Asked by: Richard Tice (Reform UK - Boston and Skegness)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the Government has considered proposals to require all new cars to be fitted with clearly visible window‑breaking tools and seatbelt cutters above each window, and whether it plans to make such safety equipment a mandatory requirement for vehicle manufacturers.
Answered by Lilian Greenwood - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
The Department for Transport has commissioned research to look into whether an emergency exit tool could be added to the list of recommended emergency equipment that is contained in Rule 97 of the Highway Code.
Asked by: Blake Stephenson (Conservative - Mid Bedfordshire)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what guidance her Department has issued to local authorities on prioritising a) reactive and b) proactive road maintenance interventions.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Local highway authorities have a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area. The Act does not set out specific standards of maintenance, as it is for each individual local highway authority to assess which parts of its network need repair and what standards should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances.
There are occasions where potholes need to be repaired quickly for safety reasons, but the Department encourages local authorities to also focus on long-term preventative maintenance to ensure that roads are fixed properly and potholes prevented from forming in the first place. This is also more cost-effective than the repeated and reactive patching of potholes.
This year, the Government made available an additional £500 million for local highway authorities to maintain their highway network. A portion of the additional funding is contingent upon local highway authorities complying with criteria aimed at driving best practice and continual improvement in highways maintenance. This includes local highway authorities having to demonstrate to Government how much they are spending on highways maintenance, including the balance of spend between preventative and reactive maintenance.
In this context, the department has written to all local highway authorities to emphasise that when determining the balance between preventative and reactive maintenance, authorities should adopt the principle that prevention is better than cure, as also set out in the Code of Practice for well-managed highway infrastructure, available online, at: https://www.ciht.org.uk/ukrlg-home/code-of-practice/
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether her Department collects data on the proportion of reported potholes attributable to (a) standing water and (b) poor drainage.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Local highway authorities have a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area. The Act does not set out specific standards of maintenance, as it is for each individual local highway authority to assess which parts of its network need repair and what standards should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances.
Although the Government does not monitor the frequency of potholes caused by suspected drain related instances, it does encourage authorities to maintain their drainage assets through guidance.
For example, the Pothole Guide (2019), commissioned by the Department for Transport and produced by the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT), set out that avoiding water penetration into the road surface is of paramount importance in preventing pothole formation, and that “keeping highway drainage systems working as effectively as possible is therefore a key area of maintenance activity.”
Further guidance on asset management for local highways authorities can be found in the Code of Practice for Well-Managed Highways Infrastructure. This states that “drainage assets should be maintained in good working order to reduce the threat and scale of flooding. Particular attention should be paid to locations known to be prone to problems, so that drainage systems operate close to their designed efficiency.”
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment her Department has made of the role of (a) drainage and (b) road foundations in the recurrence of potholes.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Local highway authorities have a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area. The Act does not set out specific standards of maintenance, as it is for each individual local highway authority to assess which parts of its network need repair and what standards should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances.
Although the Government does not monitor the frequency of potholes caused by suspected drain related instances, it does encourage authorities to maintain their drainage assets through guidance.
For example, the Pothole Guide (2019), commissioned by the Department for Transport and produced by the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT), set out that avoiding water penetration into the road surface is of paramount importance in preventing pothole formation, and that “keeping highway drainage systems working as effectively as possible is therefore a key area of maintenance activity.”
Further guidance on asset management for local highways authorities can be found in the Code of Practice for Well-Managed Highways Infrastructure. This states that “drainage assets should be maintained in good working order to reduce the threat and scale of flooding. Particular attention should be paid to locations known to be prone to problems, so that drainage systems operate close to their designed efficiency.”
Asked by: Adam Jogee (Labour - Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what powers other than additional funding she has to ensure Staffordshire County Council fills potholes in Newcastle-under-Lyme in a timely and thorough way.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Local highway authorities, such as Staffordshire County Council, have a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area. The Act does not set out specific standards of maintenance, as it is for each individual local highway authority to assess which parts of its network need repair and what standards should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances.
To receive their full share of the Government's £500 million funding uplift for local highways maintenance in 2025/26, local authorities had to publish transparency reports on their website to set out how they will spend the additional funding. As part of this, local authorities were required to demonstrate how they comply with best practice in highways maintenance, including in relation to preventative maintenance which helps to keep roads in good condition for longer and prevents potholes from forming in the first place. These requirements are designed to drive greater adoption of best practice to ensure that this funding is spent as effectively as possible to improve local road conditions.
The transparency report for Staffordshire County Council is available online, at:www.staffordshire.gov.uk/Highways/Managing-the-highway-asset/Local-highways-maintenance-transparency-report.aspx
The Department is also currently updating the Code of Practice for Well Managed Highways Infrastructure. The Code provides guidance to local authorities on the delivery of safe, efficient, and sustainable highway services through a risk‑based, evidence‑led approach to asset management. The Code encourages highways authorities to set repair timescales against defined risk levels, ensuring that safety-critical defects are fixed swiftly to reduce the likelihood of incident or liability. This is available online, at:
https://www.ciht.org.uk/ukrlg-home/code-of-practice
There are occasions where potholes need to be repaired quickly for safety reasons, but the Department encourages local authorities to also focus on long-term preventative maintenance to ensure that roads are fixed properly and potholes prevented from forming in the first place. This is also more cost-effective than the repeated and reactive patching of potholes. The current Code of Practice emphasises that “when determining the balance between preventative and reactive maintenance, authorities should adopt the principle that prevention is better than cure”.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what guidance her Department has issued to local authorities on when resurfacing should be prioritised over pothole filling.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Local highway authorities have a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the public highway network in their area. The Act does not set out specific standards for maintenance, as it is for each individual local highway authority to assess which parts of its network need repair and what standards should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances.
The Department does not gather information from local highway authorities about the causes or recurrence of individual potholes. There are occasions where potholes need to be repaired quickly for safety reasons, but the Department encourages local authorities to focus on long-term preventative maintenance, which is more cost-effective than the reactive patching of potholes.
This is a core aspect of the Code of Practice for Well-managed highways infrastructure, which states that “when determining the balance between preventative and reactive maintenance, authorities should adopt the principle that prevention is better than cure”. This is available online, at: https://www.ciht.org.uk/ukrlg-home/code-of-practice/.
The Government is also encouraging local highways authorities to take a long-term preventative approach by making some of their funding conditional on meeting certain best practiced criteria. To qualify for their full share of this financial year's £500m uplift in highways maintenance funding, local authorities had to publish transparency reports and set out how they comply with best practice, for example in relation to the extent to which they prioritise preventative maintenance. In this context, the Department for Transport wrote to all local highway authorities in England in December to inform them whether they would be receiving their full funding uplift, and emphasised the importance of following the guidance set out in the Code of Practice with regard to preventative maintenance.
The findings from the transparency reports will enable the department to identify where extra support may be needed to ensure compliance with best practice. The department will set out more detail on the further support and training it will make available to local authorities in due course.
Finally, regarding analysis of the effectiveness of preventative maintenance approaches, in November 2024 the Department for Transport published an Economic Appraisal of Investing in Local Highway maintenance. The analysis found that proactive maintenance can be more cost effective. In contrast, reactive maintenance was shown to be less cost-effective and associated with higher long-term expenditure. This report can be accessed at:
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment her Department has made of the comparative effectiveness of filling potholes and preventative maintenance measures in the long-term.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Local highway authorities have a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the public highway network in their area. The Act does not set out specific standards for maintenance, as it is for each individual local highway authority to assess which parts of its network need repair and what standards should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances.
The Department does not gather information from local highway authorities about the causes or recurrence of individual potholes. There are occasions where potholes need to be repaired quickly for safety reasons, but the Department encourages local authorities to focus on long-term preventative maintenance, which is more cost-effective than the reactive patching of potholes.
This is a core aspect of the Code of Practice for Well-managed highways infrastructure, which states that “when determining the balance between preventative and reactive maintenance, authorities should adopt the principle that prevention is better than cure”. This is available online, at: https://www.ciht.org.uk/ukrlg-home/code-of-practice/.
The Government is also encouraging local highways authorities to take a long-term preventative approach by making some of their funding conditional on meeting certain best practiced criteria. To qualify for their full share of this financial year's £500m uplift in highways maintenance funding, local authorities had to publish transparency reports and set out how they comply with best practice, for example in relation to the extent to which they prioritise preventative maintenance. In this context, the Department for Transport wrote to all local highway authorities in England in December to inform them whether they would be receiving their full funding uplift, and emphasised the importance of following the guidance set out in the Code of Practice with regard to preventative maintenance.
The findings from the transparency reports will enable the department to identify where extra support may be needed to ensure compliance with best practice. The department will set out more detail on the further support and training it will make available to local authorities in due course.
Finally, regarding analysis of the effectiveness of preventative maintenance approaches, in November 2024 the Department for Transport published an Economic Appraisal of Investing in Local Highway maintenance. The analysis found that proactive maintenance can be more cost effective. In contrast, reactive maintenance was shown to be less cost-effective and associated with higher long-term expenditure. This report can be accessed at:
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the prevalence of recurring potholes on the local road network.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Local highway authorities have a duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the public highway network in their area. The Act does not set out specific standards for maintenance, as it is for each individual local highway authority to assess which parts of its network need repair and what standards should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances.
The Department does not gather information from local highway authorities about the causes or recurrence of individual potholes. There are occasions where potholes need to be repaired quickly for safety reasons, but the Department encourages local authorities to focus on long-term preventative maintenance, which is more cost-effective than the reactive patching of potholes.
This is a core aspect of the Code of Practice for Well-managed highways infrastructure, which states that “when determining the balance between preventative and reactive maintenance, authorities should adopt the principle that prevention is better than cure”. This is available online, at: https://www.ciht.org.uk/ukrlg-home/code-of-practice/.
The Government is also encouraging local highways authorities to take a long-term preventative approach by making some of their funding conditional on meeting certain best practiced criteria. To qualify for their full share of this financial year's £500m uplift in highways maintenance funding, local authorities had to publish transparency reports and set out how they comply with best practice, for example in relation to the extent to which they prioritise preventative maintenance. In this context, the Department for Transport wrote to all local highway authorities in England in December to inform them whether they would be receiving their full funding uplift, and emphasised the importance of following the guidance set out in the Code of Practice with regard to preventative maintenance.
The findings from the transparency reports will enable the department to identify where extra support may be needed to ensure compliance with best practice. The department will set out more detail on the further support and training it will make available to local authorities in due course.
Finally, regarding analysis of the effectiveness of preventative maintenance approaches, in November 2024 the Department for Transport published an Economic Appraisal of Investing in Local Highway maintenance. The analysis found that proactive maintenance can be more cost effective. In contrast, reactive maintenance was shown to be less cost-effective and associated with higher long-term expenditure. This report can be accessed at:
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps is she taking to ensure that local road maintenance practices reflect changes in (a) vehicle weight and (b) usage patterns.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Government recognises that heavier vehicles can accelerate road surface wear. While we have not undertaken a specific assessment of this effect, we are actively considering the implications of introducing zero-emission heavy goods vehicles, including the potential for additional road wear.
The increasing weight of all road vehicles, both electric vehicles (EVs) and their petrol and diesel counterparts, is one of many factors affecting the condition of our roads. While EVs tend to be heavier than their equivalent petrol or diesel counterpart, on average all passenger cars have been increasing in weight for many years. This trend has been driven by consumer choice and improving safety features for passengers. It is the much heavier commercial vehicles, rather than passenger vehicles, that cause the most wear and tear to road surfaces and other highway structures.
More broadly, there are many reasons why loadings on local roads may change, such as commercial development increasing traffic and the number of heavier vehicles on a road. Because of this, guidance for local authorities already highlights the need for maintenance plans to account for changes in circumstances. The main guidance for local highway authorities on asset management is the Code of Practice for Well-Managed Highways Infrastructure, published by the UK Roads Leadership Group and funded by the Department for Transport. The guidance sets out a national framework for how local highway authorities should manage their networks using a risk-based, evidence-led approach, taking account of current and expected highways usage.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the implications of electric vehicle uptake for long-term road maintenance costs.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Government recognises that heavier vehicles can accelerate road surface wear. While we have not undertaken a specific assessment of this effect, we are actively considering the implications of introducing zero-emission heavy goods vehicles, including the potential for additional road wear.
The increasing weight of all road vehicles, both electric vehicles (EVs) and their petrol and diesel counterparts, is one of many factors affecting the condition of our roads. While EVs tend to be heavier than their equivalent petrol or diesel counterpart, on average all passenger cars have been increasing in weight for many years. This trend has been driven by consumer choice and improving safety features for passengers. It is the much heavier commercial vehicles, rather than passenger vehicles, that cause the most wear and tear to road surfaces and other highway structures.
More broadly, there are many reasons why loadings on local roads may change, such as commercial development increasing traffic and the number of heavier vehicles on a road. Because of this, guidance for local authorities already highlights the need for maintenance plans to account for changes in circumstances. The main guidance for local highway authorities on asset management is the Code of Practice for Well-Managed Highways Infrastructure, published by the UK Roads Leadership Group and funded by the Department for Transport. The guidance sets out a national framework for how local highway authorities should manage their networks using a risk-based, evidence-led approach, taking account of current and expected highways usage.