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
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.

Disabled Bus Passes

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to stand here today and raise, once again, the issue of restrictions on the use of disabled bus passes. The Minister will be well aware of this matter, which I have raised with him on a number of occasions, and I have already had the opportunity to discuss it with him directly, for which I am grateful. However, I want to use today’s debate not only to underline the real and lasting impact that these restrictions have on disabled people’s lives, but to make a clear case for why it is the Government’s responsibility to address this inequality.

Currently, under the English national concessionary travel scheme, eligible disabled people are entitled to some limited free local bus travel. It is a policy rightly designed to help those who, for physical or legal reasons, are unable to drive. The scheme plays a vital role in helping disabled people to stay connected with healthcare, work, education, family, and the wider community and society.

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

Young people in post-16 education or apprenticeships, including my son George at Linwood’s post-16 provision, are unable to learn to drive as easily because of their complex needs, yet while their parents currently have to pay to get them to college in the morning, they can use their free bus passes to get home. That is completely counterintuitive and is restricting the choices of young people at a time when they should be expanding their independence. Does my hon. Friend have any comment on that?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she speaks extensively about an area in which I know she is a champion. I completely agree with her. If we are giving people disabled bus passes, we are doing that for a reason, and those reasons often do not apply only from 9.30 am onwards.

That brings me to the next part of my speech. From 11 pm to 9.30 am on weekdays, the English national concessionary travel scheme entitlement becomes a postcode lottery and is dependent on whether a local authority or transport authority chooses to extend the benefit and, crucially, whether it can afford to do so, from some already stretched local budgets. Disability Action Yorkshire, a charity based in my constituency and one whose work extends across the wider region, brought this issue to my attention earlier this year, and indeed last year at a local panel event, where local people pointed out the barriers they faced to participating in our society. Service users rightly point out the absurd contradiction in providing a travel path for disabled individuals that is designed to improve accessibility, only to then restrict its use to peak hours.

The absurdity lies in the obvious truth that disabilities do not appear only at peak times. There are approximately 870,000 disabled bus pass holders in England, representing about 10% of all concessionary travel users. The Department for Transport has on several occasions pointed to the fact that 77% of local authorities offer some form of free travel before 9.30, suggesting that the issue is relative minor, but framing it in that way obscures the reality on the ground. In many areas, including my constituency, free travel is still not permitted until after 9 am, making travel to work, education or early medical appointments financially and logistically difficult for disabled people.

In fact, research shows that 35% of transport authorities offer unrestricted, 24/7 access for disabled passengers. The result is a postcode lottery, and the majority of disabled people remain constrained by an arbitrary time restriction that does not reflect the demands of their daily lives. Let us be clear: the time restriction may be more relevant for older pass holders, who make up 90% of concessionary users and are in general less likely to be commuting to work or education. But that simply does not apply to many disabled people, with disabled bus pass holders typically being of working age.

We live in a country where disabled people continue to face unnecessary and unacceptable barriers, whether physical, financial or social. We must be honest that we are simply not doing enough to break down those barriers. Removing the weekday time restriction on disabled bus passes would be a straightforward, immediate and meaningful step in the right direction.

Ending the restrictions would do more than improving access to transport. It would promote greater independence for disabled people. It would support health and wellbeing by reducing social isolation and making it easier to attend early morning medical appointments, which are often difficult or costly to reach under the current rules. It would also contribute to environmental goals by encouraging greater use of public transport over less sustainable alternatives. Most importantly, by allowing disabled people to travel freely, we enable fuller participation in community life, whether that is volunteering, social engagements, work or education. In doing so, we would take a meaningful step toward greater social inclusion and a more equal society for disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He speaks very eloquently on a situation that I agree is entirely futile. We should not give people companion bus passes which are, to all intents and purposes, useless. That is a fair place to start. As part of this issue, we need to do more to ensure that people who require a bus companion have access to the services they deserve.

I anticipate that the Minister is likely to inform me that this is a matter to discuss with local transport authorities, which have discretionary powers to offer free travel at peak times. Yet we must confront the reality that local decision making alone is not delivering fairness for disabled bus users across the country. I commend East Sussex council, which has used bus service improvement plan funding to extend concessionary travel to disabled people throughout the day. Similarly, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has announced a pilot to offer round-the-clock free bus travel to older and disabled people. I hope that colleagues across the country, but especially the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire will follow suit. Let us be clear, however: that is a temporary solution.

Without national leadership and ringfenced funding specifically for disabled travel concessions, we cannot expect consistent provision across the country. Despite previous recommendations for local authorities to fund discretionary changes to the restrictions through funds such as the BSIP, the reality is that many simply cannot afford to.

[Vikki Slade]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, which is a real opportunity to discuss BSIPs. One problem with BSIPs is that they run for a short period. Individuals struggle to make decisions about where to live, whether to purchase a car, or about investing in an alternative for mobility over a long time. They think, “What if the bus situation changes in a year?” The BSIP covers a short period, and people do not have stability. From an equalities point of view, a permanent decision on that would be helpful.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. She has stolen the next line from my speech, but I shall forgive her on this occasion. I wonder whether she was reading over my shoulder.

BSIP funding is allocated only on a year-by-year basis, offering no long-term security or reassurance for disabled people who are affected by these restrictions. Even where local authorities are willing to fund all-day concessions, the lack of guaranteed, ringfenced support means that provision is patchy at best. In East Sussex, only 1% of BSIP funds were needed to cover the reimbursements of offering full-time concessionary travel for disabled people—a modest figure with a significant impact. That shows clearly that the issue is not necessarily one of affordability, but of political will and prioritisation.

We can take York and North Yorkshire combined authority, the local transport authority for my constituency, as an example. Of the £12 million allocated to the region, funding has been directed toward valuable but highly localised initiatives: bus station upgrades and improvements in Skipton, Whitby, Selby and Malton; bus stop improvements in Helmsley, Easingwold and Leyburn; and discounted family travel in York city centre. Those are all worthwhile investments, but they offer no benefit to constituents who require access with a disabled bus pass, especially those living with disabilities, who remain excluded because of outdated restrictions. I do not want a patchwork solution that fixes the problem only in my area, but one that will apply across England and bring everyone forward.

Sadly, it is equally clear that where budgets are stretched, discretionary travel arrangements are the first thing to be scaled back to cut costs. Recent data from Local Government Association has highlighted the £452 million gap in Government funding for the concessionary travel scheme. It is therefore not likely that local authorities will be able to fund enhancements themselves when Government funding is already falling short of the required amount. Hampshire county council recently moved in the wrong direction, in the light of funding shortfalls and budget constraints, by removing their discretionary services, including free peak time travel for those with companion passes. That sends a worrying message. We cannot rely on local authorities alone to deliver change. Leadership must come from this place and central Government.

The Government cannot continue to wash their hands of responsibility by framing this as a matter solely for devolution and local transport authorities. The simple truth is this: it was the Government who introduced time restrictions under the English national concessionary travel scheme, and it is the Government who hold the power to remove those restrictions. National problems require national solutions. If we are serious about building a fairer and more inclusive society, the Government must stop kicking the can down the road and start acting with the urgency and authority that this issue deserves.

I urge the Minister to reflect not just on the policy, but on the people affected by it. This is not about politics; it is about fairness, dignity and equality of access. The barriers facing disabled people are already too high. Let us not allow a bureaucratic time restriction to be one of them. Ending this arbitrary time would promote independence, reduce social isolation and help disabled people into work, education and healthcare. The power to change that lies with the Government. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to act now: lift the restriction and help to build a transport system that truly works for everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I recognise what the hon. Member is saying, and I will go on to outline some of the other areas where the Government are helping. Improving accessibility is central to our mission. The Bill will help us to deliver safer, more reliable and more accessible networks. It includes specific measures to make bus travel more accessible and inclusive, including through more consistent approaches to the inclusive design of bus stations and stops. The Bill will also require local authorities to produce a bus network accessibility plan, assessing the existing accessibility of bus networks in their areas, and identifying actions that they will take to improve them further.

The voice of disabled people will be at the heart of these reforms. We will develop bus stop guidance collaboratively with organisations that represent disabled people, and local authorities will be required to consult disabled people and organisations representing them when making significant changes to their bus networks. In addition, the Government have committed to publishing an integrated national transport strategy this year, which will set the long-term vision for transport in England. A key part of the strategy will be to create the conditions for a transport system that works together to deliver for its users and that makes it easy for people to get around. Everyone should be able to access real-time information, and simplified, integrated ticketing, and we have been exploring those themes as part of our policy development.

[Vikki Slade]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Under the previous Government, up to 50 stations were funded, with feasibility studies under the Access for All programme. I do not know whether the hon. Member’s station is part of that, but I am happy to take up that subject outside the Chamber.

We also know that these plans will be backed up with funding. That is why the Budget allocated more than £1 billion to local bus services for 2025-26, including £12.5 million for York and North Yorkshire combined authority. Funding allocated to local authorities to improve bus services can be used to fund discretionary enhancements to the ENCTS, and we have reaffirmed our commitment through the funding allocated as part of the spending review.

[Vikki Slade]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am incredibly bothered by the issue of consistency. A disabled driver can use their blue badge at any time of the day, but somebody who is not able to drive is restricted to being able to use their bus pass only after 9.30 am. That seems to be a simple unfairness in the system for people who do not have the option to drive. We have an opportunity to make a tiny change that would make a massive difference.

[Simon Lightwood]

I reiterate that every single local transport authority in the country has the ability to go above and beyond—

Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

This is a partnership between public investment and the private sector. I assure my hon. Friend that we will be paying attention to Bournemouth, as we will to all other parts of the country.

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

I rise to speak as a very satisfied second-hand EV driver. I visited Ohme’s head office last month to learn about how home charging of EVs can revolutionise the energy market and help EVs become a way of managing our grid, as well as a way to drive. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to accelerating work on flexible generation of storage to help to drive demand for businesses and homes and to make Britain the starting place of this revolution?

[Heidi Alexander]

Officials in my Department are looking at this issue very closely. I would be interested in learning more from the hon. Member about the visit she made to the business in her constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

There are no current plans to introduce an express service between Bournemouth and London, but I will keep my hon. Friend updated on the future plans regarding South Western Railway, which will become the first operator to be taken back into public ownership in May.

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

The residents of Wareham, just along the way from Bournemouth, have been waiting more than 20 years for electronic gates—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a very niche question.

[Vikki Slade]

It is a very niche question, and I want to ask about the next railway line along from Bournemouth.

[Mr Speaker]

In which case, it does not count. Thank you for that clarification. Let us go to topical questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concern, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss the issues further.

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

The residents of Wareham, just along from Bournemouth, have been trying to get electronic gates for 20 years. Network Rail’s latest excuse is that it is for the Office of Rail and Road, and the Office of Rail and Road says that it is for Network Rail. Will the Secretary of State meet me so that we can bang heads together and get this resolved once and for all?

[Heidi Alexander]

I will certainly ask the Rail Minister to take that meeting.