Sarah Green MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents did not want HS2, and they have been putting up with the disruption of construction for years. Some of them warned that this would be a colossal waste of money, and they were right. This railway is costing nearly a billion pounds a mile. Every pound of cost overrun is a pound not spent on the local infrastructure that my constituents actually use and need. Given the Department’s complete failure to date to hold HS2 Ltd to account, what commitment can the Secretary of State give that we will not be here again in a few years’ time, talking about HS2 overspend?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome today’s debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing it. I too wish to focus on the experience of those navigating the medical licence renewal process, but I begin by acknowledging that the DVLA is aware of its shortcomings in that area. When the chief executive Tim Moss appeared before the Public Accounts Committee in October last year, he was forthcoming and acknowledged that too many people wait too long for decisions on medical licence cases. He outlined a two-stage transformation programme: the migration to a new casework platform, completed in September, followed by a new medical services platform intended to digitise many of those transactions. He also confirmed that the new systems allow the DVLA to prioritise those who currently hold no licence. That is progress worth acknowledging, though Mr Moss also said that standards were “nowhere near where we want to be”. One of my constituents is a retired GP with 30 years in practice. He is familiar with DVLA regulations and processes. He suffered a cardiac arrest last summer, informed the DVLA immediately and has not driven since. He calculated that he would be legally permitted to drive again on 7 February and submitted his application, along with a detailed covering letter setting out all the relevant medical facts, eight weeks before that date, exactly as instructed. Ten days before his expected return to driving, neither his GP nor his specialist had received any inquiry from the DVLA medical department, so he called the dedicated medical helpline and was told, “Your application is being processed.” He is a retired doctor—he knew that could not be true. An application cannot be processed without the DVLA contacting his GP or specialist to verify the medical facts. His form had been sitting untouched for weeks on end. The helpline, rather than providing accurate information, was providing cover for a backlog. What makes this case notable is that my constituent spent 30 years navigating medical bureaucracy on behalf of patients, and even he could not get a straight answer or any meaningful progress from the DVLA. He put it plainly to me in his letter, saying that the helpline uses a “smokescreen” to disguise the backlog of what appears to be a chronically under-resourced department. I think that that is a fair characterisation and that Mr Moss would not entirely disagree. I return to the question of transformation. The new casework platform, the forthcoming medical services digital platform and the commitment to prioritise those without a licence are welcome, but a system migration does not fix the underlying problem if the staffing and processes within that system remain inadequate. I have three specific asks of the Minister on medical licences. The first is about transparency. The DVLA helpline must be able to tell applicants the truth about where their case stands. “Your application is being processed” is not an acceptable response when no processing is taking place. Applicants deserve accurate information. If it will take months, they should be told, so that they can plan accordingly. The second relates to parallel inquiries. The DVLA initiates inquiries to GPs and specialists sometimes late and, far too often, one at a time. A properly designed system would identify all necessary medical inquiries at the point of application and dispatch them all at the same time. That single change could reduce waiting times significantly without additional resource. My third question relates to a formal fast-track process for cases where the medical picture is clear. Mr Moss acknowledged when he was in front of the Committee that some cases are straightforward and resolved in days while others are genuinely complex. The system should reflect that distinction formally. Where specialists have already provided clear sign-off, those cases should not be sitting in the same queue as the most complex clinical decisions. In his evidence, Mr Moss told the Public Accounts Committee that the DVLA understands the impact these delays have on people’s lives. The impact on my constituent is that he is sitting at home unable to drive, being told that his application is being processed when it is not. I urge the Minister to ensure that the transformation programme at the DVLA delivers not just new technology but genuinely improved standards of service.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Fare Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  A parent has been in touch with me about the rising cost of rail travel for her daughter. Despite holding a railcard, the cost of her weekly travel to college increased overnight from £27.80 to over £40. She is worried that this will affect her daughter’s ability to attend college, as she may no longer be able to travel at peak times. Can the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that increases in rail fares do not restrict access to education, and would he, for example, support the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Railways Bill, which would ensure that fare increases do not exceed inflation?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Fare Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps she is taking to help improve the affordability of rail fares for passengers.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report. Although it is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, I do so with a sense of déjà vu, because we have been here before, on the anniversary last year and in debates on the Cumberlege review before that. The issue of redress for the victims is a well-trodden road. I start by paying tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned tirelessly for justice and change, and to prevent their experience from happening to others. I thank the Patient Safety Commissioner, Professor Henrietta Hughes, for the work she put into her report. She is with us in the Gallery today, along with many campaigners. I put on the record my thanks to Baroness Cumberlege for her exceptional work, before the Hughes report, to give voice to victims during the two years she led the Cumberlege review. I pay tribute to her for her continuing commitment to the victims. We are here today because, two years on from its publication, the Government have still not published an official response to the Hughes report. No redress scheme has been implemented and no timeline has been announced. We have repeatedly been told that the recommendations are being carefully considered, yet there is no date, no framework and no mechanism for justice in place. To be clear, the Patient Safety Commissioner did not decide one day to write the report; she was asked to pull it together and to look at the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. The report was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care in late 2022. In her foreword to the report, Professor Hughes was clear that, in accepting the commission, “the case for redress had already been made by the First Do No Harm review so my report would primarily focus on ‘how’ to provide redress rather than ‘why’…Secondly, patients must not be subjected to an emotional rollercoaster, meaning that commissioning this work would inevitably raise expectations and that it would be profoundly unfair to do so if the government had no intention of providing redress.”

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

  More

  I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the animal welfare point. It is legal to ride a horse down our public roads, but they are being put in unfair danger. On a busy dual carriageway with vehicles travelling at speeds of up to 70 mph, the lives of innocent road users and of the animals themselves, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, are endangered as the rolling roadblock forces motorists to slam on their brakes with no prior warning of the hazard ahead. Without proper regulation in place, there is a high risk of a serious accident or worse. Without licensing, there is no organiser to hold accountable for any of the unacceptable and sometimes dangerous behaviour taking place. The regularity of pony and trap events has increased in recent years, and it is outrageous that my constituents should be put through this on a regular basis. Just last month a constituent reported being run off the road twice by the vehicles supporting the race taking place. As the law stands, it is legal to use a pony and trap on the public highway, but there are no regulations in place and no licence is required. There are no procedures to follow and no accountability for those who organise pony and trap races. On the grounds of road safety alone, I urge the Government to introduce a licensing scheme. I would also like to mention the impact these races have on policing locally. In February, Thames Valley police received reports that over 3,000 people were expected to attend an event on the A413. The worry among the local community was palpable. Following significant commitment of resource and effort by Thames Valley police, the projected 3,000 people did not attend on that particular day. However, this is my second reason for calling for regulation: quite apart from the road safety angle, the level of policing time and resource that these races eat up is unacceptable. Thames Valley police has confirmed that there have been 200 incidents connected to pony and trap racing in our area alone in the last five years. At present, police forces are able to deal with individual offences as they arise, like dangerous driving. If reports are received far enough in advance, section 34 dispersal orders have previously been issued. While these give the police powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, or to disperse crowds, they do not prevent the races themselves from taking place. Once the race has started, it becomes extremely difficult and dangerous for officers to intervene. On this point I echo the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner that prevention is better than cure; I know he is calling for regulation in the way I am today. It is true that changes to the road infrastructure could act as a deterrent, but such a change in the road layout, at significant cost, would simply shift the activity somewhere else. That became clear when racing was displaced from Hampshire to south Buckinghamshire. There is a similar issue with the use of traffic regulation orders, both in terms of cost to the local authority and the shift in location of any racing event that comes as a result of it. There is an alternative solution available. The Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits the racing of motor vehicles and regulates cycle races. There is no equivalent regulation for pony and trap racing. I urge the Minister to consider formal regulation for pony and trap racing. I am not seeking to ban the activity in its entirety; I am calling for a permit or licence scheme, like that for cycle racing, for those wanting to race ponies and traps. Such a scheme would require an organiser to meet certain conditions and to seek permission from the local authority and police, to ensure events are well managed. Should there be any issues during or following the race, a single point of contact could then be held accountable. The police would be able to deploy officers resourcefully and in line with the scale of the event. Disruption to local residents would be significantly reduced, with advanced warning when a road closure was due to happen. Restrictions could even be placed on the dates and timings of events and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to, animal welfare could be put front and centre. There are many obvious risks involved with the act of pony and trap racing on public roads, and it is high time the Government imposed formal regulation. I request a meeting with the relevant Minister to explore that further. The safety of my constituents and other road users should no longer be put at risk due to unregulated pony and trap racing, and the officers of Thames Valley police, whose resources are regularly deployed to respond to reports of racing, should be better supported to enforce safe and fair use of the road for all, while not penalising those who wish to safely stage legitimate racing events.

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

  More

  I agree. These races happen in my constituency on a fairly regular basis and I have similar stories to share. One such race took place this weekend. Residents of Chalfont St Peter and Gerrards Cross have their weekends disrupted by pony and trap racing events, also known as sulky racing, far too often. During these events, the A413, a stretch of busy dual carriageway, becomes an unauthorised racetrack. The races attract not just competitors and their support vehicles, but spectators who gather to watch them and place bets on the outcome. To be clear about what I am referring to, pony and trap racing is a form of horseracing where two-wheeled carts are pulled by a single pony that thunders down a stretch of public road. These events can involve multiple traps racing each other or a single vehicle completing a time trial. Those taking part in these races in my community gather at a section of the A413 and run a series of races along the straight stretch of dual carriageway. The immediate danger is posed to those already using the dual carriageway. While the races are taking place, support vehicles follow the ponies and traps. Those are larger vehicles, usually 4x4s or pick-up trucks, which sometimes have a horse box with them. They drive next to each other and block both lanes of the carriageway, creating an illegal rolling roadblock to allow the race to take place.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The debate is about the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads but, to be more specific, there is no regulation and it is sorely needed. If someone wants to organise a cycling competition or road race in the UK using the main roads, there are regulations to follow. There are licences they need to get and authorities they have to consult, which means that cycling races are routinely organised safely and with minimum disruption to the community hosting a race. None of that is true for pony and trap racing. I suggest that the Government need to introduce regulations for pony and trap racing along the same lines, primarily because of road safety, but also because of the significant policing resource that these unofficial races eat up.