Driving Test Availability: South-east

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for ensuring that this important topic could be debated today. It of course affects people of all ages, but I wish to focus particularly on the impact it is having on young people in my constituency.

We currently face a 24-week waiting list for a practical driving test at the Guildford test centre. That is a six-month delay before a young person can even attempt to pass their test. As someone who, I confess, passed on my third attempt, being able to start that journey early is really important. For many young people, the ability to drive is a vital gateway to obtaining work or accessing education, particularly in those areas where public transport links are limited or non-existent. More than one in six job adverts in the UK explicitly require a driving licence, and that figure rises still further in key entry-level sectors. In trades, care work, delivery and property services, the ability to drive is not a luxury but a fundamental requirement.

Young people are ready and willing to work, but they are being excluded—not because they lack competence or enthusiasm, but purely because they are stuck waiting months for a test. That sits alongside a worrying regional picture. The south-east now has one of the highest rates of young people not in education, employment or training, recently rising to just over 13%. These are not disengaged young people. Many are actively seeking work but are prevented from doing so because they cannot drive. The driving test backlog is not simply a frustration; it is directly contributing to regional youth unemployment.

Beyond the delays themselves, the system has become dysfunctional and, in some cases, blatantly exploitative. One constituent had to book a test for her daughter in Erith, a place they have never visited and would never normally go, but she did it simply to get into the test system. I have heard from other constituents who have gone to Winchester, Cardiff and beyond. People should not have to travel miles from home to a place they have never visited, potentially staying overnight and incurring extra costs, simply to take a test.

To book a test, my constituent tried to find an alternative slot, as many families do, so she found herself in a digital queue at 6 am with 60,000 others doing the same. That forced her into joining an unofficial online group to exchange test slots, where she was scammed. She sent £10 by bank transfer to someone claiming to assist in securing a test, only for that individual to later demand £100. The bank later confirmed that more than two dozen similar fraudulent payments had been made on the same day to the same account.

Another family in my constituency spent two months waking at 5.30 am every Monday to attempt to book a test. Last week, they were number 7,561 in the queue at 6 am. By the time a slot appeared, it vanished before they could even complete the booking. I, too, faced this as we sought a test for my son. We eventually got a test, after many very frustrating and unsuccessful early mornings, but it was nine months later in Tolworth. On a personal note, I am delighted to share that my son passed his test last Friday.

Another constituent passed their theory test more than six months ago, yet still cannot find a practical test slot before their theory test expires. We are penalising young people for the failures of the system, not their own. Within this messy and frustrating system, we are also seeing third parties bulk-booking and reselling test slots at inflated prices. This is the exploitation of scarcity, and it is completely unacceptable. Although the Government have acknowledged the problem, enforcement has not yet met the scale of the issue. We currently have a system that prevents young people from accessing work, which is contributing to rising levels of young people who are not in education, employment or training, wasting time and money, and exposing families to scams and fraud.

I acknowledge and welcome that the Government have signalled corrective action, but it is not enough and, critically, it is not happening fast enough. Many of these changes are not expected to be fully implemented until 2026. Furthermore, I respectfully note that the changes to address bots are simply not working, based on what I hear from my constituents—too many are still in the 6 am scramble. In the meantime, waiting times remain extreme and young people continue to miss out on employment.

One additional change the Government have not yet committed to is extending the validity of theory test certificates in cases where the state cannot provide a timely practical test. It surely cannot be right that someone should lose their pass because the system has failed them. I urge the Minister to consider this seriously, and I hope he will go into detail on the Government’s thinking.

This is not simply a transport issue. Some may argue that driving is a privilege and not a right, but in reality it has become a precondition for employment, independence, accessing education and entering the economic world. When young people are prevented from getting a driving test, we are not just limiting their mobility; we are limiting their future. This is a barrier to social mobility, employment access and regional economic participation, and it needs to be urgently addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I will come on to those points. I assure Members that I will provide regular updates on the bots work as we move towards delivery. I absolutely accept that it is urgent.

Our agreement with the Ministry of Defence is not a headline-grabbing gimmick. It is important that we do everything at our disposal to drive down the wait for tests, and I make no apologies for that. Thirty six defence driving examiners will conduct driving tests for one day a week for 12 months. They will focus on car tests, but that offers the flexibility for vocational testing if required.

Those measures are in addition to the action we have taken so far, which includes doubling examiner training capacity to accelerate the recruitment and qualification of new examiners; introducing tougher terms for driving instructors who book tests on people’s behalf; reintroducing the additional testing allowance scheme for up to 18 months to provide more tests; continuing with the Ready to Pass? campaign, which 95% of users rate as useful, to encourage learner drivers to take the right action to prepare for the driving test; and recruiting and training 450 new examiners.

Despite the DVSA recruiting and training 344 driving examiners, the number of full-time equivalent examiners has increased by only 46, so retaining driving examiners is just as important as recruiting them. That is why we are giving examiners an exceptional payment next year of £5,000 to encourage more to stay. Those combined actions demonstrate our commitment to tackling this issue systematically and listening to feedback to create a fairer system for everyone.

Let me pick up a few of the comments from hon. Members. On temporary test centres, obviously we continue to review the DVSA estate, but frankly we need to focus on ensuring that we have enough examiners. I hear the pleas from some hon. Members, but it is not possible to have a driving testing centre in every town, although we do try and make sure it is as equitable as possible. I hear the idea behind extending the hours. However, our regulations state that we have to ensure that the eye test is done in good light.

The DVSA is already increasing capacity by conducting more tests through overtime and additional testing allowance. I am assured that it is not possible to block-book car practical driving tests. A driving licence number can be assigned to only one car practical driving test within the booking system at this time. Additionally, it is not possible to book beyond the 24-week window; DVSA only releases tests for that period.

We have been honest in admitting the challenges that the DVSA faces to meet that seven-week target. We will be assessing the input of the new measures that we announced the other day, as well as continuing to look for more ways to get waiting times down. We will be looking to that new leadership to get a grip of this as its top priority.

There was an ask to extend the two-year validity for theory test certificates. I have every sympathy with that ask, but theory test certificates are valid for two years by law, for road safety reasons. Safety should always be of paramount importance. Road safety knowledge and hazard perception skills must be up to date when the customer takes their practical test, and the Government have no plans to change this.

[Zöe Franklin]

We are here in the UK Parliament, and it is within our power to change the law to address the current situation around theory test validity. It is clear that people are struggling as a result of the two-year limit.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I went on to say, it is important for road safety reasons, and we should never we should never relax road safety. It must be paramount. I have every sympathy with that position, but it is not something that the Government plan to change.

Driving is a lifeline for many, especially in areas where public transport is limited, and we remain committed to ensuring that learners in the south-east and across the country can access tests promptly and safety. We are determined to restore confidence in the system and ensure that every learner who is ready to drive has the opportunity to enjoy a lifetime of safe and sustainable driving.

Oral Answers to Questions

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I too welcome the steps that Mayor Coppard is taking to deliver better bus services for passengers in South Yorkshire. I know that the Minister for Local Transport was delighted to launch our new UK bus manufacturing expert panel in Sheffield earlier this month, which will help to ensure the UK remains a leader in bus manufacturing. Expanding the roll-out of zero emission buses is central to our efforts to decarbonise the bus fleet and improve air quality. Our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will accelerate that by requiring bus operators not to use new non-zero emission buses.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

What steps are the Government taking to address diesel islands, which are sections of track without electrification such as those between Reading and my constituency, to support the decarbonisation of the transport sector and encourage the transition to cleaner rail travel?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Rail Minister in the other place is very much focused on how we decarbonise our rail sector. A combination of electrification and extended use of batteries can allow us to do that. I am sure he will be happy to write to the hon. Lady about the specifics of the case she raises.

Improving Public Transport

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing the debate on this important topic.

As the Member for the Guildford constituency, I could probably bore for the south-east of England when it comes to the public transport challenges we face. I recognise that in comparison with colleagues from across the House we do have very good public transport, but it still is not good enough and my residents regularly get in touch with me to tell me so. For too long, our transport networks were neglected by the previous Conservative Government, leaving transport users frustrated by delays, poor accessibility and high costs. For us to achieve the greener, fairer and more thriving future that I am sure all of us here want for our communities, high-quality public transport is essential.

In my consistency of Guildford, we have two long-proposed railway stations: Guildford West and Merrow. These stations were first suggested 10 years ago and we have had barely any progress. The main reason? Funding. Or, rather, the lack of funding. For those not in the know, building a railway station costs upwards of £25 million, with at least half of that spent on planning before a single shovel breaks the ground. That financial barrier has left residents waiting far longer than they should for essential infrastructure.

Yet even as we struggle to deliver new stations, existing ones remain inaccessible for too many. I am, of course, talking about the issue of step-free access. In my constituency, stations such as Clandon, Effingham Junction and Horsley still lack basic accessibility for my residents to be able to access the train in their rural area. Instead, they have to go to other, larger places such as Guildford and Dorking. We must support those in wheelchairs, but step-free access is also about making life easier for parents with prams, people with invisible mobility challenges and anyone who finds steps a barrier. Without doing so, we prevent people from choosing greener public transport.

That is a matter of fairness and inclusion but, just like the new stations, it comes with a significant price tag. With the news this week that South Western Railway will be moving to public ownership next year, it is my sincere hope that the urgent improvements we need will start to take place and we will see an end to accessibility deserts. But railways are just one part of the public transport puzzle. In the villages of my constituency, like many rural and semi-rural areas, buses are a lifeline for residents and businesses, yet far too often routes are being cut, services are deeply unreliable and communities are being left isolated.

From our extensive experience in local government, those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches know that local solutions work best. That is why, personally, I would like the Government to look at empowering borough, district, town and parish councils to run their own localised bus services, not just the county level transport authorities. These councils know their communities and can deliver the targeted services that people need. I have spoken to people running some of the larger town and parish councils, and they would like at least the opportunity to consider commercial shuttle bus services. Some of them have the financial potential to do so, but cannot because it is currently illegal. It is in the gift of the Government to change that.

Along with a number of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I have campaigned for many years for solutions to our public transport woes. My constituents completely understand the frustration shared by everyone else in the country about the delays and the difficulties that result from the inadequacy of public transport. The answer is, of course, investment. I have said this before to Conservative colleagues, and I say it again now: “Please don’t be shy. Borrow our ideas, and with those ideas—for our manifesto is always fully costed—we can deliver railway stations, we can deliver step-free access, and we can deliver buses for residents, communities and businesses, so that our communities can thrive.”

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I wish to associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State for Transport. Having heard what she said about some of the amendments from the other place, I can say that she is a far more generous person than I am. I have not been in this place long, but I can certainly tell mischief when I see it—mischief from the other place and, I am afraid, from the Opposition—because the intention here is not to put the passenger at the heart of the Bill. If Conservative Members, when in government, had genuinely wanted to put passengers at the heart of the railways, they might have acted differently over 14 years of abject failure. I spend a lot of time on the railways, as do many Members across the House when travelling between Westminster and their constituency. I see that failure daily, as I have done most of my adult life, at times when, regrettably, the Conservative party has been in government. Conservative Members cannot even explain how much the amendments would cost.

As I said, rail privatisation has been a failure. The Lords amendments do not seek to overturn the decision of this House—of course not—but they would cause considerable delay. However, rail changes made by this Government will be meaningful, unlike those made by the previous Government. Does anyone remember Great British Railways, which the former Member for Welwyn Hatfield was incredibly proud of? Except there was a problem: the railways were not great, and quite often they were not owned by British companies, although I suppose we do at least have to give him the fact that they were railways. Under this Government, there will be great British railways, with one single train operator, and we will deliver a fundamentally better service.

I come from a part of the country that is proud of our railway tradition. George Stephenson, the father of the railways, came from not too far from my constituency, and each week I walk over a high level bridge designed by his son, Robert Stephenson, which still carries trains to this day. The Stephensons would be appalled to see the state of the British railway system today. We transported railways around the world, yet those travelling across Europe or Asia today will see rail systems that are far beyond what we have in the home of railways. That is a national embarrassment.

Finally, Lords amendment 3 on the public sector equality duty is excellent, and I will support it. The point was well made earlier today, during debate on the ten-minute rule Bill, about the indignities that disabled people too often face on the railways. I thank Members from the other place for tabling that amendment, and the Secretary of State for indicating the Government’s support. Ultimately, the public sector equality duty is a high bar, as it should be, and as this Labour Government bring other services back in house, I would like that public sector equality duty to be applied to them.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Let me say how grateful I am that the Government have accepted Lords amendment 3. The accessibility of public transport is crucial for all those who wish to use rail services and are currently unable to do so because of their disability needs. All village stations in my constituency lack step-free access, and it is deeply frustrating for train users that they have to schlep into Guildford. Wonderful as Guildford town station is, they should not have to travel that far; they should be able to get on the train and head where they want to go. Accessibility is not just for those with disability concerns, as it improves the service for all users—I think of mums and dads with buggies, and cyclists. Step-free access makes trains more accessible, meaning that more people use them. That improves the level of traffic on our roads, which leads to the goals that we all share to reach net zero and create a greener future. I endorse Lords amendment 3 and will support it. I look forward to seeing the detail of the Government’s accessibility road map, and a step change in the speed of delivery under the Access for All programme.

Cost of Rail Fares

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for raising this important topic. As the MP for Guildford, I can speak for those of my constituents who commute, and I share in their pain on the daily commute from Guildford. Every single week, residents suffer terrible service on the trains, with delays and general problems. It is no wonder, then, that constituents who commute to London and many other locations across the south-east and beyond feel incredibly frustrated by the fact that fees continue to rise while the service continues to deteriorate. Will the Minister commit not just to hold train companies to account more effectively, but to ask them to freeze rail fares until their services improve?

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

In Harpenden, commuters face the absurd reality that a single off-peak ticket can cost £18.40, but 11 minutes further on people can get an Oyster fare at Radlett for £5.90. Does my hon. Friend agree that this absurd and unfair pricing system needs to be reviewed?

[Zöe Franklin]

I agree, and I completely understand the ridiculousness of train fares across different areas. I have incredibly high train fares for travelling very small distances in my constituency, which it is deeply frustrating.

Commuters find the situation frustrating because they want to switch to trains. If we are serious about tackling the climate crisis and encouraging people to switch their mode of transport to the railways, we must address both reliability and train fares. People look at the train service and say, “It is not convenient, it is not reliable and it is expensive.” We must stop train fares rising, because we need to encourage people to get out of their cars and choose the sustainable transport method that is the railway.