Asked by: Alex Mayer (Labour - Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether she has had discussions with the Office of Rail and Road on the application of a risk-based approach to the provision of new pedestrian and cycle level crossings on heritage railways in instances where such crossings (a) are necessary to maintain network permeability and (b) have a demonstrable safety record.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) do not support the creation of new level crossings where there is a reasonably practicable alternative such as a bridge or tunnel. These alternatives should be fully explored and delivered where it is reasonably practicable to do so and after ensuring the proposer has the legal right to cross the railway. In all cases where a new crossing is proposed, a risk assessment approach must be followed so that the costs and benefits of alternatives can be considered alongside the costs and benefits of a level crossing.
Asked by: Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat - Westmorland and Lonsdale)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when any assessment by National Highways of temporary slip roads at Junction 38 of the M6 was undertaken; and whether the findings of that assessment informed the current construction programme.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
National Highways first assessed the potential for temporary slip roads during the project’s optioneering stage in 2019. Further consideration took place during early design development, and the option was not taken forward at that time due to spatial constraints, value for money considerations, the need for significant lane and speed restrictions, and the likelihood of a costly extension to the overall construction period.
In 2025, following engagement with local stakeholders, National Highways committed to revisit this option, with a feasibility exercise carried out in August 2025. This re-considered the option of temporary slip roads. The exercise supported the conclusions during the early design phase; specifically, that temporary slip roads were unsuitable due to the space needed to construct the bridge decks, as well as representing poor value for money. During 2025, the programme has also assessed a wide range of options to improve connectivity, and this resulted in the decision to defer work on Lawtland House bridge to a future date, improving local connectivity during the construction period.
When National Highways presented their findings from the feasibility exercise, a revised construction methodology was submitted by BWB Consulting on behalf of local stakeholders in October 2025. National Highways has committed to review this proposal from BWB consulting to see if it has presented an alternative viable solution. The review will conclude in January 2026.
Asked by: Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat - Westmorland and Lonsdale)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether National Highways undertook a detailed assessment of the potential to construct temporary slip roads to allow Junction 38 of the M6 (northbound and southbound) to remain open for the duration of the Lune Gorge bridge replacement works; and whether that assessment was completed before the current construction programme was designed and approved.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
National Highways first assessed the potential for temporary slip roads during the project’s optioneering stage in 2019. Further consideration took place during early design development, and the option was not taken forward at that time due to spatial constraints, value for money considerations, the need for significant lane and speed restrictions, and the likelihood of a costly extension to the overall construction period. The construction programme and design was then taken forward on that basis.
In 2025, following engagement with local stakeholders, National Highways committed to revisit this option, with a feasibility exercise carried out in August 2025. This re-considered the option of temporary slip roads. The exercise supported the conclusions during the early design phase; specifically, that temporary slip roads were unsuitable due to the space needed to construct the bridge decks, as well as representing poor value for money. During 2025, the programme assessed a wide range of options to improve connectivity, and resulted in the decision to defer work on Lawtland House bridge to a future date, improving local connectivity during the construction period.
When National Highways presented their findings from the feasibility exercise, a revised construction methodology was submitted by BWB Consulting on behalf of local stakeholders in October 2025. National Highways has committed to review this proposal from BWB consulting to see if it has presented an alternative viable solution. The review will conclude in January 2026.
Asked by: Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat - Westmorland and Lonsdale)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of closing Junction 38 of the M6 during the Lune Gorge bridge replacement works on local businesses.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
This Government, working in close partnership with National Highways, is fully committed to this project being delivered in a way that minimises disruption to road users, businesses and local communities. National Highways has undertaken assessments to understand the impact this work will have on the region including an assessment of the impact on traffic flows of the proposed traffic management arrangements. National Highways is also reviewing a detailed feasibility report of proposals for Junction 38 which was provided last year. The review is expected to conclude in January 2026.
Asked by: Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat - Richmond Park)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent discussions her Department had with Hammersmith and Fulham Council on the reconvening of the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
My Department regularly hold discussions regarding the viable engineering options for the next stage of works on Hammersmith Bridge with their counterparts at both the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London. The Government intends to convene a further meeting of the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce in the near future to discuss next steps for the project. My Department’s officials will be in touch with key local stakeholders to arrange this in due course.
Asked by: Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat - Richmond Park)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether she plans to reconvene the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce prior to the Spring Statement.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Government intends to convene a further meeting of the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce in the near future to discuss next steps for the project. My Department’s officials will be in touch with key local stakeholders to arrange this in due course.
Asked by: Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat - Richmond Park)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce will reconvene in 2026.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Government intends to convene a further meeting of the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce in the near future to discuss next steps for the project. My Department’s officials will be in touch with key local stakeholders to arrange this in due course.
Asked by: Sarah Pochin (Reform UK - Runcorn and Helsby)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of the impact of Penalty Charge Notice enforcement practices associated with toll bridges on low income motorists.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The operation of each toll bridge is the responsibility of the body that owns it, in this case Halton Borough Council. Furthermore, most toll bridges collect payments at toll-booths which minimises the risk of non-payment. Where free-flow charging is used, as at the Mersey Gateway crossings, operators offer numerous ways to pay to maximise compliance rates. National regulations specify the maximum penalty charge that may be imposed for non-payment at the Dartford Crossing and the Mersey Gateway bridges. If penalty charges go unpaid, enforcement agents may be used to collect the debt. The Enforcement
Conduct Board provides independent oversight of the enforcement industry to ensure that all those who are subject to enforcement action are treated fairly.
Asked by: Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat - Richmond Park)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent discussions her Department has had with Hammersmith and Fulham Council on engineering options relating to the repair of Hammersmith Bridge.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
My Department’s officials held regular discussions regarding the viable engineering options for the next stage of works on Hammersmith Bridge with their counterparts at both the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London throughout 2025.
Asked by: Vikki Slade (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what plans he has for future NHS staff pay negotiations in terms of (a) groups who will be involved and (b) when such negotiations will take place.
Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government remitted the independent pay review bodies (PRBs) in respect of National Health Service staff on 22 July, which formally began the 2026/27 pay round. This was over two months earlier than last year.
The Pay Review Bodies (PRBs) are independent advisory bodies made up of industry experts who carefully consider evidence submitted to them from a range of stakeholders, including Government and trade unions to make recommendations on headline pay for their remit groups. It is for individual trade unions to decide whether to engage with the PRB process, but we encourage them to do so in order for the PRBs to have the full breadth of evidence available when forming their recommendations.
The PRBs base their recommendations to the Government on a range of factors including the economic context, cost of living, recruitment and retention, morale, and motivation of NHS staff.
The Government carefully considers the independent PRBs’ recommendations once received. Ministers are not obligated to accept these, although the Government did accept the recommendations on headline pay in full for 2024/25 and 2025/26.
As my Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, stated on 15 December, the Government is open to discussing multi-year pay deals with trade unions if we can bridge the gap between affordability and expectation.