Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Residents of Holton Heath and Sandford are being blighted every weekend by racing vehicles, motorcycles and modified small cars causing nuisance and loud noises. What progress is being made on the acoustic devices that enable police to act on these illegal vehicles?

[Justin Madders]

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady’s constituents are having to endure these issues. There have been a number of trials, which have found that it is not that straightforward to isolate the noise. Police forces have powers to tackle this issue, and I am happy to write to her with further information about what they can do.

Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Wrigley]

From my experience, I suspect that the right hon. Member’s third option is probably correct.

On people’s confusion about where to report a collision with a cat, section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says that a driver who hits certain animals must stop and, if necessary, report it to the police. Those animals are horses, cattle, asses, mules, sheep, pigs, goats and dogs. Cats are not on the list.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am intervening on behalf of my good friend Sandra, otherwise known as the crazy cat lady of Canford Heath. She is concerned, as I am, that the assumption is that the reason cats are not included is that they are not working animals. I can tell Members that my beloved dogs, Todd and Reggie, are absolutely not working animals—far from it—yet they would be covered. On the question of whether legislation is needed, we had a fantastic animal welfare strategy issued earlier this year, so is now not the moment to bring this issue into a new animal welfare Act?

[Martin Wrigley]

I tend to agree, and we will come to working animals shortly.

Cats are not on the list. Neither, I might add, are llamas or alpacas, which gives a fair idea of how old the list is. It has come down to us, almost untouched, from the Road Traffic Act 1930. The usual explanation—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) must have read my speech in advance—is that these are working animals with an economic value to their owners, whereas cats were seen as pets. Rule 286 of the highway code does advise drivers to report any collision with an animal and, where possible, to find the owner of a cat. However, that is only guidance, and a driver who hits a cat can carry on driving without breaking any law.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

Vikki Slade Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

If the Minister would like to speak, he can stand at the Dispatch Box. No, he does not want to do that—fine. We will have him here tomorrow, then, as we were told today that our urgent question would not be accepted because the Minister would be making a statement. We will have to see whether that actually happens.

Having said all that, I welcome the engagement from the Secretary of State and Ministers in the other House on this Bill, and the engagement that has taken place on this matter. I would like to see that engagement continue, and I hope that it can.

The Conservatives agree with the stated aims of the Bill—namely, to promote economic growth and infrastructure development, to strengthen consumer rights and protections, and to enhance aviation security. For that reason, we will not divide on Second Reading. I also agree with the Secretary of State’s observation in her letter to colleagues on 1 September, in which she said that the contributions of the Lords have helped strengthen the legislation before the House today. At its core, this is broadly an administrative Bill. We on the Conservative Benches recognise that certain measures must be taken following our exit from the European Union to ensure that regulatory gaps are filled and continuity is maintained in a way that ultimately keeps Britain’s aviation industry working safely, as the Secretary of State highlighted.

The Bill pays much attention to consumer rights and associated protections, and the Conservatives welcome parts of that agenda. Indeed, I appreciate the Department showing some flexibility on these issues, particularly with regard to safeguarding disabled passengers. However, given the violent agreement between the Secretary of State and me on these matters—I confess that it is not always this way across the Dispatch Box—I am slightly puzzled by one item. Why on earth did her party whip Members in the other place to vote against a review of airport drop-off charges? Why are passengers paying such exorbitant drop-off charges? It would appear that the Government do not want us to know that. Why is it, as The Times has reported, that charges at Gatwick have now reached £10 for 10 minutes, while Luton’s, under Labour-run Luton council, have increased from £2 to £7?

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

In Bournemouth, the charges have now gone up to £8, yet there are no buses to the airport. Two buses, which go at 6 o’clock in the morning and come back at 6 o’clock in the evening, serve the industrial estate, but they do not serve the airport staff or passengers, and it is impossible for people to get there any other way. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree with me that these charges should be restricted or banned until such time as the airport provides alternatives for all passengers?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Lady makes a very clear case for why such a review of airport parking charges is necessary. One has not happened for a decade. It was great to get the support of the Liberal Democrats in the other place in backing Lord Moylan and the Conservative proposals in that space. Now that the provision is in the Bill, I hope the Government will not seek to remove it. There are obviously concerns about the impact that surface access targets have had on some airport parking charges, especially when, as the hon. Member has made clear, genuine alternatives often do not exist properly or are incredibly expensive. I genuinely find it difficult to believe that the Secretary of State does not herself believe that there is a simple link between Gatwick having a minimum target of more than half of passengers getting to and from the airport by public transport and the soaring drop-off charges. I hope that this perfectly reasonable provision for a review that puts passengers first will not be removed from this Bill. It would be great to hear from the Minister winding up whether the Government intend to stick with that important review, which was inserted against the Labour party’s wishes in the House of Lords.

Another point worth mentioning is that the Bill, for all the powers it rearranges and the regulations it enables, offers remarkably little vision for where British aviation should be heading. The Government have talked a lot about growth, yet have refused to set tangible targets to deliver it—whether in this aviation Bill, or indeed for passenger growth in the Railways Bill.

The Opposition understand that economic growth and the competition that fuels it are essential not merely to the success of individual airports and airlines, but to maintaining Britain’s global reputation as one of the world’s outstanding aviation nations. Yet too often this Government appear to regard the aviation industry less as an engine of growth and more as an ATM. Indeed, Labour Members seem to be beset with Tigger-like pleasure at finding new costs to impose on businesses, while growing the welfare bill rather more successfully than they are growing the economy.

Ministers must understand that every additional burden and every tax—air passenger duty or business rates—is having huge impacts on aviation. I was with Manchester Airport Group recently, which is now facing an effective tax rate of 77%, when corporation tax and business rates are combined, after facing a more than 100% increase in its business rates. Manchester is not alone; airports up and down the country are facing huge increases in tax. It will be really important for Ministers to address that as part of the broader concerns about growth.

Every charge deters investment and makes new jobs, new routes and greater passenger choice that little bit harder to deliver. That principle must also apply to the new powers given to the CAA. Can the Minister assure the House that significant new regulatory, safety and airspace decisions will be evidence-based, proportionate and subject to the proper assessment of their costs and benefits?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

Would the hon. Member like to reflect on what happened to me over the summer when I was flying back from a family holiday? Our flight was continually delayed, and we kept getting told that there were “extraordinary circumstances”, which we know is code for, “You won’t get compensation.” That was the message throughout the wait, but when we got on the plane, the pilot told us the truth. He listed all the things that had happened, and I believe he did that so that we knew that it was not extraordinary circumstances. Does she agree that removal of that phrase is key to changing passenger rights?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member describes a holiday experience that so many of our constituents have had. There are two issues here. The first is getting information and updates regularly. Yesterday, one pilot had the decency to say, “Look, I don’t know what’s happening,” every 20 minutes; at least that gave some assurance to the passengers waiting on that plane. Secondly, whatever the cause of the problem, and whoever ultimately pays the cost of what needs doing, passengers have needs. They need toilets, refreshments, and a bed for the night—or at least somewhere comfortable to sleep. Should airports, for instance, be ready for these incidents, and have supplies of camp beds, emergency drinks, snacks, and baby food, and allocated trained staff who can come in at short notice to support passengers? Our local authorities have contingency plans and stores in case of incidents causing homes to be evacuated, and many of us have had to deal with such experiences. Maybe airports could learn something from our local authorities. Local authorities do not start by asking who will pay, or tell one resident that they are eligible and another that they are not. Instead, there is a set contingency plan. They open up community centres and so on. It is not rocket science.

Turning back to the Bill, I will cover first what is in it, and then—in an ideal world—what I would like to see in it. On passenger rights and protections for disabled passengers, I particularly welcome the fact that passengers with wheelchairs and other expensive mobility aids will now benefit from the removal of the limit on compensation. I regret the fact that, at this point, that can apply only to domestic UK flights, but I hope that this is an example of the UK leading the way, and that this basic right can be extended to travellers to and from other countries. Isb particularly want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, who sadly could not be present this afternoon, and the work that he has been doing, both as the parent of a wheelchair user, and on behalf of all wheelchair users trying to have a normal family holiday while being treated with respect, as we all expect to be when we travel through airports.

I would like to say that that is all great, and that the problem is solved, but it is not. Disabled people still face a patchy experience when they travel through our airports. Our report, “Access denied”, published earlier last year, came across a number of issues for disabled passengers at our airports, one of which was the variable quality of contractors at airports. There is a huge gulf between the best and worst experiences that disabled passengers face—there is no single standard. I ask the Government whether some kind of single standard of treatment could be hardwired in, and whether airports and airlines could be made accountable. Too often, airports and airlines pass the buck when a disabled passenger is stuck on a plane or trying to get on a plane. Some airports, such as Gatwick, have put disabled passengers on their forums to ensure that their passenger experience is fed in. That is an example of good practice that should be the norm.

Also on accessibility, airports also need to consider how accessible their public transport links are. In my experience, airports too often feel that their responsibility stops at the perimeter fence, and that public transport issues are someone else’s problem.

On wider passenger issues, I welcome the strengthened powers for the CAA on consumer rights and safety in the Bill, and look forward to the Transport Secretary’s drafting of the secondary legislation on these matters. It will cover issues that all our constituents raise: flight disruption; lost or damaged luggage; accessibility, which I have mentioned; price transparency; and airline liability for passenger injury or death.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

HS2 will deliver significant benefits for Scotland. Subject to future timetable and operational development, HS2 will aim to maintain the frequency of services to Scotland, increase the number of available seats for Anglo-Scot journeys and deliver an end-to-end journey experience that is an estimated 20 minutes faster.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

In Manchester, London and now Wales, side road zebra crossings without Belisha beacons are allowed, yet in the rest of England they are not currently available. The Secretary of State mentioned the new cycling and walking strategy. Dunyeats Road in my constituency is suffering from multiple issues that are causing people and traffic to collide. Will she consider allowing councils to bring forward those crossings?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Lady probably knows that the active travel commissioner, Chris Boardman, is a huge fan of side road zebra crossings and the potential they have. That is why we have said in the cycling and walking investment strategy that we intend to legislate for them in future.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his robust defence of CROs in his constituency and their incredible contribution to his local area. I have already confirmed to the House that I have instructed officials to determine what can be shared to make sure that he is able to carry out his role of holding me to account and representing CROs. In the meantime, I continue to the thank the CROs in his constituency, who he is such a powerful advocate for, for carrying out their essential work.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

This decision is clearly a kick in the teeth for brave people, like Chris from my constituency, who is worried that it will make the situation worse for whistleblowing rights. He challenged a bullying culture, was terminated and then denied his 20-year service medal. But this is not about money, is it? The CRO payments equate to only 1.5% of the agency’s income. I understand the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) about on-call firefighters, but has the Minister considered options such as the allowances paid to councillors, which do not confer any employment rights and which allow people to do the role alongside their full-time employment?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Lady is right to identify the fact that for CROs, remuneration is not the reason they volunteer, but it allows them to do that volunteering work. She points to a number of options around future models. I can confirm to her that a range of options has been considered. I have paused the meetings that are happening this week to create the space to allow CROs’ voices to be heard and for that conversation to continue.

Railways Bill

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Navendu Mishra]

I thank all railway staff at stations across Stockport, not only in my constituency but in neighbouring constituencies. I also declare an interest—trade unions have made donations to my constituency Labour party.

The British Transport Police recorded a 5% increase in crime in the 12 months leading up to June 2025, including a rise in violence and sexual offences, leading to claims of an “epidemic of violence”. It is facing a funding shortfall of £8.5 million this financial year, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that we in this House have a duty to keep passengers and staff safe. As such, I urge the Government to ensure that proper, adequate funding is allocated to the BTP.

I also echo the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about outsourcing. Outsourcing is embedding systemic racism in parts of the railway network where outsourced workers are disproportionately from ethnic minority backgrounds. As I said earlier in an intervention, ethnic minority workers represent 25% of the directly employed train operating company workforce, but that figure rises to just under 60% for outsourced cleaners and caterers.

The outsourcing model is driven by employers taking on workers on precarious contracts and on poor terms and conditions, such as inadequate sick pay and pensions when compared with directly employed workers. Outsourced workers typically have no travel facilities, but many in the House will be aware that a chief executive of a private train company has excellent terms and conditions, benefits and travel facilities. GBR should tackle these outsourced contracts and the poor terms and conditions that people are on. Everyone deserves fair pay and treatment, as well as dignity at work.

Those who work for open-access railway companies do a great job, but open access injects unnecessary complexity and fragmentation into operations and operators cherry-pick the most profitable routes on our network. My view is that no further open-access contracts or extensions should be granted, and that existing services and jobs should be absorbed into GBR at the earliest opportunity.

Reddish South train station in my constituency has one train a week. That is not a joke. It is absolutely ridiculous. Proper passenger services must be restored at Reddish South train station. I pay tribute to the Friends of Reddish South Station, who do such important work in my patch. In the last reporting period, only 102 passengers used that train station in an entire year. We need to ensure that as we move on with modernising our railway system, Reddish South is not left behind and train stations have proper services.

I did support new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). It has now been withdrawn, but it would have required GBR to establish a department to look at options to increase services to underserved places. I invite the Minister to visit Reddish South. Lord Hendy made a visit to my constituency last year, but it was at short notice and he did not have a chance to go to Reddish South. I invite the Minister and Lord Hendy to come to my constituency specifically to meet the Friends of Reddish South.

I will make a quick point on disabled access. The Access for All scheme is a good scheme, but it is far too slow. Nathaniel Yates, a constituent of mine, has done so much work over the years to improve disabled access for all, but accessibility at train stations in the north is poor, with fewer than half of all stations having step-free access. We need to ensure that more people are not excluded from our railways, such as those with mobility issues, underlying health conditions or heavy luggage. I support amendments 29 and 33, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would protect and promote the rights of disabled passengers.

I end on the point that since privatisation, rolling stock companies have been rinsing the taxpayer. Those companies should be brought in house, and Great British Railways should create its own rolling stock procurement team to stop taxpayers being taken advantage of.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

When I was growing up, the state of the railways, alongside the weather, was a general complaint that united most people. Thankfully, the days of the cardboard British Rail sandwich are long gone, but I regret to say that general dissatisfaction with the railway experience in my part of the world remains. That is why I welcomed the Railways Bill and the creation of Great British Railways, and I was optimistic about the renationalisation of South Western Railway, which covers my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I regret that the reliability of that service and the experience of my constituents is, if anything, worse than a year ago. I now no longer tell my family to collect me at the scheduled arrival time, but call ahead, so regular are the delays.

James, a constituent who has travelled from Wareham to London for 50 years, told me that the service has never been so poor and is not a pleasant experience. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), which would create a passenger charter. It should not be too much to ask for wi-fi that works, access to a drink or snack on a long journey, clean toilets and a guaranteed seat. Those with disabilities, bikes and prams should be able to get on and off a train and be able to put their luggage or equipment on board.

I also support new clause 6 and in particular its provision relating to fares for children. That issue was raised by students of Purbeck school when I visited last year. More than half do not stay on for sixth form, accessing colleges in Poole, Bournemouth, Weymouth and Brockenhurst. We all consider children to be children until they are 18, but not the rail companies, to whom childhood stops at 15. I presume that dates back to when we left school at 16, but we are more civilised now, and it is outrageous that a 16-year-old is considered an adult. Regardless of what happens to the new clause, please will the Government fix that?

My new clause 11 is about reducing bike thefts linked to the railways. Until February this year, bike thefts were not investigated where the bike had been left for more than two hours. That is a ridiculous position, bearing in mind that most people are going to school, out for the day or to work, and so staying away for more than two hours. The change that now allows bike thefts caught on CCTV to be investigated is great, but small rural stations such as mine at Holton Heath do not have any CCTV, so we should be preventing the bike thefts in the first place. More than 4,000 bikes were stolen from railway stations in 2024, so a modest requirement for secure cycle storage alongside car parking, or on platforms of smaller stations, seems only reasonable. I asked South Western Railway to do that voluntarily, but it refused, so my only option was to put my name to a new clause that would give passengers security and peace of mind but also reduce the need for people to drive to stations, thus supporting the railway’s role in carbon reduction.

There is an opportunity to take the railway to more people, which is why I support amendment 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and new clause 16, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) but has, I believe, now been withdrawn. In Dorset we have a huge opportunity to revolutionise rail use through Dorset Metro, which could increase train frequency across the local area from Wareham to Christchurch and create potential new stations or halts to take the strain from the heavily congested roads. In areas where railways cannot be restored because of housing developments, the “rails to trails” programme proposed in new clause 5 provides a great opportunity. The fantastic Castleman Trailway runs through the heart of my constituency, but at Corfe Mullen it stops abruptly as it reaches the A31, and there is a missed opportunity to connect those on both sides of the community.

If we are going to let the train take the strain, it must be reliable, affordable and safe. My constituent Adam says that as things stand, he is considering moving elsewhere because travel is such a problem. While the Bill constitutes a good step, I am not sure that we can currently call this the “Great” British Railway, and I hope that the Minister will do better and accept more of the amendments to allow it to be great again.

[Cat Eccles]

I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are taking the railways back into public control after decades of privatisation failure.

Amendment 50, which stands in my name, would ensure that all Great British Rail products were available from ticket offices, ending the practice by some operators of making certain fares, particularly discounted fares, available only online. This practice significantly disadvantages those who have no access to digital ticketing, including many disabled and older passengers. It also discriminates against those on low incomes who cannot necessarily afford a smartphone or consistent internet access.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for a debate on a topic that, as I can see from the number of Members present, regularly fills the inboxes of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. This debate is primarily about two closely connected issues: first, whether the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is fit for purpose in how it delivers its current responsibilities, and secondly, whether it is equipped to play the role it should in improving road safety. Let me be clear from the outset that this is not about blaming the staff of the DVLA, who work under immense pressure and whom my constituents praise when they are able to get through. It is about whether the systems that the staff are required to use are modern, fair and safe, and whether they serve the public properly.

There is no doubt that the DVLA is a large and busy organisation. Last year alone, it issued 12.5 million driving licences and 17.9 million vehicle registration certificates, and handled more than 14 million contact centre inquiries. It is an agency that most people will interact with frequently throughout their lives. On the surface, the DVLA’s latest customer satisfaction survey looks positive, with reported satisfaction of 92%, but that figure masks a serious problem. Satisfaction drops by 20 percentage points when it comes to medical driving licences, and by 34 percentage points when people are asked about the time taken to reach decisions.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend mentions the business of medical decisions. In most cases, MPs and our caseworkers do not have the medical knowledge to be able to determine somebody’s fitness to drive. Although it is lovely for us to be able to restore people’s licences by intervening in their cases, does she agree that this really should not be our job?

[Vikki Slade]

I will come to some of those specific issues shortly. Our teams are incredible and work really hard, both here in Westminster and down in our constituencies, but that should not be necessary. People should not only get the help they need when their MP steps in.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

A lot of my constituents say that there is effectively a two-tier system: if someone is able to use the digital system, it is extremely fast; if someone has a medical condition, they have to use the paper form, which creates all sorts of administrative problems that we end up chasing up. My caseworkers say that the DVLA is one of the worst departments at responding to MPs’ offices. Does my hon. Friend think that the system has to change?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his comments. I am afraid the DVLA is certainly in the top three worst departments, and I will come on to some specific cases shortly.

When constituents come to my office, they are frustrated but also really anxious. They have followed DVLA guidance by declaring their medical conditions, or they have reapplied for a licence after a temporary suspension, and then they wait, often for months, with no meaningful updates. The DVLA’s strategic priority is to drive up digital engagement, yet in practice the medical licensing system remains stubbornly analogue. The department does not routinely use email, it does not proactively chase missing documents, it does not provide status updates, and it still relies on posting medical questionnaires to GPs and consultants. Unless someone chases their MP, who then chases the DVLA and pushes the constituent to chase their clinician, cases simply stall. Applicants are left idling, with no sense of when or if the system will move them forward. This is not a functioning public service.

Let me give Members one example, which sadly is not unusual. Ellie submitted a medical questionnaire in March 2025 relating to possible epilepsy. Her symptoms stopped following B12 injections, and her consultant confirmed in writing that she was fit to drive. Six months later, she received a call from the DVLA, and she confirmed that there had been no further episodes. A month after that, her licence was revoked without her even being notified. She discovered that only in January 2026, when she happened to check her driving licence online.

When Ellie contacted the DVLA, she was told that her medical questionnaire was missing—one that had never been sent to her. After resubmitting the forms in February this year, she was informed that the original paperwork from last year could not be located. A full year after first engaging with the DVLA, her case is now classed as high priority after daily contact from her—sometimes 12 times in a day. No one should have to fight that hard to prove that they are safe to drive.

The underlying issue is simple: the DVLA is stuck in manual, while the rest of us are on automatic. Medical applications are processed strictly in date order, correspondence with clinicians happens by post, and returned documents then sit in another queue. This is a system designed around administrative convenience, not the human impact.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is illustrating the challenges really well. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because I think, given the nods I have seen, that Government Members agree. I have a constituent—a councillor, in fact—who wants to be a driving instructor, and he has experienced the same delays. Does my hon. Friend agree that we want to hear an update from the Minister on the work to put those systems online so that they run parallel with everything else?

[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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the many Members who have spoken in today’s debate, and the shadow Minister and Minister for their comments. I am glad that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is here, because I can thank him again for allowing this debate—I think that is about the fifth time that has been mentioned.

I hope that everyone whose case has been mentioned today gets their licence back very soon and that MPs can reduce the size of their inboxes and get on with doing the job we were sent here to do and not just be additional caseworkers. However, I must pay tribute to all the caseworkers in all our offices, who are doing the bulk of this work and helping our constituents. In particular, I thank my fantastic team, led by Emily.

The DVLA relies on trust and accountability, and it is there for safety. I thank the Minister for his apology. It is rare that we get a straightforward “sorry” from a Government Minister, so that is very welcome. Given what he said, I am hopeful that we can all look forward to a much more efficient system as we come to renew our licences.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

That is why we brought forward the Bus Services Act 2025, which gives local leaders the tools that they need to shape bus services around needs in their community.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The age of participation increased from 16 to 18 some 10 years ago, but the age until which funded bus travel is available for those children who live too far away from the nearest school stayed at 16. I visited Purbeck school a couple of weeks ago. Many of the children who attend that school live in villages, and this was their top concern. Will the Minister look again at this anomaly, as it is simply not right that children should have to pay to get to their nearest school?

[Simon Lightwood]

Home-to-school transport is the responsibility of the Department for Education. However, we know how important affordable and reliable bus travel is, and we are committed to working with local authorities and bus operators to improve bus services for those passengers. We have already extended the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027, to help passengers continue to travel for less, and the substantial funding we have provided for local authorities to improve bus services can be used on local fares initiatives.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the very significant supply chain that will exist, and not just in relation to the construction of a third runway, but in terms of the expanded airport and the opportunity that presents to the aviation sector. We will review the economic impacts through the ANPS review, so more detail will be available on all that in due course.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Can the Secretary of State update the House with a bit more detail on the progress of airspace modernisation in relation to noise? Residents in my constituency who are on the flightpath for Bournemouth airport have no night-time restrictions and are seeing massive increases. In places such as Dorset, people are being disturbed in their homes and in their sleep. If regional airports will not be included, can the Secretary of State explain when we can get something further on them?

[Heidi Alexander]

This Government have moved with speed to set up the UK airspace design service, and we plan to have that mobilised by the end of the year. The first region we will look at is London—that is partly to do with the connection to expansion schemes in London as well. If the hon. Lady writes to me with the details of what her constituents are experiencing, I will look into the matter further.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I rise to support amendments that will serve to ensure the most vulnerable and isolated people in our communities are not cut off from employment, health services, education and leisure. I will start with new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who has just returned to the Chamber. That new clause would remove the start time from the use of disabled bus passes. I must declare an interest, as my own son George has one of those passes. It is a crucial element of helping young people with disabilities to gain their independence, and for teenagers and young adults with additional needs, it is a far more cost-effective option for accessing college and school than providing costly and isolating taxis.

The bus pass that George and many of his classmates hold cannot be used on the way to school—in our case, that is two buses and two fares—but can be used on the return journey. While that causes frustration to parents such as me, for others, it is completely unaffordable. It forces many of them to use the offered council taxis, which are crippling councils. For those who are able to drive, blue badges are not time-restricted; why should those on a bus pass be discriminated against? We know that people with disabilities are less likely to be in employment, so anything that reduces barriers to work should be grasped by this Government. When this issue was raised in an Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the Minister pointed to the cost, but as the proposal would affect only disabled bus passes and not the whole concessionary bus pass scheme, it would apply to only 10% of passes, so the cost is fairly low.

I turn to Liberal Democrat new clauses 7 and 16, as well as new clause 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), which relate to young people. The very first motion I put to my party conference, back in 2014, proposed extending discounted bus fares for young people. That policy made it into the following Lib Dem manifesto, and has remained in some form ever since. I cited a case then that applies now: that of a young person from Bere Regis who secured an apprenticeship in Bournemouth. They were no longer eligible for a free bus pass to access the college course, because for some reason, when the age of participation was increased, the age of bus travel was not. They had to take several buses each day to access their job. The cost of doing so took up such a large proportion of their income, and the service to their village was so poor, that they had to give up their apprenticeship.

If we are to make bus services sustainable into the future, they need to be a genuine choice for young people: an alternative to buying a car or a motorbike. If we are to deal with congestion and air quality and reach our net zero targets, we need public transport to be a real option for everyone. Achieving long-term change typically starts with young people. It makes sense—young people are familiar with using buses for school, so extending discounts so that they have them available as they start in the world of work or higher education is most likely to deliver the long-term change that we need. Students from the Purbeck school and Magna academy have all written to me confused about why they were not eligible for discounted bus fares, even though they were now expected to stay at school. This policy feels like a clear oversight from a previous Government, and one that could be easily fixed by this Government.

I also support my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), who has proposed a cap extension for school services. Not extending the cap to those services is incredibly unfair. I have also been lobbied on the issue, particularly by families living in Merley, who are just about within the three-mile window.

During my village tour in the summer—whether I was in Bere Regis, Gaunt’s Common, Shapwick or Hinton Martell—the No. 1 issue that came up was buses. Communities that are cut off from bus services cannot thrive, so I welcome amendments 6, 7, 28 and 29 and new clauses 4 and 15, which would ensure that such communities are considered and—whether it be via commercial services or community minibuses—that small villages are not cut off. It seems ironic that British people always use the phrase, “You wait for a bus and then two come along at once.” For thousands of my constituents in Mid Dorset and North Poole villages, just one every so often would be nice.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

My amendment 66 and new clause 46 are not intended to change Government policy, nor to bind the hands of locally elected mayors or transport authorities—quite the opposite. Amendment 66, which my hon Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, talked about some considerable time ago, would require local transport authorities to set out a clear, transparent formula for calculating whether a service is socially necessary and then to use that formula in deciding how funding is allocated. That reflects recommendation 53 in the Transport Committee’s “Buses connecting communities” report.