Lilian Greenwood MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for securing this debate. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government. I offer my condolences to all those affected by the incidents in his constituency that he mentioned, including Natasha’s family and friends. I pay tribute to him for raising awareness of this important issue. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, it is not unreasonable to expect to be able to go about our everyday lives without the fear or risk of accidents. The impact on individuals and their families and friends can be devastating. I share his view that we should collectively act to address those risks. As the Minister responsible for road safety, I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in the lead-up to the publication of the road safety strategy earlier this year. He has a track record of making the case for effective safety measures in his constituency and beyond. That is of course to his great credit. I am particularly struck by the fact that we are here on International Workers’ Memorial Day. Too many people are killed or injured as a result of their work, and it is apt that we are discussing this issue on a day when we are remembering those killed in workplace incidents. We must recommit to fight for a safer future for the living. As the right hon. Gentleman noted, accident prevention cuts across several areas and the responsibilities of many Departments. Within my ambit, it means road traffic collision prevention. More widely, accident prevention impacts home safety, safety in the workplace, product safety, building safety, safety in childcare, sickness prevention and much more. The right hon. Gentleman spoke movingly about the incident that we have all heard about as constituency Members. The Government clearly recognise the importance of prevention, protecting lives, promoting good health and ensuring that public services are not called upon when they do not need to be. Several hon. Members have talked about the impact of accidents on our economy and the national health service. It is the first job of Government to keep the British people safe. I know that colleagues in all Departments are taking measures to ensure our approach to accident prevention is as strong as it can be. With that in mind, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will allow me the opportunity to speak first about the work of my own Department. This country has some of the safest roads in the world, but years of complacency have allowed our road safety record to slip. Around four people die on our roads every single day—lives taken too soon, lives altered beyond recognition and lives grieved by families left behind. Language and terminology matter to victims of road traffic collisions. Since 2022, other than when required by specific legislation, the Department for Transport has used the term “collision” in relation to road traffic crashes, because the term “accident” can imply that events are unavoidable or without fault. We know that the vast majority of incidents on our roads are preventable. Earlier this year, my Department published the new road safety strategy, because we believe that road traffic collisions are preventable. Our strategy sets out how we intend to deal with the root causes of collisions. We have set out our vision for safer roads for all, including ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65%—70% for children—by 2035. Rooted in innovation and underpinned by the safe system approach, our strategy recognises that although driver error is inevitable, deaths and serious injuries on our roads are not. The strategy outlines concrete steps to better support road users, including consultations. Five consultations were published alongside the road safety strategy, on minimum learning periods, lower drink-drive limits and mandatory eyesight testing. I make no apology for consulting, because since we are publishing the first road safety strategy in a generation, we must take the time to get it right. It is right that we have set out in those consultations what we intend to do, but also that we listen very carefully to how best to make those changes. I want to see progress—I will be chairing a national road safety board to ensure the implementation of the strategy—and of course I want to see those numbers going down, as we have set ambitious targets for what we want to achieve over the next decade, but I do not think it was wrong to consult on them. The strategy commits to harnessing technology, data and innovation to improve the safety of vehicles and infrastructure. It sets out a strengthened approach to enforcement, putting penalties under review and considering new powers to suspend licences. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) rightly raised the potential of those new technologies, including AI, but he also highlighted the importance of getting that technology right, including automated vehicles. They have a huge potential, as we know that driver error is such an important contributory factor in many road traffic collisions. The ability to remove the potential for driver error with an automated vehicle is there, but we must make sure that the technology is as reliable as a careful and competent driver. That is why we have the piloting of the automated vehicles but with a safety driver in place at the moment. What applies to road safety as much as any other area of accident prevention is the importance of collective effort. We rely on partnerships with local authorities, industry, emergency services, charities, stakeholders and communities. In transport, we recognise the importance of a just culture, recognising that humans do make mistakes, systems can fail, safety improves when people are honest, and learning means more than blame. In aviation, rail and maritime, we have the accident investigation branches. They are not there to apportion blame or liability. Their focus is investigating serious incidents to ensure that we can learn from them and prevent reoccurrence. Accident prevention must be a call to action, not just a new policy or a set of regulations. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of “THINK!”, the Government’s flagship road safety campaign, which aims to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads in England and Wales. It seeks to change attitudes and behaviours among those at risk, and it is a good example of the importance of public awareness campaigning. I pay tribute to all those individuals, organisations, campaigners and response teams who make such a difference to lives across the country, both by raising awareness of those most at risk of harm and by standing ready and responding night and day to help people in danger. I am thinking of our lifeboat responders, our mountain rescue teams and many others. In housing safety—I think the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned this—the Government are taking various actions to improve safety and accident prevention. The decent homes standard is one of several new and updated measures to improve quality in the private rented sector. That includes Awaab’s law, which requires landlords to address issues of damp and mould within stricter timeframes—not accidents, but ill health caused by living in unsafe conditions. There are also new fines for landlords whose properties contain serious hazards. Action is being taken on all 58 recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry report, and that is intended to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system in the wake of that tragedy. We will never forget those taken too soon, or the impact that will still be felt every day by their loved ones. In December, the Government published the single construction regulator prospectus and consultation document, laying out plans for regulatory reform to integrate the regulation of buildings, products and professions. That followed the appointment of an expert panel to help guide the Building Safety Regulator-led review of the building regulations guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) both mentioned the dangers around rivers, canals, lakes and the sea. It takes a real collective effort by emergency services and volunteers to deliver search and rescue services, and the Government have made tangible progress in recent years to support voluntary organisations. In the recent Budget, a vehicle excise duty exemption was announced for mountain rescue, lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. That reflects a clear recognition of the public value of search and rescue volunteers and the practical costs they bear in carrying out their work. They also do important work making people aware of those dangers as part of that prevention agenda. I was saddened to read in the annual review of RoSPA, to which I will refer in a moment, that alcohol-related deaths have increased by 5% following a period of relative stability. Those include accidents caused by exposure or poisoning. All such deaths are a tragedy. The Government have committed to help people make healthier choices about alcohol, and we are working towards legal requirements for alcohol labels to display health warnings and consistent nutritional information. To better support people experiencing harmful drinking and alcohol dependence, we published the first ever UK clinical guidelines on alcohol treatment to drive improvements in treatment provision. Our extensive programme of implementation support for the guidelines has been positively received by commissioners and providers, and we continue to work across Government to consider further measures to reduce the negative impact alcohol has on health inequalities, crime and the economy. The same could be said of some drug use, which is also a major cause of accidents and poisonings. When it comes to health, it is worth speaking about falls. Falls accounted for almost half of all fatal accidents in the UK in 2023, and 59% of all accident-related hospital admissions in 2023-24, making them by far the largest single category of accidental harm. That is against a long-term backdrop of falls fatalities increasing by 81% between 2013 and 2022. There is hope, however, and again it comes to technology. Emerging evidence from Government-funded independent evaluations indicates that falls technologies can reduce falls in care homes by between 37% and 49%, as well as reducing hospital admissions and freeing up staff time. In the next year, the Government will set new national standards for care technologies and produce trusted guidance so that people can confidently buy and use technology that supports them or the people they care for. The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked some important questions about social care, and I will ensure that she receives a written response to those questions. Let me move on to workplace safety. The Government’s Employment Rights Act 2025 is an important step towards delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Ensuring statutory sick pay from day one will reduce the risk of presenteeism, a key risk in operational environments when people are at work but unwell. Limits on non-disclosure agreements will enable learning from incidents instead of silencing them. Reducing zero-hours working will ensure greater predictability in work patterns, reducing fatigue, working alone or rushed work. The creation of the Fair Work Agency will provide better protection for whistleblowers, reinforcing a strong safety culture in our workplaces. Making it easier for trade unions to organise ensures that more workplaces benefit from health and safety representatives and the vital work that they do. I pay tribute to trade unionists across the country who are health and safety representatives. I know at first hand the incredible work they do to keep workplaces safe.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the concern that the hon. Member and other hon. Members have raised but, as he will appreciate, that falls outside my Department’s remit. However, I will ask my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to respond on that point and on other questions that have been raised. I note the request for a meeting from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and I will ensure that that is drawn to their attention. Search and rescue in the United Kingdom is, at its heart, a collective national endeavour. It is not delivered by any single organisation or Department acting alone, but by a partnership that brings together Government, emergency services, charities, local responders and, critically, thousands of committed volunteers who stand ready day and night to help people in distress. I am glad to say that, while I have not had to be rescued from a mountain, I have witnessed a rescue and had the opportunity to enjoy the hills thanks to support, help and guidance from the national mountain rescue centre, which I believe is probably in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). That is a really wonderful place that has some fantastic staff who can guide people through some of the trickier aspects of conquering Tryfan or, indeed, any of the other hills in Eryri.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  The road safety strategy envisages a safer future for everyone on the road, including targets to cut deaths and serious injuries by 65%, and 70% for children, by 2035. It promotes partnership working across Government, local authorities, police and emergency services, industry and others to save thousands of lives, ease pressure on the NHS and support the economy.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for raising this important issue and congratulate her on her appointment as violence against women and girls adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care. I look forward to working with her to help to drive forward the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. I imagine that every woman here today will have recognised the issues under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) all described vividly what those issues mean for women in our daily lives. The fear of male violence is so normalised that it is easy to forget that it is anything but normal. I am pleased that many men, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), and indeed the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), are also committed to ensuring that the situation changes. As we have heard, women remain under-represented in cycling due to persistent safety concerns: 58% of women feel that their cycle journeys are limited by such concerns, and more than a third say that roads do not feel safe. Harassment, intimidation and poorly lit routes all contribute to a sense that cycling, particularly in the evening, is simply not a safe or viable option. Research conducted by Dr Caroline Miles and Professor Rose Broad at the University of Manchester found that, over a two-year period from 2021 to 2022, 68% of women survey respondents said they had experienced abuse while out running, but only 5% of those women had reported the abuse to the police.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Deaths and serious injuries resulting from road traffic collisions tear apart families and communities, and they come at great cost to our national health service and our country. Those are just some of the reasons why we are acting to reduce them.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I offer my congratulations and thanks to the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for bringing this debate to the House and allowing what has been a very useful discussion. I begin by acknowledging the vital role played by air ambulances and search-and-rescue helicopters in saving lives. Across the United Kingdom there are 21 air ambulance charities, covering all regions of the country by air and also, often, by land in rapid response vehicles. In Scotland, the Scottish Ambulance Service, funded by the Scottish Government, helps to convey patients to hospital from some of the most remote areas of the United Kingdom. Some of those areas are represented here this morning. As the hon. Member highlighted from his own family’s experiences—I hope his wife is recovering—these dedicated teams serve communities across the UK day and night and often in really challenging conditions, providing lifesaving care when it is needed most and delivering patients directly to major trauma centres and other specialist medical facilities. It is not only air ambulances that save lives. Bristow Helicopters operates a dedicated fleet of search-and-rescue helicopters on behalf of His Majesty’s Coastguard. From 10 bases, stretching from Newquay in the south-west to Sumburgh in the Shetland Islands, these crews stand ready to respond in order to save lives at sea and on land. When capacity allows, they also support the NHS to ensure that patients receive lifesaving care when air ambulances are unable to operate—for example, in particularly bad weather. I thank all members of our air ambulance and search-and-rescue teams for their continuing commitment to saving lives. In more remote regions, such as the highlands and islands of Scotland, air ambulance aircraft play a crucial role in transferring patients from smaller hospitals to specialist centres. These operations may be supported by HM Coastguard search-and-rescue air assets when capacity allows and when air ambulances are unavailable or where conditions are beyond the capabilities of smaller air ambulances. Working hand in hand with NHS colleagues, these teams ensure that patients receive the highest standards of care swiftly and efficiently, no matter the distance or challenge. However, this vital service depends on the availability of helicopter landing sites that helicopter operators are able and willing to use. These landing sites range from helipads and airfields to community spaces, playing fields and car parks, most of which require patients to be transported to and from them by land ambulance. Currently, the CAA does not formally regulate any of these helipads or landing sites. Although the CAA has best practice guidance—as the hon. Member highlighted—for hospital helipads, known as CAP 1264, it is not mandatory guidance. Helicopter operators can face unique challenges at these sites, including questions about legal responsibility for site safety and ensuring that there are no obstructions or bystanders who could be harmed by the powerful winds or downdraughts generated by a helicopter landing or taking off. As the hon. Member set out, that was made evident in 2022, when the downdraught produced by a search-and-rescue helicopter fatally injured one bystander, and seriously injured another, while it was arriving at Derriford hospital in Plymouth. Following that incident, HM Coastguard helicopters took the decision that they will transfer patients using helipads only where there is clear responsibility and accountability for safety at the site, as well as a helicopter operations manual that manages known risks. When those safety requirements are satisfied, ultimately it is still the decision of the pilot in command of a helicopter to make a dynamic risk assessment of landing at a particular site, based on the company’s standard operating procedures, safety management systems, weather conditions, and the situation on the ground on the day—these are professionals who can make such judgments. The Department for Transport continues to work with NHS Scotland, His Majesty’s Coastguard and helicopter operators to encourage all parties to work together to ensure safety at landing sites. I completely understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire on behalf of his constituent; he described the situation where his constituent had to be transported to a boggy field rather than a helipad. I understand why he has asked about the role of the Health and Safety Executive, which is investigating the Derriford situation. It would not be right for me to comment on or seek to intervene in a live investigation—the HSE is not responsible to the Department for Transport in any case—but my officials are working closely with the coastguard, the CAA, the NHS, and HEMS operators, as well as consulting with HSE to understand the concerns and ensure that operators can continue to fly into hospital helipads safely. But the decision about whether to land at any particular site is always at the discretion of the pilot in command. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire set out, at the moment coastguard helicopters are not landing at Portree because they will only land at sites where they know who is responsible and accountable for safety, and where there is a helicopter operations manual to help ensure safe operations. If someone from Portree and Braes Community Trust or NHS Scotland is willing to take responsibility for the site and produce a helicopter operations manual, the coastguard and the helicopter operator will consider landing at the site. I appreciate that this sounds like a huge undertaking, but it is worth saying that the site at Portree is not wholly dissimilar to the site at Arran, where the helicopter operating manual, which sounds like it might be a weighty tome, is only four pages long. It sets out a responsible person and the operations. The manuals can be 60 pages long—it depends on the complexity of the site and how busy it is. There is potentially a way forward, and the hon. Member knows that the Department will work with him and others to help find a solution. The Government recognise the crucial role that helicopter landing sites in rural areas, especially in the far north of Scotland, play in ensuring that local residents and visitors can access the highest possible standards of healthcare in an emergency. We are also cognisant of the potential risks to bystanders, ground staff and aircraft crew and patients when such sites are not properly managed and lack sufficient oversight. Since the Derriford incident, the Government have taken on a collaborative role with the blue-light aviation sector, and we remain committed to working together with all parties as one team to explore solutions that are capable of both advancing safety and safeguarding the provision of this lifeline service. I am sure that the Department and ministerial colleagues will be happy to work with the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire to look at the detail of this particular case and see if we can assist.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Community Helipads: Rural Access · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the work of Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance. I add my congratulations on their 25-year anniversary. It is clear that they have made a huge impact not just on the local community, but for the many visitors to that area. I am sure we all want to see the continuation of these vital services, which matter to so many people across this country and share a commitment to work together, where there are any issues, to ensure those services can continue. I have enjoyed today’s debate, and look forward to continuing these discussions on another occasion. Question put and agreed to .

• 16 Jul 2025 · Blue Badge Eligibility · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, Sir Christopher, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on securing this important debate and on sharing her personal experience and the experiences of her constituents. I also pay tribute to Kent residents Sandy Burr, Bev Evans and others whose personal stories have led to this campaign and to today’s debate; I thank the hon. Lady for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) spoke with passion and conviction in support of his constituents and those who face serious health concerns that give rise to some of the most difficult moments in our constituents’ lives. I recognise the need for a system that is fair and consistent. It should never be heartless or cold, and it should not feel like an obstacle course. I am committed to listening and to considering carefully the points that have been made today. I will come to my hon. Friend’s questions in just a moment. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for his contribution to the debate and for highlighting the examples from his own constituency. He asked what arrangements there are for monitoring councils’ processing times. The Department for Transport does not monitor councils’ processing times; that is a matter for councils themselves. We recommend that they should process blue badge applications within 12 weeks, but of course that will vary according to the local authority and the resources that it chooses to put into its blue badge team. These are decisions for local authorities, which are elected by local residents and are responsible and accountable to local residents. I absolutely recognise that when we allow local authorities to make local decisions, they will make different decisions, which sometimes leads to inconsistency between them. The Department for Transport sets the legislation around blue badges and provides non-statutory guidance to local authorities, but it is local authorities themselves that are responsible for administering the scheme. I recognise the issue that hon. Members from across the House have raised about the potential that that creates for inconsistency; it is one that I have reflected on over the period in which I have been a Minister, and I have dealt with numerous pieces of correspondence about it from MPs on behalf of their constituents. It has caused me concern and I have discussed it regularly with my officials in the blue badge team. Today’s debate is timely in making me consider again what more we can do to address the concerns that are being raised. Let me come back to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. He asked whether work is ongoing to review the scheme. We constantly consider the scheme and look to improve it. I felt that it was somewhat rude of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), to refer to things that were last changed in 2000 and then suggest that within my first year of being a Minister I should have conducted a review and made major changes; the last 14 years might have provided an opportunity to address some of those issues. Nevertheless, it is timely to think about the scheme and look at whether there is a need for review and further refinement. As I have said, there is guidance for local councils on best practice, and I know that local authority blue badge officers come together to talk about their experiences of administering the system and to share notes and best practice. I met a number of them when they last got together in Runcorn, which is where the blue badges are issued. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford also asked about the potential for cross-departmental work with colleagues in the national health service and the Department for Health and Social Care. I would be happy to explore that further with colleagues in those Departments; I hope that that will have the support of everyone who has spoken today. It may be helpful to step back for a moment to talk a bit about the scheme as it was intended and to reaffirm its purpose. As has been acknowledged, the scheme was introduced in 1971 and has served the UK public for over five decades. It provides vital support for people with severe mobility difficulties, whether those difficulties are visible or non-visible—so-called hidden disabilities. The scheme enables individuals to access goods and services by allowing them to park closer to their destination, whether they are driving or travelling as a passenger. The blue badge provides national on-street parking concessions, including the ability to park without charge or time limit in otherwise restricted areas and to park on yellow lines for up to three hours where loading restrictions do not apply, but it is important to note that the scheme applies only to on-street parking. Concessions in private or council-owned car parks are not guaranteed and may vary depending on the operator. All car parking providers are required to provide disabled parking spaces, and quite rightly so. In local authority car parks it is very likely, but not necessary, that the council will not charge those who are using disabled spaces, but in private sector car parks that might or might not be the case. I think that that also applies to hospitals. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), spoke about hospital car parks; they are outside the remit of my Department, but would be a useful part of the conversation. Although we recognise the changing landscape of local infrastructure and council-owned car parks—perhaps there are fewer of them, and more private car parks—we have to continue to ensure that the scheme remains effective and accessible for on-street parking. Each year, over 1 million blue badges are issued across England. The day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme rests with local authorities, which are responsible for assessing applications and for ensuring that badges are issued only to those who meet the eligibility criteria set out in legislation. I would like to take a moment to recognise the efforts of the local authority teams who deliver the service. I hope I can assure hon. Members that I know at first hand the passion and dedication that many local authority blue badge teams have in helping those who need access to parking. I have spoken to many of them, and I know how committed they are to supporting those in need. My first ask to colleagues today is that they encourage their constituents to provide as much detailed and high-quality information as possible when applying. I appreciate the points that have been made about how some people applying for a blue badge are doing so at a really difficult, traumatic and stressful time. However, providing detail helps local authorities to make informed and fair decisions in line with the guidance set out on the Government website. The Department provides non-statutory guidance to assist local authorities in implementing fair and consistent assessment and enforcement practices, but this is a matter for local authorities. We cannot intervene in individual cases, but we are committed to helping to support local authorities in delivering the scheme effectively. I really understand the concerns raised in this debate about eligibility for people living with cancer or other life-altering illnesses. They are serious and heartfelt concerns raised in response to constituents facing difficult and distressing circumstances, but before I come back to those issues it is important that I set out the rationale behind the current structure of the scheme. The eligibility criteria are designed to ensure that the blue badge is reserved for those with severe mobility impairments, whether physical or non-visible, that significantly impact their ability to access services. I know that the shift from the term “permanent and substantial disability” to “enduring and substantial disability” was a very deliberate change. It recognised that some conditions, particularly those affecting cognitive or mental function, might fluctuate or respond to treatment but still endure over time. I think the change was designed to allow for greater flexibility to recognise a broader range of disabilities, including those that might not be immediately visible. It also ensures that the scheme remains focused on mobility and the ability to access places and services safely and independently. Ultimately, a blue badge may therefore be awarded to an individual with a disability that is expected to endure in some way for the three-year blue badge issue period. Local authorities invest considerable time and care in assessing applications from individuals who do not automatically qualify in line with the legislation. Many authorities—including Kent county council, which is one of the largest issuers, if not the largest, of blue badges in England—work hard to ensure that their decisions are fair and evidence-based. In 2024 alone, Kent issued more than 33,000 badges, supporting more than 83,000 of its residents. I have to be honest about the kind of structural change that people are calling for today; it would represent a significant departure from the scheme’s current purpose. That is not to say that it is not a legitimate question to raise, but it would place additional pressure on a system that is already under strain. Many local authorities report that they are operating the scheme at a financial loss, with the current £10 fee no longer covering the cost of administration. Expanding eligibility without providing additional resources could compromise the integrity of the scheme and reduce the availability of disabled parking spaces for those who rely on them the most. I note that, in reaction to the recent campaign, many have understandably expressed support, but others have raised concerns about the potential impact on parking availability and enforcement, including those who are current badge holders. Nevertheless, the cases highlighted by the Kent Messenger campaign and taken up by Members today cannot be ignored. These are real people, facing real challenges, and the response requires both compassion and the determination to look for solutions. There is already plenty of room for local innovation; local authorities already have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to introduce locally determined parking concessions, which can include temporary permits or designated bays for individuals recovering from surgery or undergoing intensive treatment, such as chemotherapy. In 2012, the Department published an advice note encouraging local authorities to consider such schemes, and while they are voluntary and locally led, they offer a flexible way to respond to specific community needs, without altering the national framework of the blue badge scheme. Of course, local authorities may wish to explore options for hospital parking concessions for patients who require frequent access to treatment, which is a matter for discussion with local NHS trusts, but I recognise that such measures can make a meaningful difference to people who are navigating serious illness. In response to points raised today, I will ask my officials to review and update our existing advice note to provide clearer, more practical guidance on how local authorities can use those existing powers to support residents facing temporary or fluctuating mobility challenges. That would not change the core eligibility criteria for the blue badge, but in the short term, it may help councils to better understand the tools at their disposal. We have not really touched on this today, but it is important to note that blue badge schemes in England, Scotland and Wales are fully devolved, and each nation administers its own scheme, sets its own criteria and determines its own fee structure. In Wales, the devolved Administration has chosen to introduce a temporary blue badge option, allowing individuals to apply for a 12-month badge if they are recovering from or awaiting treatment for serious illnesses or injuries that have a significant impact on mobility. While I understand the appeal of such a model, it is important to recognise the scale of the English scheme and the context in which it operates. England has a significantly larger population and a far greater number of blue badge holders than Wales. Introducing a temporary badge scheme on the same model could place a real strain on local authority resources, many of which are already under pressure, and it could risk reducing the availability of on-street disabled parking spaces for those with long-term and severe mobility needs. Of course, a change could also lead to a big surge in applications, increasing administrative burdens and undermining reliability, processing times and the current operation of the scheme. That said, I remain open to learning from the experiences of the devolved nations. I note the Welsh Government’s recent publication of their review into the blue badge scheme. Where there are lessons to be drawn, or best practice to consider, I want to do so carefully and constructively. To conclude, I reiterate that the Government fully recognise the importance of accessible services for people with disabilities and serious health conditions. The blue badge scheme plays a vital role in enabling independence and dignity, and we are committed to ensuring that it continues to serve those in need. I am cautious about expanding eligibility in ways that could undermine the current scheme’s effectiveness, but I am keen to reflect on the concerns raised today. I will continue to engage with my officials and ministerial colleagues to explore how we can support local authorities in delivering compassionate, practical solutions within the existing framework. This is not the end of the conversation; I am listening, I will keep listening, and I look forward to continuing to work with hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that the blue badge scheme remains fair, effective and focused on those who need it most. I am open to the possibility of change to address some of the concerns that have been rightly raised today.