Lilian Greenwood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing this debate, and grateful to other hon. Members for their contributions. I will try to address the points that she and others have raised. I want to begin by fully recognising the change and upheaval that major infrastructure projects such as HS2 bring to the communities they pass through. I understand the concerns raised by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents. As my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary set out to the House earlier today, taxpayers, passengers and communities along the route have been let down by years of mismanagement on HS2. The failures of the past mean that HS2 will now cost more and take longer to be delivered. The most important thing we can do for communities now is to get a grip on the programme so that the job can be done and the disruption brought to an end. Over the past year, the Government have been working closely on a full reset of HS2 to bring effective oversight and start rebuilding public trust. HS2 has faced significant challenges, but this Government have been clear that infrastructure development is at the heart of our strategic missions and priorities. It will deliver significant benefits once delivered. While those benefits are undeniable, we know that they come at the cost of disruption caused by construction. We have to do right by the residents who are impacted, through a range of programmes made available to them. I appreciate that right now HS2 construction is at its peak in many areas and, regrettably, so too is the level of disruption. That includes road closures, lorry movements and other visible and audible signs of construction in affected areas. Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) mentioned the damage done to the highways. HS2 has put in place measures to address that with the establishment of a highways deterioration fund, which should resolve some of those issues quickly and easily. Inevitably, there are some unwelcome impacts on local people when there are major projects. The Rail Minister is determined to ensure that HS2 Ltd does its utmost to reduce impacts as much as is reasonably possible. HS2 Ltd must be a good neighbour to affected communities and treat them with respect, even if that has not always been the experience of residents whom Members present are representing. HS2 should listen to local concerns and be accountable for its actions at all times. We expect communities affected by the construction of the railway to be at the heart of the delivery plans of HS2 Ltd. I know that both the Rail Minister and the chairman of HS2, Mike Brown, are taking a personal interest in those issues. They want to ensure that residents, who have sometimes endured very lengthy periods of disruption, are treated with fairness and respect, and that the issues around compensation are resolved as promptly as possible. We want to see HS2 Ltd leaving a positive legacy for communities, such as through the community and business funds, which have already provided millions of pounds in support for local projects, from sports clubs to children’s play facilities. The hon. Lady raised the specific case of one of her constituents who runs a music studio and his experiences. My officials have briefed me on the situation, and I appreciate it has been a long-standing case that has been difficult to resolve. I am pleased to hear that, based on these discussions, HS2 Ltd and the hon. Lady’s constituent are on a path to resolution. My Department is committed to resolving the situation, while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer and fairness for her constituent. The long-term solution that HS2 Ltd is focused on is facilitating and funding an alternative studio in the grounds of the constituent’s property. I appreciate that this is taking some time and that there may be a difference in expectations between HS2 Ltd and the hon. Lady’s constituent as to what constitutes a reasonable replacement of the existing studio. However, we are committed to doing the right thing and delivering this at pace. There is a further onsite meeting planned shortly, and I am hopeful that an agreement on the way forward will soon be reached. Alongside that, HS2 Ltd has made further commitments in recent weeks to carry out any vibration-causing works earlier in the day, in order to avoid the times that would be most disruptive to the constituent’s business. Frankly, I have great sympathy with the constituent in question. Disruptive works have continued longer than anticipated, and the issue has taken longer to resolve than we would wish. We hope to find resolutions that will expedite future cases. I will turn to more general concerns about compliance with undertakings and assurances. The Secretary of State takes compliance with HS2 undertakings and assurances very seriously. There are rigorous structures in place to manage compliance and the performance of HS2 Ltd is monitored closely by the Department. In the vast majority of cases, compliance has been good: out of nearly 5,000 undertakings and assurances on HS2, compliance has fallen short in less than 1% of cases, but that is 1% too many. However, the Department remains confident that people can rely on the commitments that were made to them. Those commitments and assurances were given by the Secretary of State to Parliament during the HS2 Bill process, which is why HS2 Ltd’s delivery of them is overseen by the Department and why the Secretary of State is ultimately answerable to Parliament in these matters. I really regret that we have very limited time to answer these questions. I want to assure the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and other hon. Members that there are layers of independent scrutiny. HS2 Ltd is held to account by the Secretary of State, who has the independent statutory appeal function between HS2 Ltd and other parties. It is notable, I think, that only one assurance compliance case—the one the hon. Member refers to—has been escalated beyond the Department to Mr Speaker, as the representative of Parliament. We need to ensure that these cases are dealt with properly, so that people have a fair outcome. I am very conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me just say that we recognise the impact of the construction of HS2 on communities living along the route and we thank them for their patience. We understand how frustrating this prolonged disruption is. We will ensure that all the issues that have been raised by hon. Members today are considered by the Department and will continue to do the job of holding to account HS2 Ltd, monitoring its performance and ensuring that, where it falls short, it does better in the future. Question put and agreed to.

• 28 Apr 2026 · National Accident Prevention Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We think of all those who have lost their life at work; I think that about 120 people each year are killed in the course of their work. There is also a much more widespread problem of people suffering ill health, particularly relating to work-related stress and mental health. The best employers work really hard on those issues, often in consultation with their trade union health and safety reps. The Health and Safety Executive is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It delivers a combination of proportionate enforcement, targeted regulatory work engagement and the development of standards and guidance. That includes public awareness activity to promote the safe use of ladders and power tools through guidance, surveillance work and campaigns. The hon. Member for Strangford, who is no longer in his place, rightly spoke about the risks in agriculture. HSE works extensively with the Farm Safety Partnership to ensure that industry is aware of risks. We think about similar things in relation to construction and other high-risk environments.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Member will know, we are currently consulting on measures to protect young people from online harms. He is aware of that work, which is continuing. Of course we want to protect children and young people, but we need to make sure that any measures we bring in will be effective. We recognise that the regulatory framework must keep pace with technological change. That is why we are working with the Gambling Commission and the ASA to ensure that existing rules are applied to new and emerging channels. We are also clear that all policy and regulatory decisions must be made after considering a wide range of impartial, accurate and up-to-date research about the scale and impact of gambling advertising. We must ensure that our interventions are as impactful as possible. As Members may be aware, last year we introduced the landmark statutory gambling levy, which has raised just under £120 million in its first year. This funding will be ringfenced solely for independent research into and prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms; 20% of the funding collected will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling-related harms, which includes research on the impacts of gambling advertising. We will therefore consider next steps in the context of this strengthening evidence base. Where appropriate, our approach will also include comparison with regulation in other jurisdictions. A number of suggestions were made, and examples have been given of the way in which other countries are doing this. However, just because a particular country has moved further than us on advertising restrictions, that does not mean that we should automatically attempt to match it. We should instead be guided by the lessons that such jurisdictions offer, and we should consider what has and has not worked. An important point that I want to stress is that if we decide to encourage or take further action on advertising, we want to do so in a way that is supported by the evidence available. We should avoid putting in place too many restrictions that could have unintended consequences. Where standards can be raised in a careful way, we should look to do that. The Government remain open-minded about how that can be done, and we will reflect on the points that have been raised today, including in the important contributions from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I want to address a couple of questions that hon. Members have raised. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup raised concerns about the introduction of financial risk assessments. FRAs of online gambling customers are a widely supported principle and a key consumer protection measure from the White Paper. We are aware of concerns about so-called operator affordability checks; new financial risk checks would replace those and are better for customers and for racing. The Department has worked closely with the Gambling Commission throughout, to ensure that FRAs remain in line with the clear principles in the White Paper. If the Gambling Commission decides to introduce FRAs, it will work with operators on guidance. That guidance will ensure a proportionate approach when deciding how to manage consumers where financial risk is present and the customer continues to spend at a high level. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup also asked a number of specific questions. I will ensure that, where I have not already dealt with them in my speech, he receives a response in writing.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to respond to this debate, standing in for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on securing this debate and setting out their concerns so clearly and thoughtfully. We have had a genuine debate, with an exchange of different viewpoints on this important issue. I recognise that gambling advertising is a key area of focus for the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform and many other Members of this House, who have met the Gambling Minister to discuss the issue. The Government thank all Members for their ongoing work in this area, as their contributions are vital for informing the development of Government policy. I note that the APPG this week published a report setting out its case for change, and I know that the Gambling Minister will want to consider that work carefully. I also note the passionate call from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West for gambling to be considered from a public health perspective. This Government are committed to supporting a gambling industry that is modern, responsible and sustainable. However, the industry must also demonstrate that it can operate without exacerbating harm among the most vulnerable. Getting that balance right is crucial. We are focused on further enhancing protections for those at risk of harm, but we also want to enable the sector to bring value through providing jobs, boosting the economy and providing a leisure activity for adults to enjoy. That is why, since the election, we have been focused on supporting the licensed sector to further enhance protections for the young and vulnerable. This has included raising standards in a number of areas to ensure that gambling advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. However, we also recognise that, as a legitimate industry that makes a significant contribution to the economy, the gambling industry should also be able to advertise the services that it offers. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) set out that case in his contribution. Let me start by explaining the robust rules in place to regulate gambling advertising. All gambling operators in the UK must comply with advertising codes, which are enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority, independently of Government. These advertising codes apply across all platforms, including broadcast, online and social media. When the ASA deems that the codes have been breached, the Gambling Commission has the power to take enforcement action. These mandatory advertising codes are further supplemented by the voluntary industry code for socially responsible advertising, which has been strengthened in recent years. This code includes a number of measures such as the whistle-to-whistle ban, which prohibits gambling advertising during the pre-watershed televised broadcast of live sports events. I note the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen has raised about its effectiveness, and I also note the statistics shared by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). In the past two years, the Gambling Commission has introduced a range of new controls to regulate gambling advertising. These new measures further raise standards to better protect vulnerable people from harmful gambling practices. From 1 May 2025, operators have been required to provide customers with options to opt-in to the specific types of marketing they wish to receive. This choice gives customers greater control in order to lessen the risk of harm. From January this year, the Gambling Commission has also banned operators from bundling different gambling products—such as betting and slots—into single incentives. This is because mixed promotional offers were often confusing and led customers to engage in higher-risk gambling behaviours. This measure boosts fairness and openness to ensure advertising does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling. I am aware that a number of Members have focused specifically on advertising standards within sports, and we know how important that issue is. Since the election, we have seen a number of developments in the regulation of gambling marketing and advertising within sports. These include gambling sponsorship codes of conduct within all major sports, and the landmark introduction of the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from the start of the 2026-27 season. These changes reduce the prominence of gambling advertising within mainstream football matches, acknowledging that the connection between sport and gambling must be managed with care. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these measures over time. The Government are also conscious of the need to be vigilant and responsive to the fast-evolving digital landscape. I want to address directly the concerns raised about social media, which are likely front of mind for many Members, particularly given its potential impact on children and young people. I want to be clear that gambling advertising on social media must adhere to the same standards set for other mediums. This means that advertising rules apply in full to paid social media adverts, to operators’ own social media content, to content marketing and to affiliate marketing carried out on their behalf. However, they do not apply to editorial content, which is not deemed to be selling a product or service. Advertising codes also require operators to ensure that targeting is used responsibly, using tools available on platforms to exclude under-18s and other vulnerable groups from exposure wherever possible. Where operators fall short of these standards, the ASA can take action or refer to the Gambling Commission for possible enforcement action. We continue to work across Government, with platforms and with industry to measure the effectiveness of these rules. Last year, the ASA significantly strengthened its rules specifically to address the rise of influencer marketing. That includes a change to prohibit any influencers or personalities with social media followings totalling more than 100,000 under-18s across different platforms from advertising gambling. The further strengthening of these rules ensures that children’s exposure to gambling is limited, and that gambling is not marketed to them by aspirational figures as a risk-free pastime or lifestyle choice. This sets higher standards to prevent gambling-related harm. Nevertheless, I recognise that many Members would like the ASA to go further in its regulation of the sector. I know that the Gambling Minister is meeting the ASA shortly, and I am sure she will raise some of the issues we have discussed today. I am also sure that she will be paying attention to this debate. We are also very conscious of the need to address the illegal market, and specifically the advertising of illegal gambling in an ever-changing digital landscape, which a number of Members have mentioned. Advertising is one of the primary advantages that licensed operators have to distinguish themselves from operators in the unlicensed sector, particularly when the risks associated with the illegal market are growing. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), made that argument this afternoon. Although estimates suggest that, historically, the illegal market in the UK has been relatively small, the issue of illegal gambling is of course a concern for this Government. That is why, since the Budget, we have increased efforts to tackle the illegal market. As the websites and advertisements of unlicensed operators can fall outside the scope of the robust rules that we have in place for licensed operators, we are paying particular attention to the issue of illegal gambling advertising through the work of our illegal gambling taskforce.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  Not right now. The Transport Committee in the previous Parliament specifically asked for that change. We are also making sure that taxpayers know how money is being used. Every local highway authority is now required to publish clear, accessible information on the condition of its roads, its maintenance plans and how it is investing the uplift it has received. That goes precisely to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) on accountability. The transparency reports help residents to understand what is being delivered, and ensure that authorities remain accountable for the outcomes they achieve. The reports are a tool for public confidence and a driver of improvement, and there are already encouraging signs. Last year, for the first time since 2017, the proportion of local roads receiving maintenance treatment increased. Alongside better reporting, we are updating the well-managed highway infrastructure code of practice, which is the cornerstone guidance for risk-based asset management. We want to ensure that it reflects new technologies, climate adaptation needs and modern expectations of highway resilience. The UK Roads Leadership Group and industry experts are leading the comprehensive refresh. We are working with AtkinsRéalis, which has 20 representatives in the World Road Association, so I hope we are learning from the international best practice raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). We expect the new guidance to be issued later this year. The focus on improving guidance goes hand in hand with strengthening the capability of the sector. Last summer, we provided funding for the UK Roads Leadership Group to deliver a programme of climate resilience workshops for local highways authorities. The sessions brought together practitioners and experts to strengthen emergency response and to improve preparedness for the increasingly severe weather and climate-driven hazards we face, supporting our wider climate adaptation strategy for transport, which was published in December. As we improve resilience, we are also helping councils to adopt new and innovative approaches to managing their networks. Rural authorities are directly benefiting from the Government’s £30 million Live Labs 2 programme, which tests new ways to decarbonise local highways. Maintenance projects include a Devon county council scheme that is using the A382 upgrade to trial new materials, digital technology and working practices to cut emissions across construction and operations. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, I have seen for myself how teams are exploring low-carbon street-lighting alternatives such as solar-powered studs and highly reflective markings, to reduce reliance on traditional lighting on rural routes. Similarly, I have seen local authorities across the country using new machinery and new technology to improve the quality of their road repairs. In West Sussex and South Gloucestershire, the Greenprint project is developing and testing sustainable construction materials with direct application to mixed rural networks. To conclude, this Government will continue to stand behind rural communities and the councils that serve them. We will continue to invest at record levels and to support local authorities to improve and maintain their roads, so that every rural resident, no matter where they live, benefits from a network that is safer, stronger and built for the future.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Driving Test Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s top priority is to reduce car practical driving test waiting times while upholding road safety standards. In November 2025, the Government announced that we will change the booking system so that only learner drivers will be able to book and manage tests, with learner drivers limited to two changes to their test. We are also introducing geographical restrictions. In addition, we are utilising military driving examiners. As of December 2025, there were 1,542 full-time equivalent driving examiners in post—the highest number since 2021.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning, panel. Do you think that the new passenger watchdog will provide a more effective route for passengers and their representatives—including all of us, as Members of Parliament—to have their voice heard when raising concerns about poor service and, equally importantly, getting their concerns resolved? Alex Hynes: Yes is the short answer, because the current consumer landscape in rail is fragmented. Transport Focus, the Rail Ombudsman and ORR each have a role. The Bill creates a single watchdog for passengers that has more power and resources. My understanding is that MPs will be able to refer matters to it. Essentially, it puts all the passenger-facing consumer obligations into one organisation and strengthens the accountability that Great British Railways will be subject to in the event that it delivers sub-standard service.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am proud of the passengers and accessibility duty and pleased that it was welcomed by accessibility groups. Am I right in saying that there is no comparable statutory duty that applies to Network Rail or the TOCs—in other words, that this would be an entirely new requirement? Alex Robertson: You are right that we are introducing a new duty and that that is extremely important in terms of accessibility. The general point I would make is that it is important that Parliament and the Government set out their intent in the legislation. How that is enacted and delivered will depend on a lot of things that are not in the legislation, such as the culture of the railway and how disabled passengers are engaged in the co-creation and delivery of it. As the passenger watchdog, we are very conscious that we have a duty to make sure that we do that as well. It is a definite step forward, but whether it delivers on the ground for disabled passengers in the way that is intended depends on a lot of things that are yet to come. Emma Vogelmann: An important consideration is the Transport Committee’s finding that the reason accessibility standards are failing and disabled people are having really negative transport experiences is that there are no statutory obligations. I completely agree that the Bill is a big step forward, but the duties themselves are very vague and do not necessarily at this point look at enforceable rights and corporate actions. Ben Plowden: It is welcome that there is a duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled people in the Bill. We think there is a case for strengthening that duty so that it aligns with the duty in relation to freight, which is to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers. There should also be an equivalent duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target, as she is required to do in relation to freight, so that, as we picked up on a minute ago, GBR does not end up being incentivised not to grow the network in order to meet its crowding and reliability duties, for example. It seems to us that giving it a statutory incentive to increase passenger use over time would be very helpful to build on the existing duty in the Bill.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. No one should be driving on our roads whose eyesight does not meet the required standard. We have chosen to consult on eye tests for those over 70, but it would be good advice for everyone to have their eyes tested on a regular basis. We have undertaken research on headlamp glare. I know that this is a growing problem, and I certainly recognise it as a driver myself. We are going to consider the outputs of the research that we already have and do further work, in addition to looking internationally at work on vehicle standards, but I absolutely want to take further action on headlamp glare.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I am very happy to commend those from my hon. Friend’s constituency who do such fantastic work to campaign, as well as the police and trading standards on the work that they do. We are determined to act on the things that they have led on.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, but I will not take any more interventions, because we are so short of time. The research will begin imminently and will involve a representative sample of local traffic authorities. It will seek to include both a physical measure of the extent of pavement parking and questionnaires to gather qualitative insights into its impact. That dual approach will allow us to understand not only where and how pavement parking occurs but how it affects people’s lives, and particularly the lives of vulnerable road users. It will also allow us to evaluate the impact of the pavement parking policies that we intend to implement. I had a very positive meeting co-ordinated by Guide Dogs, and I will continue to engage with stakeholders across the transport, accessibility and local government sectors, whose insights are invaluable. I am also mindful of the need to balance competing priorities, such as the availability of parking, the needs of delivery drivers and the importance of maintaining access for emergency services. However, let me be absolutely clear: the status quo is not acceptable. Pavement parking is a blight on our towns, cities and villages. It undermines inclusivity and equitable access. It sends a message, however unintentionally, that some people’s mobility matters less than others’. That is not a message that any of us should be comfortable with. We must recognise that pavement parking is not just a transport issue but a social justice issue. I am determined to ensure that the steps we take are meaningful and effective. That means considering lived experiences, closing evidence gaps and adopting policy that reflects the realities of modern Britain. Britain has changed significantly since the consultation in 2020. Technological developments such as new mobility solutions—the dockless e-scooters referenced earlier in the debate, e-bikes and even delivery robots—have changed the landscape. Our devolution agenda is putting power and decision making closer to those affected, where it should be. Our streets and our local authorities are evolving, and so must our policies. I thank all those who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue—Members of Parliament, local councillors, advocacy groups and members of the public—and assure them that their voices have been heard and will continue to shape the work ahead. Together, we can and will build streets that are safer, more accessible and more welcoming for everyone. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the matter of pavement parking.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pony and Trap Racing: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on securing this debate. I thank her for raising pony and trap racing, which is clearly an important issue for her constituents, although I confess that, until I started to prepare for this debate, it was not something that I had experienced, nor have I seen it in my constituency. I imagine that it is not something found in all constituencies, but it is clearly an issue in some. As the Minister responsible for road safety, I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of this Government. I want to be clear that ensuring the safety of all road users and improving road safety is one of the Department’s highest priorities. We are currently considering a variety of road safety measures for inclusion in a strategy, and I reassure the hon. Lady and others that the Department takes road safety seriously. As we develop the strategy, I am committed to continuing to engage with hon. Members, stakeholders and road safety organisations. Today’s debate forms part of that work, so I thank hon. Lady for taking this opportunity to bring the issue of pony and trap racing to my attention. I look forward to publishing the road safety strategy in due course. I note that concerns have been raised in this debate about pony and trap racing being a seasonal problem on certain roads, the potential for it to create risks on our roads and the disruption it can cause to local residents. The hon. Lady made a powerful case, setting out how the issue impacts people in her local area and why she is bringing it to the attention of the House. She also drew attention to the absence of a licensing framework similar to the licensing scheme for cycle races held on public roads. I also note the animal welfare concerns highlighted by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). In considering and potentially dealing with the issue of pony and trap racing, there is a challenge of ensuring that the use of a pony and trap as a legitimate transport means is not made illegal. The question is how to differentiate between activity that is legal and that which is not. There are already existing powers in the legislative framework to deal with occurrences of pony and trap racing that breach the current road traffic legislation. That is a local policing matter, and we believe that the existing powers are sufficient. The police can use those powers to tackle any unlawful pony and trap racing; for example, I understand that they have utilised existing powers such as dispersal notices as a means of preventing potentially unlawful pony and trap racing, and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the use of such measures. I want to make clear that the police are operationally independent, and that it is for them to treat each case according to its individual merits and make appropriate risk assessments about what action to take. It is clearly impossible to consider every conceivable set of circumstances that the police face in dealing with potential breaches of the law. As I have said, it is their role to make that judgment. There are existing powers under the law to deal with instances of dangerous or careless driving by motor vehicles or with people seeking to obstruct traffic, as the hon. Lady described—to deal with driving that falls below the required standards or with those who unlawfully obstruct the highway. Let me turn to the possibility that the hon. Lady suggested: regulating pony and trap racing in the same way as cycling events. I need to say at the outset that, to be frank, the Government do not currently have any plans to do so. The legislation on cycling events dates from 1960 and, although there have been reviews in the past, no legal changes have been deemed of sufficient priority for inclusion in any legislative timetable. It might be helpful to clarify how the requirements operate for cycling events. It is the event organiser’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the law and good practice, for example by providing sufficient numbers of marshals, with the appropriate training, at each event. The Government do not currently have any plans to legislate to require all cycling events to be licensable by local authorities. The current voluntary system works well, and local cycling events are a good way of encouraging more people to take up cycling, in line with the Government’s plans to boost cycling and walking. The Government often have to make difficult choices regarding legislative priority. The hon. Lady and other Members will be aware that Parliament has a packed legislative timetable and that the issues facing the nation and the Government are of a huge scale. Such measures as called for in this debate would therefore not be foremost in any Bill consideration. We do, however, always keep the law under review to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and I would be happy to meet with the hon. Lady to better understand the evidence she has on the nature of this problem and how widespread it is. Then we, as a Government, can revisit our priorities and look at the matter in further detail. As I have already said, I look forward to laying out our road safety plans in due course. Once again, I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate and for drawing to my attention the concerns of her constituents and the specific issues that she has raised. Question put and agreed to.