Lilian Greenwood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this debate and on making such incredibly good use of the extra time we have had. I thank him for speaking so passionately about road safety. He is clearly a powerful advocate for his constituents. We really had a tour across the many villages and communities that he represents, and I enjoyed his efforts to namecheck them—every single one of them, I think. I am pleased to be back here for the second Adjournment debate about road safety in less than a week. I am happy to be discussing this important issue again, not just because I am Minister for the future of roads—which should, of course, be a safer future—but because this issue matters to all of us. We, our families, our friends and our colleagues all use our roads, whether as drivers, riders, pedestrians, cyclists, or passengers in buses or taxis, and we all deserve the right to go on our journeys knowing that we will get home safely. Unusually in an Adjournment debate, we heard from, I think, 19 Members this evening—not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland but from my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Chris Vince), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for North Northumberland (David Smith), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). I hope very much that I have not missed anyone out. We clearly all agree that no one should be killed or injured on our roads, and improving road safety is one of my Department’s highest priorities. In 2023 there were 1,624 fatalities in reported road collisions in Great Britain, and more than 28,000 people were seriously injured. I have not worked out the numbers, but I suspect that means that in the time we have been debating this issue, someone will have been seriously injured somewhere on Great Britain’s roads. Fatalities and injuries resulting from road collisions are simply unacceptable, and this Government are working hard to prevent such tragedies for all road users. Road safety is fundamental to everything that the Government stand for. Safer roads underpin our national missions: driving economic growth, enabling greener journeys through active travel, easing pressure on the national health service, and ensuring that everyone can travel safely. That is why my Department is developing our road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. We will set out more details in due course. Members referred to the implementation of road safety at a local level. Local government is the main delivery body for road safety. Local authorities have a statutory duty under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take steps both to reduce and to prevent collisions. It is for them to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have the local knowledge —many Members mentioned the importance of that this evening—and it is right that they focus on the areas of highest risk, which may be places where tragic collisions have occurred. However, there is nothing to prevent them from implementing road safety measures elsewhere. Indeed, it is entirely right to consider what action can be taken to prevent collisions in the first place.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for, once again, raising the issue of pavement parking. As I hope he knows, I am very keen for us to address that issue. It has been far too long since the 2020 consultation on the options, and I look forward to the opportunity to publish that consultation and set out the next steps in due course. I hope that no local authority would claim that road measures can be considered only at locations where there have been fatalities, because that is simply not the case. I understand the importance of using resources effectively, where they are most needed, but the use of such measures should never be arbitrary. This Government are committed to the devolution of powers to local level, as we have shown through the publication of the English devolution White Paper, but it is important that the right powers be held at the right level. Responsibility for highways and traffic sits at county council or unitary level; that enables local authorities to deliver services in an efficient and consistent way across their areas. We have no plans to devolve those powers further to parish councils, but it is nevertheless crucial that local highway authorities engage with local partners, including parish and town councils, when deciding on the measures to take, as they can play an absolutely critical role in identifying road safety issues in their area. They are often the first to hear about near misses or dangerous incidents, and act as a vital link with local residents’ day-to-day experiences. As we have heard time and again this evening, local parish and town councils—as well as residents’ associations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said, and indeed schoolchildren, parents and a wide range of community groups—have incredibly valuable local knowledge, and they need to be listened to and engaged with. Numerous hon. Members have talked about the need for action to reduce speed, including by lowering speed limits, and the need to enforce speed limits through police action and the introduction of speed cameras. Hon. Members will know that the enforcement of road traffic law, and decisions on how available police resources are deployed, are the responsibility of chief constables and police and crime commissioners, taking into account the local problems and demands that they face. Local highway authorities have the power to set speed limits on their roads, and it is important that this is done in partnership with town and parish councils, and in consultation with the residents affected. I was really sorry to hear that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, Durham county council has not responded to local calls for lower speed limits on the stretches of road that he mentioned. I urge him, the town and parish councils, and Durham county council to discuss this matter as a priority, and to try to find a way forward. As my hon. Friend described so vividly, dangerous roads have very real impacts on the lives of his constituents, especially children, older people and disabled people. This debate will send a clear message to Durham county council, and perhaps to other highway authorities, about the strength of feeling not only among his constituents, but in his local communities, about road safety issues, and about the need for highway authorities to be accountable to local residents for decisions that they take in fulfilling their duties. Local authorities have a range of traffic management measures available to them to help improve safety in residential areas and outside schools, including pedestrian crossings, traffic-calming measures, school crossing patrols, and the introduction of a school street, where appropriate. Good street design can help improve road safety, and the “Manual for Streets” is our key piece of street design guidance. It advocates for streets to be designed to support appropriate vehicle speeds from the outset. Let us build the right roads to encourage appropriate speeds, rather than having to deal with problems when they arise later. That will reduce the risk of collisions, and reduce the severity of collisions that do happen. We expect local authorities to adopt the “Manual for Streets” when setting their own design standards, but that is ultimately a choice for them. We are working to update the manual to ensure that it is still relevant and enables those designing streets to do so in a way that contributes to sustainable, healthy and active communities. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have local knowledge of their roads, but any authorities that wish to install schemes to improve safety have my Department’s full backing. Obviously, they will want to make those decisions in consultation with local communities and the local police. I welcome the support expressed by so many hon. Members this evening, and agree that sharing local knowledge and working in partnership can be very helpful. My Department gave councils updated guidance on setting 20 mph speed limits in March 2024, and reminded them to reserve the lower limits for appropriate locations, such as outside schools, with safety and local support at the heart of such decisions. I want to emphasise that we support 20 mph speed limits in the right places. As well as improving safety, they can enhance quality of life, the environment and the local economy, but 20 mph zones and limits are best considered on a road-by-road basis, based on the safety case, to ensure local consent, rather than as blanket measures. As I say, local councils will want to make decisions about local implementation in consultation with local communities and the local police. They know their roads best, and I simply cannot and should not dictate to them from Westminster. While local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the speed limits on the roads in their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation and guidance, they are rightly accountable to local people for those decisions. My hon. Friend and his constituents will rightly expect the county council not only to listen to their concerns, but to be accountable for the decisions it makes, whether it decides to install traffic measures or declines to do so, and I think that applies to all hon. Members who have made the powerful case for lower speed limits. The “safe system” approach to road safety acknowledges that even careful drivers can make mistakes, but no one should be killed or seriously injured as a result of a mistake, and we know that collisions at high speeds are much more likely to have tragic outcomes, which is why the argument holds for reducing speed limits in particular circumstances. The Department will look at what we can do to support local authorities, and we stand ready to work with all those looking to improve road safety locally. My Department recognises the excellent work that parish and town councils do to improve the safety of local roads, including through their involvement with community speedwatch schemes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Amber Valley for highlighting that valuable volunteering. Police-run community speedwatch schemes enable local volunteers to work with the police and other agencies to address identified road policing issues in their localities. Drivers who are detected speeding are sent letters, and the police may take further action if a driver is detected multiple times. Decisions on when to adopt community speedwatch schemes are operational matters for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, working in conjunction with their local policing plans. The responsibility for keeping for our roads safe cannot fall solely to central or local government; all road users have a part to play, and they must all comply with road traffic law in the interests of their own safety and that of other road users. As set out in the highway code, the hierarchy of road users places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision right at the top of the hierarchy. The objective of the hierarchy of road users is not to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders in every situation, but rather to ensure a more mutually respectful and considerate culture of safe and effective road use that benefits all users. This does not detract from the requirements for everyone to behave responsibly. There is both a legal and a moral duty for all road users to obey the law, both for safety and to create a culture of respect and consideration for all road users. There are laws in place to ensure that unsafe and dangerous behaviour has no place on our roads and is dealt with appropriately, using the most effective sanctions, including educational interventions. Enforcement of the law is a matter for the police, who will decide on the evidence of each case whether an offence has been committed and the appropriate action to take. I conclude by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland for securing this timely and important debate. As I said at the start, the Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the number of those killed and injured on our roads. My Department is developing our road safety strategy, which is vital. For too long, we have tolerated a lack of progress, and this Government are determined to act. I look forward to setting out more details in due course, as indeed we will on my hon. Friend’s ambitions for the A66. Question put and agreed to.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Road Network: Condition · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate how frustrating the situation is for my hon. Friend and his constituents. My officials are continuing to discuss details of the business case for the scheme with East Sussex county council, and I would of course be happy to meet him to discuss that further.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware that at least the certainty of a decision was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate that. The Department is happy to discuss any alternative plans with him and with Cornwall council. We have met before, and I am very happy to meet him again.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am sure that everyone in the House feels concern about the kind of antisocial driving occurring in his constituency. It is absolutely right that local partners—the local authority and the police—should look at how best to tackle that kind of behaviour, which is undoubtedly a blight on his local community and is obviously very concerning to hear about. All available research shows a link between excessive speed and the risk of collisions, so I am really grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for raising this issue, and indeed to other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Fatalities and injuries from road collisions are simply unacceptable, and this Government will work hard to prevent those tragedies for all road users. The hon. Member talked about action to reduce speed, including lower speed limits, and action to enforce speed limits, such as speed cameras. My Department’s guidance on the use of speed cameras and red light cameras for traffic enforcement is not mandatory—it is guidance—and authorities are invited to set their own deployment criteria if they wish. The guidance encourages authorities to develop their own deployment criteria, so that they can demonstrate a local systematic approach to site selection. I recognise that at a time when local authorities face a great many calls on their resources, it is important that they focus those resources where they will have the most impact. Unfortunately, I imagine that will sometimes mean local authorities deciding that they need to focus on those places where there have been KSIs—where people have been killed or seriously injured. However, I encourage local authorities to consider both how they can deal with places where there have been KSIs and how they can take a more proactive approach.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  I know that my hon. Friend has been a great champion for improvements in road safety. The Department will consider what more we can do to support local authorities and hon. Members in this regard, and we stand ready to work with everyone who is trying to improve road safety locally. As my hon. Friend knows, and as the House knows, we are developing our road safety strategy, and I look forward to saying more about that in the months ahead. As the Secretary of State has said, we are hoping and aiming to publish it by the end of the year. The police-run Community Speedwatch schemes enable local volunteers to work with the police and other agencies to address identified road policing issues in their localities. I know how important they can be to local communities, and I thank all those who are volunteering in this way. Drivers who are detected speeding are sent letters, and the police may take further action if a driver is detected multiple times. Decisions on when to adopt Community Speedwatch schemes are operational matters for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, in conjunction with local policing plans, but as I have said, the schemes can play a very important role. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the number of people killed and injured on our roads. The Department is developing our road safety strategy, and I look forward to the opportunity to set out more details in due course. I welcome today’s debate and all the contributions from Members on road safety, both today and on other occasions. I am pleased that there is so much determination in the House to tackle the unacceptable loss of life and unacceptable injuries that result from road traffic collisions, and I look forward to working with Members further on the issue. Question put and agreed to.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of community speed watch groups. I will come on to that topic a little later. The guidance on the use of speed cameras and red light cameras should be used alongside setting local speed limits. These are tools to support our primary objective, which is reducing the number of collisions and casualties and, indeed, reducing their severity. I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that speed cameras work. In the right place, speed cameras can help manage safety risks by encouraging drivers to conform to the speed limit. However, they are not the only or always the best way to improve road safety. Speed limits should be evidence-led, and general compliance needs to be achievable without an excessive reliance on enforcement. Frankly, we cannot have a speed camera everywhere, and we cannot have a police officer everywhere. As the hon. Member knows, the enforcement of road traffic law and the deployment of available police resources, including on mobile cameras, is the responsibility of individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners, taking into account specific local problems and the demands that they face. Local government is the main delivery body for road safety. Under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, local authorities have a statutory duty to take steps to reduce and prevent collisions, and they have the power to set speed limits on their roads. It is right that they focus on the areas of highest risk, which may be where tragic collisions have occurred, but there is nothing to stop them from implementing road safety measures elsewhere. Indeed, I would agree that a more proactive, preventive approach is entirely sensible. It is clearly incredibly valuable to identify places where there is a higher risk and evidence of near misses.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, and I will say a little more on that in a moment. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have the local knowledge of their roads. Any authority that has the support of the local community for installing such schemes has my Department’s full backing. I welcome the support expressed by Members today, and agree that sharing good practice can be helpful. The Department gave councils updated guidance on setting 20 mph speed limits, reminding them to reserve them for sensible and appropriate areas only, such as outside schools, and that safety and local support should be at the heart of the decision. That in itself impacts compliance, as drivers are more likely to observe the speed limit when they understand why it is there. I emphasise that we support 20 mph limits in the right places. As well as influencing safety, they can influence quality of life, the environment and the local economy, but 20 mph zones and limits are best considered on a road-by-road basis. That ensures local consent, unlike blanket measures. We are therefore not in favour of 20 mph limits being set indiscriminately on all roads, without due regard for the safety case and for local support; but when there is clear evidence, and when people support them, I think it entirely right for local authorities to pursue them, if they wish to. They will want to make decisions about local implementation in consultation with local communities and, of course, with the local police; as I have said, they know their roads best, and I cannot and should not dictate to them from Westminster. While local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the speed limits on roads under their care, provided that they take account of the relevant legislation and guidance, they are rightly accountable to local people for those decisions. I understand how frustrating it is for communities who feel that their concerns are not being listened to and acted on. However, the Members who have spoken today have made a powerful case for lower speed limits, and we know that even the most experienced and careful drivers can make mistakes, and that collisions at higher speeds are much more likely to have tragic outcomes.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Transport Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend says, the last Government were good at making announcements, and very poor at putting real money behind those announcements. We are determined to do something very different. This unprecedented long-term funding certainty will enable enhancements and renewal of local transport networks, based on local priorities, helping to drive growth and productivity, support the delivery of new homes and decarbonise local transport networks. I am aware of the specific concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth about the road infrastructure in her constituency, particularly the Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts, as well as the challenges that need to be addressed around congestion and the delays impacting residents and businesses. As part of last week’s spending review, the Government announced £24 billion of capital funding between 2026 and 2030 to maintain and improve motorways and local roads across the country. That funding will allow National Highways and local authorities to deliver faster, safer and more reliable journeys. Already this year, the north-east has been provided with an extra £22 million for local roads maintenance. The opportunities for new enhancements to the strategic road network will be considered in due course, as part of the future road investment strategy, which will start from 1 April next year. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for North Northumberland (David Smith) and Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for highlighting the needs and challenges of their communities. Now that the spending review has been completed, we will take decisions on how best to spend that money on both strategic and local roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth asked some specific questions, which I will try to go through. As she rightly noted, on 11 June, alongside the spending review, the findings of the Green Book review were published. They sought to understand whether it is being used in a way that ensures a fair, objective and transparent appraisal of proposals across the country. As a Department, we will work with Treasury analysts to develop and embed any changes to the Green Book. A new place-based business case taskforce will be established to define objectives for a particular place and bring together the relevant interventions that are needed to achieve objectives across different policy areas. This is about making sure that places like the north-east get their fair share of transport investment. The taskforce will also feature participants from local and regional government, as well as other Government Departments, and will identify appropriate test cases for place-based business cases, and what that means for existing proposals in due course. I note that my hon. Friend got her bid in early. The deeper devolution deal and the north-east growth plan will allow the combined authority to enter into agreements with Government, other local authorities and National Highways to determine shared priorities for the strategic and key road networks. This closer working relationship, and strategies such as the north-east growth plan, will be an important consideration in the prioritisation of enhancements to the strategic road network in the north-east. On local plans and housing targets, our Department has a close working relationship with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government on a range of transport matters to support our ambitious goals for housing. The successful implementation of local plans is a key part of ensuring development in the right places. Local authorities are encouraged to develop plans in sustainable locations that are not wholly reliant on significant investment in the strategic road network. I recognise that in some cases that is hard to avoid, and it is essential that issues such as constraints on growth form part of the assessment of individual schemes, as my hon. Friend said, and wider investment planning for the network. On the spending review, schemes that are in the RIS pipeline, such as the A19 north of Newcastle scheme, are being considered for possible delivery beyond 2030. The Department expects to reconfirm those schemes that remain in the pipeline, and they will continue to be developed during the next period, when RIS3 is published early next year. I heard the points that my hon. Friend made about how the pressures on the network may have changed in recent times. I will just touch on the point about local councillors. As with all schemes in the RIS pipeline, the proposals are funded for their development stages only, and there has been no commitment and no funding for their full delivery at any stage. To say otherwise is simply untrue. In addition to considerations on the strategic road network, it is vital that we improve public transport connectivity. We are driving forward wider regional transport reforms, including rail upgrades and the resources and powers to deliver better buses as we look to build a modern, integrated public transport system. My hon. Friend highlighted the difference that investment in local rail is already making in her region. This year, we are providing NECA with £24 million to support and improve bus services by putting power over local bus services back into the hands of local leaders. That will help to ensure we meet the needs of the communities that rely on them, while protecting socially and economically necessary services. I understand that Mayor McGuinness is exploring franchising options that, if taken forward, would ensure that local bus networks across the north-east can be designed to work better for the people who rely on those services. We have also just confirmed that from next year, we will be providing £900 million a year to maintain and improve bus services across the country, ensuring that they continue to be affordable and accessible to all. As part of the Government’s clean energy mission, we are also committed to decarbonising transport. The spending review confirmed £1.8 billion to support the uptake of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, including the provision of charging infrastructure along the strategic road network in England. Active travel also plays a crucial role in the mission, and last week we were pleased to announce a further £616 million nationally to build and maintain walking and cycling infrastructure, and the north-east is already benefiting from more than £7 million this year to support the development of active travel facilities. Our communities deserve transport infrastructure that supports growth, enhances mobility and ensures sustainability. The Government will shortly publish our 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will set out a long-term plan for how infrastructure projects are planned and delivered. Today’s contributions will help us as we make decisions in the weeks, months and years ahead. We remain dedicated to delivering improvements that will make a real difference to people’s lives, including in the constituencies of my hon. Friends in the north-east. Through investment, innovation and engagement with local leaders, we will continue to transform transport infrastructure for the better. I thank all my hon. Friends for the cases they have made, making sure that I understand the needs and challenges faced by communities in their area. I look forward to working with them as we go forward. Question put and agreed to.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Transport Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing the debate. I know how committed she has been to raising the importance of transport infrastructure in her constituency, frankly at every opportunity. Today, she has set out very clearly the challenges for her constituents and the communities that she represents. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government’s ambitions. Reliable transport infrastructure is vital to everyone’s daily life, whether it is connecting communities, family and friends, providing access to jobs and training, or moving goods. It can boost productivity by helping firms to cluster and innovate, unlocking land for housing and development, and making places more attractive to live, work and invest in. The Government recognise the challenges facing communities such as Cramlington and Killingworth, and today I will outline what we are doing to maintain and renew our infrastructure, protect vital public transport services and invest in the long-term future of our transport system. We recognise the long-standing aspirations of local leaders, and by devolving power and decision making from Whitehall we are ensuring that local decisions are taken at the right level. I commend Mayor Kim McGuinness on her ambitions and vision for the north-east. The Government are backing those ambitions with real support, as my hon. Friend will be aware. At last week’s spending review, we outlined our commitment to the protection of vital public transport services and the maintenance of our road and rail networks. That reflects the Government’s recognition of the essential role that transport plays in driving economic growth, regional development and public service delivery. Through the transport for city region settlements, eligible mayoral combined authorities will receive dedicated funding to deliver key local projects. The North East combined authority, NECA, will receive £1.8 billion from the TCR settlement between 2027 and 2032. That builds on the £573 million already provided from the first round of city region sustainable transport settlements.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mass Transit: West Yorkshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am very conscious of time, and I want to make a bit more progress. Leeds remains the largest city in western Europe without a mass transit system. For a city of its scale, potential and ambition, that is unsustainable. That is why Government intervention is vital and why we are already acting. We recognise the long-standing aspirations of local leaders and communities to build a modern, integrated mass transit network. Those ambitions, as we have heard, stretch back years, but setbacks have not weakened the determination, and I commend Mayor Tracy Brabin and the West Yorkshire combined authority for their persistence and vision. The Government have backed the ambitions with real support and real money: £200 million has already been provided in development funding, to enable the combined authority to progress its plans. That includes a £160 million allocation from the first city region sustainable transport settlement. Now, I am pleased to confirm that the support is growing under the new funding settlement announced last week. As a Government, we have made a £15.6 billion commitment to improving local transport across the north and the midlands, to be delivered through transport for city regions settlements. Between 2027 and 2032, West Yorkshire will receive an impressive £2.1 billion—a strong vote of confidence in the region’s plans. It is right that prioritising use of the funding will be for West Yorkshire to decide on, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) will be making the case for improved transport connectivity, including to Leeds Bradford airport. We are bringing £30 million of transport for city regions funding forward into the next two financial years, to support early preparation and delivery of schemes. Most importantly, the combined authority has confirmed that this funding will enable the delivery of phase 1 of West Yorkshire mass transit, connecting Bradford and Leeds city centres, to begin. Mayor Tracy Brabin is keen to have spades in the ground from 2028. Of course, the period beyond 2032 is for a future spending review. Beyond mass transit, TCR funding will also support a new bus station in Wakefield to replace the existing facility, and a modern bus station replacement for Bradford interchange, expanding services and improving reliability across the region. Our support extends beyond finance. With West Yorkshire combined authority, we have put in place a new model for working together. It features a joint sponsor board and close collaboration between Government officials and the combined authority. We are working side by side to progress at pace, align with national priorities and support delivery, so hopefully there will not be the kinds of hold-up that we have seen in the past. The prize and the benefits of mass transit to West Yorkshire are clear. It will improve local transport for over 675,000 people, many of whom are from communities currently disconnected from opportunity. It will reduce congestion, cut carbon emissions and enable access to jobs, education and services, especially for those who do not have a car. It will support transformational regeneration, housing and growth, particularly in areas such as central Bradford that have previously been overlooked for major investment. The scheme complements wider regional transport reforms, including rail upgrades and bus franchising. We welcome the introduction of the Weaver network, which will mean a single brand across the transport network in West Yorkshire and will make transport easier and more accessible for passengers. Together, those efforts will build a modern, integrated public transport system worthy of this growing city region, which is central to the growth ambitions of the Government and the country. Looking ahead, we will continue close collaboration with the combined authority to move from planning to delivery. Key milestones include submission of the strategic outline business case for approval in 2026, when many of the questions that have been posed in the debate will be explored and fulfilled; route consultations; and the development of a growth prospectus to maximise the economic benefits of mass transit in West Yorkshire. That will include an employment and skills action plan to train and recruit the skilled workers needed to deliver the programme. Our shared ambition is to see spades in the ground in 2028, and I assure Members that the Department is fully committed to enabling that ambitious timeline. The Government back West Yorkshire’s mass transit ambitions because better transport means better lives, safer journeys, cleaner air, more opportunities and stronger communities. I once again congratulate my hon. Friends on their support and advocacy for this absolutely vital investment. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) nodding along with that. The West Yorkshire region has huge potential, and this Government will give it our backing into the future.

• 21 May 2025 · Roadworks: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) on securing this important debate regarding the impact of roadworks on communities in Cheshire, and indeed in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. I commend him on his assiduous efforts to raise the profile of the extremely difficult situation that his constituents face. Their lives are clearly being significantly impacted, as he described so vividly, with everyone from children to pensioners forced to change the way in which they live their lives, and suffering real pain and inconvenience as a result of diversions and traffic delays. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) said, daily journeys should not be a source of misery, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) highlighted, road safety must not be compromised in these circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield pointed out, the traffic lights on Mill House bridge have been in place for over a year, and it is absolutely right that a solution to these problems is found quickly. I know that the patience of residents is growing very thin indeed, and I understand why. I also understand that the roads have become even more of a hot topic recently, because the council has been forced to extend the permit until the end of the year to secure the road space, as several utility companies also need to carry out urgent works in the area. Although it is welcome that some co-ordinated work is going on, that of course brings a risk of further disruption to local road users over the months ahead. It is essential that the council works with the utility companies to keep that disruption to an absolute minimum, and that it considers how to expedite the works, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described. I understand that the permitting extension is largely a precaution, as the council hopes that the remedial work will be done in the summer and autumn. I understand that the complexity of the work means that that cannot be guaranteed, but the council must do its utmost in consultation with local people and keep them apprised of what is going on. People’s frustration only rises when they do not understand or they are not communicated with in an adequate and timely way. As my hon. Friends have said, the appalling state of local roads in Cheshire is an indictment of the previous Government’s failure to invest in the vital national infrastructure that all our constituents rely on. It is frankly unforgiveable to allow our local road network to crumble and fail. By contrast, this Government are firmly on the side of all road users in this country. We are already delivering by providing £500 million of extra funding for highway maintenance this year, with a huge increase in funding for every local authority in England. That takes highway maintenance funding this year to nearly £1.6 billion, which is the largest ever funding amount for local highway maintenance in England in one year. We are investing those amounts precisely because we want to deliver a transformation in the condition of our highways. That means authorities have been able to make an immediate start on resurfacing roads and fixing other more significant structural problems. I want communities everywhere to start seeing the benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will also note the new incentive requirements announced by the Secretary of State in March this year. We are ensuring that local people can hold their local authority to account and see for themselves how the investment will be spent to maintain and improve their local highway network. We are requiring every local authority that receives funding, including Cheshire East, to publish its plans by 30 June for how it will use that extra money. That means that everyone, including the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield and for High Peak, will be able to log on to their council website and see the difference the funding is making, and challenge the authority if it is not delivering. For Cheshire East council, the additional £5.54 million in highway maintenance funding that it has received this year comes on top of nearly £15.485 million in baseline funding. I am sure that funding will go a long way to help to improve roads in and around Macclesfield very soon. In addition, Cheshire East will receive more than £2 million from the integrated transport block and more than £7.7 million through the local transport grant. That is only the start. My hon. Friends will be more than aware that we are awaiting the outcome of the forthcoming spending review in the next few weeks, to agree funding beyond 2025-26. Turning back to the here and now, the more pertinent matter is how we resolve the difficult situation that is causing such distress for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. It is absolutely crucial that highways officials in Cheshire East council continue their efforts to resolve it as promptly as possible, and that they keep local MPs and residents up to date. Officials have told my Department that they have been carrying out extensive drainage surveys, an ecology survey and a topographical survey to give the council a better picture of what is happening above and below ground. I note from my officials that the next stage of geotechnical surveys is due to be undertaken immediately; I believe that is on the B5470. Further actions may need to be taken in that regard. I firmly encourage Cheshire East council to keep my officials fully sighted on this matter in case further support from the Government can be provided. I know that both departmental and council officials appreciate the tight timeframe for this issue—and if they did not appreciate it before, they will appreciate it when they read the Hansard report of our debate. We are all keen to see rapid progress, so I hope those officials are listening to the debate and the representations of my hon. Friend, and they will act accordingly. I have been told that data from the surveys will be shared to allow an evidence-based decision to be taken. It is so important that local people understand the work that is being undertaken. Sometimes things take longer than expected, and sometimes there are unexpected discoveries when the council does survey work, but it needs to explain to local people what it is doing and how it will expedite the repairs. That community engagement is critical, and the highways team in my hon. Friend’s authority must work closely with the community. I understand that they have explored alternative options, such as the reopening of the old road to the south of the B5470, but from what I have been told, they do not believe that is a viable option because doing it safely would require extensive work. Those are the sort of things that they need to explain so that people are confident that they have looked at every option to reduce the disruption that my hon. Friend described. As the council is fully aware, our maintenance budgets are already allocated to all highway authorities, specifically so that they can fund repairs of this sort. There is no additional Department for Transport funding available now, but as my hon. Friend has heard, the authorities have received a substantial uplift in funding this year, which should enable them to tackle such problems. To conclude, my Department will continue to work with all parties to establish what help can be provided by the Government, both now and in the future, when we will have the evidence from the surveys being undertaken. I am more than happy to be kept up to date by my hon. Friend with how things are progressing. If I can do more to ensure that his constituents see an improvement in the position they are facing on those local roads, I would be happy to discuss that with him too. I also look forward to the conclusion of the spending review in helping to secure multi-year funding settlements for all authorities up and down England, so that councils—including Cheshire East in the constituency of my hon. Friend—have the funding they need to make long-term plans for the repair and maintenance of their road networks, including those that he mentioned today. We want everyone to have the local roads that they deserve, rather than those that they inherited from the previous Government and previous local administrations, which were simply not adequate. I am committed to doing all I can to ensure that my hon. Friend’s constituents see that improvement in the months and years ahead. Question put and agreed to .

• 15 May 2025 · Vehicle Registration: Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a great campaigner, and she is right to continue to highlight this issue. It is already illegal to sell and display that type of number plate, but I recognise that there is more to do. The DVLA is working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Home Office, various police forces and trading standards on the supply and use of these illegal number plates, and implementing stricter penalties and fines will be considered as part of our work on the new road safety strategy.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Department is providing Gloucestershire county council with an extra £9 million of highway maintenance funding this year, taking its total funding to £35 million. That will allow the council to get on with the job of fixing those potholes.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Traffic commissioners consider road safety up to the point where the operating centre joins the highway, but, beyond that, it is probably a matter for the local authority or the police. Although traffic commissioner independence is crucial and ministerial influence would be improper, I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his road safety concerns and how they might be tackled.

• 15 May 2025 · Condition of Local Roads · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has been dogged in raising this issue with me and the Department, and I assure him that we will make an announcement on the way forward as soon as possible. Following a consultation with the council, we have been carefully considering its formal representations on this matter, and we are committed to working together in the best interests of his constituents, the people of Birmingham and the taxpayer.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  This Government believe in devolution. It is for local councils, elected by local people, to decide their own priorities. I know we have spent a lot of time talking about potholes this evening, and despite all the attention they get and the headlines they generate, potholes are only a small part of what local highway authorities are dealing with. Local highway authorities have to look after complex networks of pavements, cycle lanes, bridges, tunnels, lighting columns, drainage channels, culverts, retaining walls and much else besides. Potholes are just the tip of a very large iceberg, but they are the thing that is most visible to road users, whether they are in a car, on a bike, or being jarred while sitting on a bus. Yes, we are asking local authorities to give us their best estimate of the number of potholes they have filled in recent years. We also want them to tell us what they are doing to shift their focus to long-term preventive maintenance, because avoiding potholes forming in the first place is, as the Public Accounts Committee recognised, generally much better value for money than temporarily patching the same pothole again and again once it has become a safety-critical problem. Let me move on to street works and to what we are doing to respond to the complaints that our roads often seem to be dug up again and again by utility companies in an unco-ordinated way. It is the responsibility of the highway authority to co-ordinate any works taking place on its roads. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) rightly described the cost of failing to do so for local people and businesses. We are committed to ensuring that the proper policy framework is in place to enable authorities to co-ordinate and plan road and street works effectively. My hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) and for Stafford will be pleased to hear that we have recently announced that we will be doing more to hold utilities to account for disruptive works. We will be doubling fixed penalty notices to increase the level of deterrent they provide and improve compliance. Charges will also be applied at weekends and on bank holidays to reduce congestion and disruption during those times. Lane rental can help highway authorities to reduce the impact of works taking place on the busiest roads at the busiest times. Schemes allow authorities to charge utilities up to £2,500 per day for works on those roads, encouraging companies to work smarter. We know that many more councils are developing lane rental schemes, and we plan to update our guidance to help them develop those schemes. We have announced changes that mean that highway authorities will be required to spend at least 50% of surplus funds raised from lane rental on road maintenance. To conclude, I repeat my thanks to all hon. Members who have contributed to what has been a rich and positive debate. We all want to see an improvement to the state of our local roads, pavements and other parts of our highways networks. I doubt that this will be the last time we discuss potholes, but this Government are determined to give local authorities the tools and resources they need to get on top of the problem. We want local councils to be more transparent about what they are doing with taxpayers’ money, and we want them to follow best practice. We want councils to learn from each other and benchmark each other’s performance, so that the overall standard of delivery is driven up. Getting on top of the backlog in local highway maintenance is a high priority for this Government. We recognise that there are tough choices here for councils, but getting more potholes fixed was a manifesto commitment and one we are determined to deliver. We have hit the ground running but I know that there is a lot more still to do. I will say more in a few months’ time about the longer term funding outlook for all local authorities. We look forward to working with councils over the months ahead to ensure that our funding uplift is making a real difference to all our constituents. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered road maintenance.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Secretary of State said earlier, this Government inherited crumbling roads with local highway authorities struggling to stay on top of an ever-increasing backlog of maintenance. Of course, there are many reasons for that, including the weather and the increasing volume and weight of traffic using our roads, but it is abundantly clear that the funding provided by the previous Government was simply not enough to allow local authorities to deal with the problem. No one knows this better than Karen Shore, our Labour candidate in Runcorn and Helsby, who served for many years as the cabinet member for highways on her local council. As she and we remember, the Tories made promises for 14 years but, in reality, any funding uplifts were short-lived and never fully materialised. It is perhaps not surprising that the Conservative Benches have been so empty during this debate. This Government are determined to ensure that things will be different, and we will do better.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that local roads maintenance is an issue that affects every one of us, and that our constituents care about deeply. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken up on behalf of their constituents. I assure them that the Government get it and are determined to do something about it. There were too many contributions for me to mention them all, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) highlighted why it is important that local councils are required to publish reports on their plans. We want people to know if their local council is choosing not to spend the extra funding that we are providing on fixing their cratered, potholed, pimpled roads. I assure her and other members of the Transport Committee that work is already under way on a complete review of the guidance—the code of practice on well-managed highway infrastructure, to give it its full name. I am really pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) highlighted the innovation that has been adopted by Stoke-on-Trent’s Labour council and its highways department—investing in AI to properly understand and monitor its road network and using the Pothole Pro to undertake long-lasting repairs. I am really sorry to hear that Conservative Staffordshire county council is not as responsive to the concerns of my hon. Friends’ constituents who are calling for investment in road safety. As my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) rightly reminded us, Staffordshire residents can do something about that problem by voting Labour on 1 May, as can residents in Derbyshire, Northumberland, Hertfordshire, Lancashire and many other parts of the country. I am grateful to Scottish colleagues for their contributions. It is disappointing to hear that the SNP Government are not acting to tackle the state of Scotland’s roads, as this Government are in England and my Labour colleagues are in Wales. The Scottish people deserve better. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) raised the important issue of pavement parking, as did others, and he was right to do so, because it contributes to our broken pavements, which are so unsafe for many elderly and disabled people. The previous Government promised action for almost a decade and did nothing. We plan to respond to the 2020 consultation and set out our policy in this area. When I tell people that I am the roads Minister, I can pretty much guarantee that the first question they will ask is, “What are you doing to fix my street?” It is not surprising that this issue is so often raised with us when we are out and about in our constituencies. The appalling state of our local roads and pavements is all too visible to us every single day. As we have heard time and again in this debate, it is unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and bikers, it makes motorists’ lives a misery and it is holding back economic growth. The shadow Minister suggested that things were worse in 2006 than under his Government, but according to the RAC pothole index, drivers were nearly 40% more likely to have a pothole-related breakdown in 2024 than they were under the last Labour Government.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point, and people can see for themselves which party is on the side of motorists and road users. We have provided an extra £500 million in the current financial year, on top of the previous Government’s funding baseline and the Network North money for 2024-25. It is a huge increase. For most authorities, it means around 36% or 37% more than last year, and of course it is just the start. As many hon. Members have observed today, a one-off uplift will not fix all the problems—it was never going to. However, through the spending review, we are determined to secure a long-term funding settlement to allow local highway authorities to plan ahead with confidence. Strangely, the only time the previous Government promised long-term funding was nine months before the general election, knowing full well that they had not put any cash aside to pay for it. We are determined to ensure that the extra funding we are providing genuinely leads to extra spending by local authorities, rather than simply allowing them to put less of their own funding into highway maintenance. That is exactly why we are introducing the extra reporting requirements that the Secretary of State set out. The information that councils publish in June will shine a spotlight on this issue in a way that has not happened before. It will allow local people to see for themselves what repairs and resurfacing their council is planning, and how this compares with other local authorities. It will help the Department and the public to understand matters such as which authorities are putting their own funding into the pot, and which are doing the most to prepare their networks for the wetter winters that we are already seeing.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is absolutely right to raise concerns that although charge point availability is increasing rapidly, there are regional disparities and differences between urban and rural areas. The local EV infrastructure fund is designed purposely to tackle some of that regional disparity. As I say, charge points in rural areas have increased by 45% in the last year. The East Riding of Yorkshire, which covers the right hon. Member’s constituency, has received £2.7 million in LEVI funding; I hope that that will deliver the improvements he seeks for his constituents.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  It is lovely that people are so keen. Charge point availability is increasing everywhere. As of 1 March, there were over 75,000 UK public charging devices, with one added to the network every 29 minutes, but we recognise that there are still regional disparities. The local EV infrastructure fund will deliver a further 100,000 charge points right across England.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Gloucestershire: Eastward Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  The Department is working with the rail industry to improve the performance of rail services in Gloucestershire, while Gloucestershire county council’s scheme for the M5 junction 9 and A46 in Ashchurch is currently being considered as part of the Department’s major road network and large local majors programmes.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Decarbonising Transport · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s local council has suffered the same fate as councils across the country as a result of the under-investment in local roads maintenance under the previous Government, but they will now have benefited from their share of our £500 million uplift for the year ahead, and they are absolutely encouraged to use that to resurface the roads and fix potholes.