the country. The Department is developing proposals to reform the 2010 regulations to address those issues and intends to consult on them between 2026 and 2027, as part of the transition towards Great British Railways. We will look to GBR to provide strategic leadership on this matter in the long term.

Finally, the Committee asked whether the findings of the longitudinal study will be published. The study will be led by the industry through the Train Drivers Academy, and the Department has been assured that the results will be published annually, ensuring transparency and continued scrutiny.

In summary, these regulations lower the minimum age at which an individual may be issued a train driving licence from 20 to 18, provided that they meet the same rigorous licensing conditions that apply to all drivers, which will remain unchanged. The change in law is scheduled to come into force on 30 June 2026, enabling young people from across Great Britain to apply for train driving positions from that date. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespersons for their contributions. The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay is quite right to mention those stats on the challenges we face. The average train driver is 47 years old, with 40% of drivers over the age of 50 and just 4% under the age of 30. That trend is set to continue, and we expect 25% of train drivers to reach retirement age by 2030.

Turning to other industries, the right hon. Member mentioned coach and bus, but in his time as the Buses Minister he also did not take that forward. We did a consultation in 2024 and we are looking at the topic. We will continue working with Confederation of Passenger Transport and the Road Haulage Association before we take any action, to ensure that it is evidence led and safety focused. But indeed, 18-year-olds can fly planes and join the armed forces; surely they can drive our trains.

The right hon. Member also asked about available routes into train driving for school leavers aged 16 and 17. They will have several clear routes. First, a new rail foundation apprenticeship is being developed for young people from the age of 16; it will introduce them to the rail environment and help them to build the technical and behavioural skills needed before progressing to a full train driving level 3 apprenticeship. Secondly, the minimum age for entering the train driving level 3 apprenticeship will be lowered from 18 to 17 and a half. That will allow young people to begin classroom learning and supervised practical training earlier. Thirdly, operators are preparing new access and preparatory courses that will help school leavers to develop the essential non-technical skills required for the driver assessment process. Together, those pathways will provide a structured and well supported opportunity for 16 and 17-year-olds to prepare for a career in train driving before they are eligible for a licence at 18.

To conclude, these regulations deliver a focused and widely supported reform. They lower the minimum licensing age from 20 to 18 while fully ensuring that the safety, medical and competence standards that underpin the railway are maintained. These changes will widen opportunities for young people and help operators draw from a broader talent pool at a time when many experienced drivers are approaching retirement. In doing so, the regulations will help to build a more resilient, diverse and sustainable driver workforce and secure the long-term future of our railways. I urge the Committee to support these measures and approve the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Dualling of the A21

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) for securing this important debate and for his continued advocacy alongside the work of the A21 reference group on what I know is an important issue for the communities they represent. I welcome the opportunity this evening to set out the Government’s position on the A21, its strategic importance and how it has been considered in our longer-term approach to investment in the strategic road network.

The A21 is a key route in the strategic road network, performing a vital role in connecting coastal communities in East Sussex and larger towns in Kent to the M25 and the wider national network. The road supports a wide range of journeys, such as commuters travelling to work, businesses moving goods and services, tourists visiting the coastal towns of Bexhill and Hastings, and people making everyday local trips. When the road falls short in terms of capacity and reliability, particularly on its single-carriageway sections, this can have a real impact on economic opportunities, journey times and quality of life.

Turning specifically to the southern section of the A21, National Highways recognises performance concerns, particularly around safety. It has invested over £20 million since 2021 to improve safety between Sevenoaks and Hastings. I recognise, however, that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle wants further investment. As the House will be aware, on 26 March, the Government published the third road investment strategy, committing a total of £27 billion to operate, maintain and improve England’s strategic road network over the next five years. That investment will ensure that the network remains safe and reliable while supporting economic growth and improving journeys for users across the country. RIS3 places a greater focus than ever before on the maintenance and renewal of our existing network, with a smaller number of enhancement schemes. Improvements to routes such as the A21 need to be considered in that wider context.

RIS3 will deliver tangible improvements through safer and smoother journeys for road users and through targeted programmes tackling key pinch points on the network. For the A21—as the hon. Member will be aware —one of the main pinch points can be found at the Kippings Cross roundabout, where the dual-carriageway section meets the single-carriageway section. That junction is being considered for improvement as part of one of the new national programmes in RIS3, and I encourage hon. Members to engage with National Highways over the months ahead as this work progresses and the schemes within the programme are prioritised for delivery.

As for dualling the remaining single-carriageway stretches of the A21, there are no plans to do so at the present time. It does not form part of the plans set out in RIS3, and it is not one of the schemes included in the pipeline of schemes for construction in the early 2030s. Dualling the A21 would carry a significant cost, and the delivery of such a scheme would be really challenging, given the local topography and the number of settlements that the route passes through. It would also have significant environmental impacts—I know that there are sites of significant environmental interest in the area, including ancient woodland—and would require, I think, at least three or four bypasses around villages.

[Dr Mullan]

First, will the Minister advise me on what to do if something is not even in the long pipeline? What does an MP have to do to get it put into the long pipeline? Secondly, if the Minister is not considering dualling, perhaps the next best thing in some of the villages that are particularly hard hit would be bypasses, so are there any plans separate from dualling—plans for some bypassing, even of the single lane? Land has been bought to do that in the past, and then it gets sold back and those plans are not delivered. Is there some light at the end of the tunnel in the form of some potential bypassing?

[Simon Lightwood]

This is not to say that dualling will never happen, and it is entirely right for the hon. Member and other hon. Members to continue to advocate and build the case for such major improvements. Where there is strong cross-party support from across the region, that sends a clear signal for potential future investment, and I encourage hon. Members to continue to engage with National Highways and other regional partners on what more can be done to improve the performance of the route for the communities it serves.

To touch on some other points, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about other forms of transport connecting communities, and I know that she has made representations in favour of improving the speed and frequency of trains between Hastings and London. While that sits outside of my remit as the Minister for roads and buses, I obviously encourage her to continue pushing for those upgrades. I cannot commit to dualling the A21 at this stage, but I can make the commitment that National Highways will continue working with the hon. Gentleman and the A21 reference group to ensure that safety is prioritised on this route.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye spoke about overnight closures, and I commit to raising that personally with National Highways to see what we can do to improve those circumstances.

[Dr Mullan]

Even if the Government cannot commit to the funding, developing a business case and options in an updated form would not commit anybody to doing it or to saying that there will be funding, but it would be a starting point. On that point, can the Minister be a bit more helpful by saying that he thinks that National Highways should at least have an updated plan for delivering this proposal, if and when the funding appears?

[Simon Lightwood]

As I said, there are no current plans considering dualling, but National Highways routinely considers the performance of the strategic road network as part of its route strategies process. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that the current performance and potential future investment needs of the A21 will continue to be assessed in that context to inform future road investment strategies. I have no doubt that he will continue to lobby and to engage with National Highways, along with the A21 reference group. As I have said, I will take away the issue of overnight closures.

In closing, I reiterate that the Government recognise the strategic importance of the A21 and the strength of feeling of Members and the communities affected by its current performance. While difficult decisions must be taken about investment priorities, we remain committed to working constructively with National Highways to deliver benefits for road users, and I welcome the continued engagement of Members in building that case. The concerns raised in this debate will be carefully considered as we look ahead to future investment opportunities on the strategic road network.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

3. What steps she is taking to help reduce waiting times for driving tests.

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

I know that driving test waiting times remain too high, but there are signs that we are starting to turn the corner thanks to the action that we have taken since coming into government. We are increasing examiner capacity, improving booking rules and using Ministry of Defence examiners to provide additional tests. We now have over 100 more examiners in post than in February last year, and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has delivered over 124,000 more tests this financial year than last year. We will keep the House updated as progress continues.

[Brian Mathew]

Young constituents in Melksham and Devizes who are waiting months for driving tests are resorting to paying premium prices for cancellation apps, often getting slots halfway across the country, just to get on the road. One 20-year-old told me that the costs of the wait killed his motivation entirely and that driving was becoming financially out of reach. Given that in rural areas such as mine driving is not a luxury but a necessity, will the Minister commit not only to reducing waiting times in rural areas but to reviewing the affordability of the testing system for young people?

[Simon Lightwood]

This Government will continue to do all we can to drive down the waiting times, and of course, we will always keep the affordability of driving tests under review.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I, too, have heard lots of stories from learners in my constituency about their long wait for driving tests, and waits for medical driving licences are also going up. I am delighted that this Government are taking the driving test backlog seriously. Monmouthshire residents will be relieved to know that I have heard that a new examiner is being trained up in Monmouth test centre as we speak, with another joining in Abergavenny soon. Will the Minister update me on what further steps the Department is taking to ensure that examiners are recruited, trained and out doing driving tests as soon as possible?

[Simon Lightwood]

The DVSA continues its recruitment campaigns for new driving examiners. Examiner capacity is rising, with 1,553 full-time equivalent examiners in post as of February 2026—that is an increase of 108 when compared with the number of driving examiners in February 2025. DVSA has also had difficulty in retaining experienced driving examiners, some of whom retire or leave the DVSA for other roles. We are encouraging them to stay, with exceptional payments of £5,000 to examiners in eligible roles, divided into two payments over the next 12 months.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The waiting time for driving tests has got worse since the Government took office. As others have said, it is critical that, whether for work or education, young people are able to get a test and have the use of a car to grow our economy and get their lives on track. Cabinet Office Ministers answered a written question from the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), saying that 26,000 people applied to become a driving examiner. Why are more of them not in training or in post?

[Simon Lightwood]

I continue to be flabbergasted by the comments from the Opposition. Let me just remind the House once again that the National Audit Office reported in December that the Department for Transport had had “limited involvement” in helping the DVSA tackle its waiting time backlog “up to mid-2024” and that

“DfT largely left DVSA to try and resolve the issue”.

The DVSA conducted more tests in December 2025 than during any December in the last 20 years.

[Greg Smith]

The reality on the ground is very different: people are waiting far longer for their driving test than they should have to, and that is happening under this Government. Waiting times have got worse by weeks since July 2024.

The Minister likes to talk about recruitment campaigns. The reality is that there has only been one recruitment campaign, which led to those 26,000 applications. In other parts of the public service, such as the police, there are constant recruitment campaigns. Will the Government now put driving instructors on a constant recruitment campaign?

[Simon Lightwood]

It is absolute nonsense from the Opposition. Let me tell the House what this Government have done compared with the complete inaction of the previous Government. We are changing the booking service to allow only learner drivers to book and manage their tests. We are introducing a limit on the number of times that learner drivers can move or swap their test to twice, and are making use of the Ministry of Defence to drive up the number of tests available.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

4. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of Government funding for repairing potholes.

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

This Labour Government are providing £7.3 billion for highways maintenance over four years, doubling the funding provided by the previous Government by the end of this Parliament. Our long-term funding approach is already reaping results, with 15% more pothole prevention works carried out in 2025 compared with 2024. Effectiveness is monitored through annual transparency reports, incentive funding requirements and the new traffic light ratings system, ensuring that funding is used to deliver lasting, visible improvements for road users.

[Clive Jones]

Wokingham borough council is the lowest funded unitary authority. Between 2020 and 2022 when the Conservatives led the council, they cut the road maintenance budget by £2 million, although they seem to have no recollection of doing so. Now the Labour Government are cutting £43 million from the council’s funding for the next three years. What steps is the Minister taking to provide councils like Wokingham with the funding they need to maintain safe roads, despite being drained of cash by the Government?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s numbers. Capital funding for highways maintenance has not been cut in Wokingham. Wokingham borough council is eligible to receive £28.9 million over the next four years as part of the £7.3 billion investment. That represents a clear year-on-year increase from 2024-25 to 2025-26, with funding due to continue to increase over the next four years.

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

After months of struggling to spend the £895,000 given to Conservative-controlled Bexley council by this Government, the council is finally in a rush to resurface roads like Belmont Road in Northumberland Heath by the end of the financial year. Will the Minister confirm how much funding the Government will provide to my local council in future years to restore the condition of our roads across Bexleyheath and Crayford?

[Simon Lightwood]

By the end of this Parliament, we will have almost doubled the amount of money going to local authorities to tackle the pothole plague that we inherited from the previous Government. Of course, elements of that are incentives, so if local authorities do not follow the prescribed best practice, they will not receive all that incentive funding.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Can I declare my interest, having lost three tyres to potholes this year? What assessment has the Department made of the efficiency with which potholes are being filled? What on earth is it filling them with, because within weeks and sometimes days, a newly filled pothole is back again?

[Simon Lightwood]

That is exactly why this Government are putting record funding into tackling potholes—so that we can finally turn the tide on having to refill the same potholes time and again. With that long-term funding, councils can now finally turn the corner and prevent those potholes from forming in the first place.

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

North East Lincolnshire council has received over £4 million. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned, the council seems to be struggling to get that money out the door and those potholes filled. Areas like Winchester Road have got absolutely disgraceful road conditions. Is the Department undertaking any monitoring of how much money is being spent and how much is going on these potholes?

[Simon Lightwood]

Under this Government, all councils must publish a statement on their website so that all local people can hold them to account on exactly how they are spending their money. Let me share an interesting fact with the House: Reform came out by far the worst in our recent RAG—red, amber, green—rating exercise, with a massive 25% of Reform-led councils rated “red”.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Road Emulsion Association research has found that 57% of UK drivers experience fewer and less severe potholes on Europe’s motorways compared with ours. That was confirmed by Office of Rail and Road benchmarking, which identified that the Netherlands’ strategic road network had double the high standard of ride quality than UK roads. Does the Minister agree that we should embrace good road practices from other countries, and what steps is he taking to ensure that our money is well spent?

[Simon Lightwood]

We are almost doubling the amount of money going to local highways maintenance to turn the tide. That is why a massive percentage of the road investment strategy—something like £8.5 billion—is going on repairing and renewing our strategic road network.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to improve passenger rail services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

8. Whether she has reviewed with Cabinet colleagues the status of land used for environmental mitigation along the A14 in Huntingdon constituency.

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

National Highways has assessed the status of the land and is taking steps to improve its condition, including replanting substantial numbers of trees, protecting ecological sites and creating new wildlife habitats.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I thank the Minister for his response the other day to my written question, which made clear that the trees would be replanted alongside the A14. I have surveyed that area in recent weeks, and it is real mess. The land has simply not been maintained after the environmental land-management schemes were put in place, so it is reassuring to hear that the trees will be replaced. However, there are other problems with some of the schemes: some of the buildings that were compulsorily purchased have not been maintained and have become dilapidated, National Highways is ransoming access to the land to local developers by charging a 30% shared value increase, just so that developers can gain access to the A14, and we have dangerous at-grade junctions. Will the Minister meet me to discuss some of the problems that we have with access to the A14 in Huntingdonshire, so that my constituents can be reassured that we are working hard to ensure that that road works as it should?

[Simon Lightwood]

On the specific topic of trees, it is an absolute scandal that something like 600,000 trees died as part of the previous Government’s road schemes—some 90% of the trees died at that particular scheme—but of course I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the individual issues that he raised.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

10. What recent steps her Department has taken to support motorists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to repair potholes on the strategic road network.

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

National Highways targets the most serious potholes for repair within 24 hours. Under the new road investment strategy, published today, it must keep 96.2% of road surfaces in good condition and resurface around a quarter of its network over the next five years. In addition to National Highways’ work on the strategic road network, Lancashire combined county authority is eligible to receive £268 million in highways maintenance funding over the next four years as part of our £7.3 billion investment in local roads.

[Sarah Smith]

My constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden are blighted by potholes, which cost them hundreds of pounds, but to add insult to injury, twice recently the Reform-led county council has come out and repainted our road markings before coming a day later to complete resurfacing works on the same bit of road. Lancashire county council has had record levels of funding from this Government, with £100 million confirmed over two years. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that the council is refusing to update residents on its repair times and whether it is meeting their demands and requirements?

[Simon Lightwood]

It is not acceptable for this Reform-led council to refuse to provide basic information to my hon. Friend’s constituents. As I mentioned earlier, 25% of Reform-led councils have been rated red—the lowest rating. It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that Labour councils have come out on top. I hope that her constituents will keep that in mind when they go to the polling stations in a couple of weeks.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The scourge of potholes is pretty universal, but will the Minister join me in encouraging all my Spelthorne residents who have a complaint about a pothole to report it via the Surrey county council website? Reporting potholes is the only way to get them sorted.

[Simon Lightwood]

I absolutely agree that constituents should report potholes to their local authority. The good news is that by the end of this Parliament we will have almost doubled the amount of funding to allow those councils to get on top of this pothole plague.

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

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

T5. The sorry state of Scotland’s roads proves that the SNP cannot get the basics right. The UK Labour Government funding to repair potholes adds to the significant Barnett consequentials falling to Scotland. Does the Minister agree that Scottish Labour’s pledge to establish a new roads repair fund, worth £350 million, to fix 5 million potholes is one worth voting for on 7 May?

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

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have ambitious plans in England, and a record £7.3 billion investment and clear standards to ensure that councils fix roads properly for the long term. Only Scottish Labour has a plan to build on this approach and to end the pothole plague north of the border.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T3. Yesterday came the welcome news that Queensbury station, in my constituency, is one of five new stations that will be considered for step-free access. That makes almost the entire Jubilee line step-free, except for Stanmore station, which Transport for London classifies as step-free, even though my residents face 49 steps on the main staircase, 10 at the side and access via a very steep ramp from the car park, which even a Paralympian cannot manage. Could the Minister responding to this afternoon’s debate agree to a new legal definition of “step-free access”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

Heugh Street bridge in South Shields was closed over four months ago by the council, as it deemed it to be unsafe. It was used by over 5,000 vehicles per day and the closure is damaging my local economy. The council is currently unable to give any timescale for reopening the bridge and I am led to believe there is no funding for it to do so anyway. Can my hon. Friend the Minister please assist us in any way at all?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. This sounds like a scheme that could benefit from the structures fund.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The Government are rightly focused on bus services, but can I urge them to also think carefully about safety in bus stations? We have a big problem at Skipton bus station at the moment and there is no CCTV. I encourage the Minister to focus on local authorities and mayors to get obligatory CCTV in our bus stations to keep people safe.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Labour Mayor of York and North Yorkshire is tinkering with the Department for Transport’s highways funding ratio, reallocating about £4 million from North Yorkshire to the city of York. When North Yorkshire council has already lost the rural services delivery grant, how can the Minister think that is fair?

[Simon Lightwood]

The Department continues to give funding that is devolved to local leaders. It is up to the democratically elected local leaders to decide how to spend it. Funding is allocated for the whole of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to deal with that.

Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure as always to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this important debate, and I recognise her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents and rail passengers across the region. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his contribution. I commend the collaboration among local partners, councils, industry and residents in making the case for improvements on the Brighton main line.

The BML is a vital artery that connects the south-east with the heart of London, carrying millions of passengers every year. It is a lifeline for commuters, visitors and businesses, and provides a direct rail connection to Gatwick airport. East Croydon station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East, serves as a major transport hub, linking services across Sussex, Surrey and the London Tramlink network. The line facilitates billions of pounds in economic activity every year, supporting the growth of businesses and helping communities to remain connected.

The line’s importance is reflected in the significant investment it has received in recent years. The £7 billion Thameslink programme transformed north-south travel through London, delivering faster, more frequent and more reliable journeys for passengers. It introduced a new fleet of class 700 trains on the Brighton main line, significantly increasing onboard capacity. Given the modern technology used in those trains, there have been improvements in service reliability right across the Brighton main line and the wider Thameslink network.

Major stations such as London Blackfriars and London Bridge were completely rebuilt as part of the programme, and a vital interchange with the Elizabeth line was created at Farringdon. Through the major hub of East Croydon station, the Thameslink programme established new direct connections to destinations such as Peterborough and Cambridge.

More than £250 million was recently invested in upgrading Gatwick Airport station, delivering a more accessible concourse, doubling the space for passengers and improving the reliability of trains calling at the station. For too many years, Gatwick Airport station had impacted services along the Brighton main line due to the extended time that passengers needed to board and alight trains. Following platform widening and track remodelling, passengers can now board more quickly, which reduces delays and cuts journey times between Brighton and London by up to five minutes, and improves performance and reliability overall. It has also reduced knock-on delays further up and down the line. I hope my hon. Friend and her constituents have started to see the direct benefits of those interventions at Gatwick, be it in the efficiency of the train service or the ease with which they can start their holiday journeys.

Before the pandemic, the Croydon area remodelling scheme was rightly identified as a way to address overcrowding, increase capacity and improve the reliability of the Brighton main line. As my hon. Friend outlined, the complex junction at Selhurst—often referred to as the Croydon bottleneck—alongside the challenging operation of East Croydon and Norwood Junction stations, places significant constraints on the capacity and smooth operation of the network.

CARS was developed to address those challenges through extensive remodelling of the tracks and rail junctions north of East Croydon station. The programme also included plans for the redevelopment of East Croydon and Norwood Junction stations. At the time, Network Rail estimated that the scheme would take more than 10 years to deliver and would cost about £2.9 billion. Delivery would also require substantial disruption for passengers travelling along the Brighton main line.

As we know, the covid-19 pandemic changed travel patterns, created uncertainty about future demand and placed considerable pressures on public finances. In response, the previous Government took the decision to cancel the scheme at the 2021 spending review, although regrettably that decision was never actually formally communicated to stakeholders. No further development work has taken place on CARS since then.

On 8 July 2025, the Secretary of State updated Parliament on rail infrastructure scheme progress following the 2025 spending review. As my hon. Friend is aware, CARS was not allocated funding. The Government are committed to delivering infrastructure that offers the greatest benefit to passengers and the wider economy as quickly as possible and within a fully funded, deliverable programme. Given limited funding for rail enhancement projects and the significant recent investment already made on the line, including through Thameslink and Gatwick, the difficult decision was taken not to prioritise CARS at this stage.

I recognise that, despite those investments, my hon. Friend and other Members who represent constituencies along the Brighton main line will continue to make the case for investment. The next spending review, due in 2027, will be an important opportunity to make the case for future investment. The Government look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other BML stakeholders in developing that case.

I again thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for her commitment to championing improvements for rail passengers across her constituency and the wider region. I understand the disappointment that she and other stakeholders expressed following the outcome of the spending review last year. Although difficult decisions have been necessary, the Government recognise the long-term benefits of the Croydon area remodelling scheme. We will continue to work constructively with industry partners, local authorities and stakeholders as we consider future opportunities to improve capacity and performance on this vital route.

The case that my hon. Friend has set out today and on many previous occasions will remain an important part of the discussions as we look to the future. I am sure the Rail Minister looks forward to continuing that engagement and ensuring that the Brighton main line remains a reliable, high-performing railway that supports passengers, communities and economic growth for years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. We both know a thing or two about changing weight categories—[Laughter.] I could not resist. Might I say you are looking very well for it?

The draft regulations will be made under powers in the Road Traffic Act 1998 and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. They will alter in three ways the rules that apply to zero emission vans weighing over 3.5 tonnes, up to and including 4.25 tonnes, which I will hereafter refer to as 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans. First, 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans will be moved from the heavy vehicle testing system into the class 7 MOT testing system. Secondly, the date of the first test will change from one year after initial registration to three years after initial registration, with annual testing thereafter. Thirdly, the regulations will move 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans from the scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules into the scope of the Great Britain drivers’ hours rules. The GB drivers’ hours rules do not require the driving time to be measured using a tachograph, meaning that vans will not be required to be fitted with one. The aim of the changes is to ensure that 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans are regulated in the same way as internal combustion engine vans that weigh over 3 tonnes, up to and including 3.5 tonnes.

Domestic transport is the highest greenhouse gas-emitting sector of the economy, accounting for something like 30% of emissions in 2024. There is therefore an imperative to shift towards zero emission vehicles, particularly in the road freight sector, where the number of vans has been consistently increasing, rising by 9.5% between 2019 and 2024.

At present, 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans fall into the scope of some heavy vehicle regulations because their maximum authorised mass is over 3.5 tonnes. However, 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans are often like-for-like replacements for internal combustion engine vans weighing under 3.5 tonnes. They may be used for the same purposes and are often visually indistinguishable.

Two areas where there are currently different rules for 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans are roadworthiness testing and drivers’ hours. These vans are required to undergo a heavy vehicle test, with a first test one year after initial registration and then annually. They are also required to follow the assimilated drivers’ hours rules. The different regulatory requirements for 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans act as a disincentive for businesses looking to make the switch to a zero emission van.

Any 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans will be moved from within the scope of the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988 into the scope of the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981. The practical effect is to move these vans from the heavy vehicle testing system into the class 7 MOT system, and to alter the date of the first test, as already described. That will benefit operators of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans by allowing them to be tested at the larger network of class 7 MOT testing stations, providing greater choice for operators. The class 7 MOT is also cheaper, which, combined with the later first test, will reduce costs for businesses with 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans.

The regulations will increase the minimum tyre tread depth requirement for 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans by amending the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. That will ensure that they have the same requirement as other vans that undergo class 7 MOT testing.

These vans will also be removed entirely from the scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules and will therefore fall under the GB drivers’ hours rules instead. Some 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans may already be in scope of a limited exemption from the assimilated drivers’ hours rules, which is contained in paragraph 6 of the schedule to the Community Drivers’ Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 2007. However, that exemption applies only to vehicles operating within a 100 km radius of their base. The regulations before us will remove that distance limit for those vans but retain it for other vehicle types currently covered by the exemption.

The change in drivers’ hours rules applicable to these vans will provide greater regulatory consistency for van operators, as internal combustion engine vans weighing under 3.5 tonnes are already in scope of the GB drivers’ hours rules. The GB hours rules do not require that tachographs are used to monitor driving time, removing an additional cost currently experienced by zero emission van operators. The extra administrative burden for fleets where drivers regularly switch between different types of vans, and therefore different sets of drivers’ hours rules, is also removed by the regulations.

The Government have introduced other regulatory changes to support operators of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans. In June 2025, regulations were introduced allowing holders of category B driving licences to drive zero emission vans up to 4.25 tonnes without any additional training. The same regulations also provided 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans with towing allowances equivalent to those available to their lower-weight internal combustion engine counterparts. In addition, there is already an exemption from operator licensing for alternatively fuelled vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes.

Alongside measures specific to this weight class, the Government are promoting the use of zero emission vans via the zero emission vehicle mandate. The ZEV mandate sets sales targets for manufacturers of cars and vans, with a headline target for vans in 2026 of 24%, on a pathway to 100% by 2035. Greater flexibilities were added to the mandate in October 2025 to support manufacturers in reaching those targets.

The Government also provide grant funding for zero emission vehicles and the installation of charge points. Vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes are eligible for the plug-in van grant, with a maximum discount of £5,000.

Ensuring that road safety is maintained after the introduction of these changes has, of course, been a key consideration during the development of the regulations. Class 7 MOT testing is already used for vans with similar dimensions to 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans. Although these vans are heavier, they may be equipped with features, such as regenerative braking, that can support safer driving. Under the GB drivers’ hours rules, the maximum daily amount of driving is only one hour longer than the limit used under the assimilated rules. In addition, the daily duty limit of 11 hours will restrict drivers from working on other, non-driving tasks, such as loading and unloading, for excessive periods. Following the implementation of the regulations, road safety data will be closely monitored, and the number and severity of collisions will be analysed to understand the regulations’ impact on road safety, if any.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not report on the regulations or draw any issues to the attention of the House. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee did publish a report on the regulations, drawing the House’s attention to the fact that when the powers available in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 expire after 23 June 2026, the Government will not have powers to amend the limited drivers’ hours rules. The Government are actively looking at solutions to close or mitigate that gap in powers at the earliest opportunity to maintain a functioning statute book. That includes introducing primary legislation, where needed, as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The SLSC also raised the issue of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland created by the regulations, which apply only in Great Britain. The Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland has said that it will monitor the implementation of the changes in Great Britain. However, any decision to make similar changes in Northern Ireland will rest with the DFI Minister. Officials in the Department for Transport and the DFI are working together to manage the changes for operators of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This area is devolved to Northern Ireland, so it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to legislate on, should they wish to do so. This is not a type approval issue, and regulations concerning drivers’ hours and tachographs are not included in the Windsor framework.

In summary, the regulations will remove barriers to businesses making the switch to using a 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission van. They introduce regulatory alignment with the equivalent internal combustion engine vans, helping to support the transition to a net zero transport system. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

To pick up on the point from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, the Government are absolutely committed to greater road safety. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South in her place today; she steered us through the first road safety strategy in more than a decade, and it is well overdue. It was published on 7 January, and sets out our vision for a safer future on the roads for all. As part of the long-term improvements outlined in the strategy, officials are working with industry to publish clearer maintenance standards for light goods vehicles.

On the effects of these vehicles on road surfaces, the overall road wear effects caused by electric vans are relatively small, because wear and tear on roads is dominated by heavy goods vehicles and buses, with a much smaller impact from vans and cars of any type. In addition, although EVs can be heavier than equivalent petrol or diesel vehicles, passenger cars have been increasing in weight on average for many years now. That trend has been driven by consumer choice and improving safety features for passengers, and many petrol and diesel cars are as heavy as EVs.

On the zero emission vehicle mandate, the Government are committed to decarbonising our road transport and ensuring that the UK successfully transitions to zero emission vehicles, and the ZEV mandate is a crucial part of facilitating that transition. It sets out annual headline targets for the proportion of new zero emission cars and vans sold in the UK, starting at 10% for vans in 2024 and rising steadily to reach 70% of vans by 2030, on a pathway to 100% by 2035. Demand for zero emission vans is growing, making up nearly 10% of the market in 2025, and showing 36% year-on-year growth compared to 2024. However, the Government acknowledge that the van transition requires further support, and we offer generous grants to support up-front purchase of vans, and installations of workplace and residential chargers.

On the devolved Administrations and divergence, these regulations apply in Great Britain only, as this policy area is devolved in Northern Ireland. Officials in the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland have been updated on these regulations, and are currently considering the potential impact of introducing this legislation on regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are also considering the impact of the proposals on drivers’ hours and tachograph requirements presented by the EU Commission, which mirror the changes in these regulations.

I thank everyone for their time today and for their questions. This common-sense move by the Government will take the burden away from those using internal combustion vans, and ease them into the transition to zero emission vans. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Diesel Vehicles: Defeat Devices

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you, Ms Lewell—my favourite sand dancer—chairing the debate this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this debate on defeat devices in diesel vehicles. This is an important subject that rightly attracts scrutiny from Parliament, the public and campaigners. I acknowledge the concerns that my hon. Friend set out in her parliamentary questions and recent public commentary, which reflect the strength of feeling about this issue and the need for transparency and accountability from both manufacturers and regulators. Those concerns are entirely legitimate, and I welcome the opportunity to set out clearly how they align with the Government’s determination to uphold emissions standards and to ensure that the public can have full confidence in the environmental performance of vehicles on our roads.

I begin by reaffirming this Government’s commitment to delivering greener, cleaner transport and to reducing harmful emissions that affect communities across the country. Road transport emissions have significant implications for public health. We continue to take firm, evidence-based action wherever practices risk undermining public trust or air quality. Alongside our compliance and enforcement work, we are delivering wider measures to cut harmful emissions, including by supporting the transition to zero-emission vehicles, as my hon. Friend referenced.

We have consistently said that prohibited defeat devices are illegal, are misleading for drivers and can have negative impacts on the public. My Department has considerably strengthened its oversight of vehicle emissions in recent years. Since 2016, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s vehicle market surveillance unit has carried out increasingly rigorous emissions testing programmes using both laboratory and real-world methods to identify suspicious performance. The DVSA actively investigates potential non-compliance, and where its assessments identify issues, manufacturers are required to take corrective action in line with DVSA’s published enforcement policy.

This Government are undertaking a targeted and comprehensive programme of assessments, which formally commenced in early 2025, to assess a range of Euro 5 and Euro 6 diesel cars and vans produced between 2010 and 2018. As my hon. Friend would probably expect, we are focusing on vehicles with the greatest potential to cause harm, and our remediation actions are designed to reduce real-world emissions as quickly and effectively as possible. Although those models are no longer entering the market, they remain on our roads and the public quite rightly expect them to meet the standards set out at approval. I think, at present, there are 110 individual vehicle models that are under active investigation. That reflects the scale and complexity of the challenge.

To be absolutely clear, every vehicle model within scope will undergo a full assessment, and manufacturers are now working to firm, defined deadlines. The DVSA has completed assessments on a number of models and is now reviewing detailed submissions from manufacturers, with further assessments underway. We will conclude the process as soon as evidence allows, to ensure that any findings are robust, fair and accountable. Where non-compliance is identified, manufacturers will be required to take corrective action and enforcement will escalate where deadlines are not met. That approach is intended to achieve real-world improvements in air quality swiftly and fairly.

The Government have also strengthened the enforcement framework available to regulators. Since 2018, it has been an offence to place vehicles containing prohibited defeat systems on the market. My Department is equipped to require swift corrective action to address non-compliance. We are also considering whether we need to go further and build on our existing powers under assimilated EU law to require compulsory environmental recalls to deliver the intended outcomes.

Let me be clear: if non-compliance is confirmed, the DVSA will require manufacturers to take whatever remedial action is necessary, at no cost to consumers. Where any serious risk is evidenced, that remedial action must be taken without delay.

On transparency, I fully recognise the public interest in understanding the outcomes of this work, and manufacturer-specific findings will be published once investigations are complete and decisions are final. That approach is entirely consistent with other market surveillance activity. Waiting until that point is important to ensure that due process is followed, to avoid prejudicing live investigations and to maintain the integrity of any future enforcement action.

[Dr Huq]

I like what I have heard so far because, up to now, this has all been a bit mysterious. I wonder if it might be a good idea for me to meet the Minister. As a London MP, I have experience with ULEZ—we have a riding school in my seat, and an exemption was made for a horsebox. As I have experience of what happens in London, it would be good to talk this through, but it is impossible in a debate like this. Would the Minister meet me at some point?

[Simon Lightwood]

How could I refuse? Of course I will meet my hon. Friend.

Publishing incomplete or provisional findings would risk misleading consumers and compromising the quality of the technical assessments underway, as my hon. Friend will appreciate. To support transparency, I am pleased to say that the Department will shortly publish its dedicated gov.uk landing page. That will bring together all the emissions compliance publications, and once investigations are concluded, the final outcomes of the programme will be added to that page for full public access.

The programme has been developed in close collaboration with the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the UK Health Security Agency. That ensures that our approach draws on the full breadth of Government expertise. That collective effort means that our response is co-ordinated and informed by those who play a direct role in delivering cleaner, safer vehicles.

We are closely following the Pan-NOx group litigation concerning alleged defeat devices. Once the court hands down its judgment, we will consider carefully any implications, including whether changes are needed to our policy framework or enforcement approach. Internationally, we continue to work closely with regulators in EU member states, which helps us to anticipate emerging issues, align on best practice and ensure that manufacturers face a coherent regulatory environment across markets. It reinforces our ability to act decisively where cross-border issues arise, recognising that emissions compliance is a global challenge.

To conclude, a great deal has been achieved, and more is underway. The Government are delivering a thorough and proportionate programme designed to address potential non-compliance swiftly, transparently and in line with our legal duties. Our shared objective is clear: deliver cleaner air, protect public health, uphold public confidence and ensure that the vehicles on our roads meet the standards that the public expect and deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Transport: Planning Developments

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond.

I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate and thank Members for all their comments and contributions. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how planning developments impact on local transport, a subject of great importance and a priority in the context of our housing ambitions. An awful lot has been said today; Members will forgive my aversion to taking many interventions, as I think it is important that I respond to many of the comments made.

Aligning housing and transport is essential for delivering homes that are connected and sustainable and that provide genuine choices for people. To that end, we have prioritised making changes to the planning system in support of growth and place-making. That includes providing the tools that local planning authorities need to ensure that developments are supported by the right transport infrastructure for the local context.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is currently consulting on revisions to the national planning policy framework. If progressed, these revisions will deliver better located development with more sustainable travel choices, supported by robust guidance.

We have already made changes through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to streamline the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, which will speed up the pace of decision making on critical projects. The Act also places a duty on combined authorities, combined county authorities, upper tier county councils and unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, which is an important opportunity to set the context for local plans, which will have to be in general conformity with the strategy once it has been adopted. Taken together, these changes will make a real difference to the people we all serve, delivering more housing, greater transport choices and better designed, healthier places.

The Government believe that an integrated, affordable and sustainable transport network is vital to unlocking homes with good access to jobs, education and public services. That includes improving bus services, boosting passenger numbers and giving local leaders greater control.

To support that work, last year my Department launched the connectivity tool, which brings together transport and land use data to show how well locations are connected to jobs and key services, helping communities to identify infrastructure gaps and plan development sustainably. The tool is already being used across the country to ensure that new housing aligns with existing and planned infrastructure. I believe the tool will empower local government, developers and planners to make better decisions about where development should happen, and to plan for the infrastructure needed to support it.

In parallel, the Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways as a directing mind. One of its objectives is to facilitate homebuilding and place-making. Great British Railways will be outward-facing and will work in partnership with mayoral strategic authorities, enabling a greater focus on local priorities such as housing and regeneration.

We have already taken action. Platform4, a company launched in November 2025, is already working to develop disused brownfield land—real land—with an ambition to deliver 40,000 homes over the coming decade. That will support our housing, regeneration and growth ambitions by creating new places to live, work, learn and play, putting the railway at the heart of our neighbourhoods.

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted also mentioned green-belt policy and its implications for villages such as Redbourn. As I understand it, the proposed changes to the definition of grey belt seek to better enable the identification of grey-belt land when ensuring protection of the green belt. Alongside that, the introduction of the spatial development strategies will identify broad locations for housing growth across larger geographies than the district level, while at the same time co-ordinating the provision of strategic infrastructure and improving the environment and climate resilience. That will help to better distribute developments and identify their appropriate scale in places like Hertfordshire. In reference to major developments in the surrounding areas, all planning decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, based on national and local planning policies and other material considerations.

The Government approved the special development order for the Universal Studios site in December 2025, noting the project’s national significance. Extensive transport works to support the surrounding network are to be delivered, including the expansion of Wixams railway station to enable public transport journeys to the site.

Given the ongoing legal proceedings, there is not much I can say about Luton airport. However, the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision letter on the case sets out her reasoning for that consent.

Regarding the cumulative impacts of developments, the Government are operationalising a new approach to transport planning through changes to the national planning policy framework. By taking a vision-led approach to transport planning that sets clear outcomes from the outset of the planning process, we can deliver well-connected communities that are served by sustainable transport and co-located with key services, breaking the cycle that has left people with a lack of transport choice and ever more congested road networks. I believe that will make it easier for new developments to deliver the transport options that people need and want and will help decision makers to better manage the cumulative impacts of significant developments affecting places such as Redbourn.

To respond to the specific concerns about congestion, National Highways is a statutory consultee on planning applications and will assess the impact of new developments on the strategic road network. National Highways expects developers to explore all options to reduce dependence on the strategic road network for local journeys. National Highways is empowered to recommend refusal of planning applications that would cause substantial impact on the road network, including issuing holding responses to enable more evidence to be provided, or to provide conditions for mitigating the impact of development.

To pick up on a few other points that Members raised, I understand that the local plan in St Albans is currently being replaced. It is one of the oldest and most out-of-date plans. I recognise that it has been inherited—it dates back to 1994. It is expected that a new plan will be adopted in March. The Government’s proposed national policy framework outlines that all development proposals should be capable of proceeding without having a severe adverse impact on transport networks in terms of capacity and congestion, including the cumulative impact. Local decision makers should consider the cumulative impact on transport when deciding their planning applications.

On rail or rail operators that are required to plan services based on demand and value for money, Great British Railways will have a significant impact, as I have mentioned. Govia Thameslink Railway has shared demand modelling with the Department, which does include projections for planned development along the Thameslink network. The Department requires all operators to plan future timetables that reflect expected demand and provide value for money for the taxpayer. We will continue to work with Govia Thameslink Railway as it develops its proposals for development along that route.

On bus funding, I am sure all Members will welcome the £3 billion of multi-year funding that is going to support bus services across the country. Hertfordshire county council will be allocated £34.1 million under the local authority bus grant from 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is in addition to the £12.2 million already allocated. For the first time, the formula includes a rurality aspect to make sure that rural areas receive their fair share.

Moving on to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I find it hard to accept some of his comments. We inherited a housing crisis caused by the Conservatives that has seen house building plummet. The Government will not shy away from taking the decisive action needed to fix that for good. This Government are turning the tide on the Tories’ housing crisis, which has seen 1.3 million families stuck on housing waiting lists and over 165,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation. On affordable housing, our new £39 billion social and affordable housing programme will build around 300,000 new homes over 10 years, including at least 60% for social rent—around 180,000 homes. That is six times the number of social and affordable homes built in the last decade.

Today’s debate has demonstrated the importance of integrating transport and housing and seeing them not as separate systems, but as one. I trust that the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted can see how, taken together, those reforms represent the meaningful re-gearing of the transport and spatial planning systems to fix the housing crisis while delivering the transport that our communities need.

[Steff Aquarone]

On a point of order, Sir Desmond. I want to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving county councillor.