Simon Lightwood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  I have a lot to get through, so I am going to push on. The multi-year settlements will give areas the certainty they need to plan ahead, so that they are more flexible and local leaders can invest in the transport priorities that are right for their areas. Places with an elected mayor will benefit from either integrated settlements or a single mayoral transport fund, giving them more flexibility over how they use their funding. That reflects the fact that mayors are recognisable figures in their areas and accountable to their citizens, with mandates to represent them on the national stage. However, local transport authorities without a mayor will also benefit from simplified funding and will receive transformative multi-year flexible integrated transport funds and bus services funding. To support local leaders further, we published updated local transport plan guidance earlier this year, setting out what we expect local transport authorities to deliver in their areas and how to make the most of their transport funding. Improvements to buses are vital, particularly for communities in small towns, communities in rural areas and—I say this before my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) gives me the look—coastal communities. Buses are the only transport option in some places, but through the Bus Services Act 2025 we have given local leaders the tools they need to ensure that local bus services meet the needs of local people. These tools are accessible not only to mayoral authorities, but to all local transport authorities across England, with the Department for Transport providing support through the franchising support fund and franchising pilots programme. This work includes funding to develop pilot programmes that test different models of franchising through a small number of rural LTAs. DFT is also funding a franchising expert group, which will provide expert support and advice on bus franchising to authorities and could be engaged to aid with troubleshooting and challenges such as cross-border services, which we addressed in the Bus Services Act but are important for local areas to consider when drawing up their bus service improvement plans. As well as targeted franchising support, we are providing meaningful funding to support and improve bus networks—a total of £3 billion over the next three years.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the right hon. Lady is quite capable of representing her constituents directly with the Mayor of the West Midlands, and I gently remind her that she was Transport Secretary at one point, and could have done some of this work herself during that time.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing the debate, and thank all Members for their insightful contributions. If I do not manage to get to all the individual points, I will follow them up with hon. Members. My hon. Friend has spoken consistently about the importance of reliable and affordable transport connections for communities across Rossendale and Darwen. For too long, small towns have been held back by poor connectivity, whether because of limited bus services, unreliable rail links or the day-to-day frustrations of deteriorating local roads. We are determined to change that. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) talked about connectivity. Transport in this country has been fragmented for too long. Through the Better Connected strategy, we are changing that. We are setting out a national vision for an integrated, accessible and safe transport network that people can rely on to make the journeys they need to make easily, wherever they live across England. By taking a holistic approach to transport, we can make a real difference for communities through improved connectivity, integrated ticketing and improved cross-modal connections, so that even those without direct rail links are connected to the wider network. Transport should feel like a single joined-up system, not a series of disconnected parts. Local leaders are key to delivering this vision. They know the transport challenges their areas face and are best placed to decide how to improve transport in their areas. We are backing local leaders in every local transport authority to make improvements by providing £21 billion of local transport funding through simplified multi-year funding settlements.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  I will not—I have to make progress. The majority of local transport funding is allocated by formula to give a fair share of funding for all areas. For example, our formulas take into account the length of roads, population size and rurality, so that funding reflects an area’s circumstances and need.

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

  More

  I will address that point in a moment. Enforcement at the roadside is a matter for the police. Supported by the DVLA, enforcement officers are working closely with trading standards to tackle illegal supply, so the Government are not standing still. We are working with policing partners to strengthen enforcement, including by funding the roads policing innovation programme. We are reviewing the registered number plate supplier scheme, considering a new British standard for plates and exploring how technology can identify illegal plates more effectively. We also understand the importance of accurate records. Although the vast majority of vehicle records held by the DVLA have up-to-date and traceable registered keepers, we are always looking at ways to improve their accuracy. Drivers deserve timely and safe decisions, staff deserve modern systems that support their professional judgment, and the public deserve to have confidence that safety and fairness remain at the heart of our licensing system. Acknowledging where services have fallen short matters, but so does recognising the progress that has been made. I commend these efforts to the House.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on the reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. I appreciate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee facilitating it. The DVLA touches almost every household in the United Kingdom. It is one of the most advanced and large-scale digital organisations in Government, handling billions of interactions each year. Over 84% of transactions are now completed online and the system works well for most drivers. A standard non-medical driving licence application is typically processed in just two to three days, which demonstrates what a modern public service can achieve at scale. However, I want to focus on where the service has not worked well enough—in drivers’ medical services—and explain what it is being done to put that right. Drivers’ medical services have been a source of significant concern for Members across the House and, more importantly, for our constituents. For many people, the ability to drive is essential. It supports independence, employment, caring responsibilities and access to healthcare. When a licence is delayed because of a medical investigation, the impact is immediate and personal. People can face lost income, isolation, missed appointments and prolonged uncertainty. The Government are clear that the service levels in the drivers’ medical services have fallen below expectations for far too many drivers who are waiting for a licensing decision, often, as has been pointed out numerous times during the debate, after doing everything they have been asked to do. I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and make excuses or point at the previous Administration for the mess that we inherited, but I am going to say that I am sorry. I am sorry to all those who have been impacted by the delays. We are going to put things right—we are putting things right. Peoples’ frustration is justified, and it deserves both explanation and action. It is important to understand the scale and complexity of the challenge. Demand for medical licensing decisions has risen sharply and consistently. In 2024 to 2025 alone, the DVLA made more than 830,000 medical licensing decisions, the vast majority of which did not involve MPs, and nor should they have to. Demand continues to rise, driven in part by an ageing population who quite rightfully wish to remain mobile and independent for longer. As has been pointed out, not all medical cases are the same. Many straightforward cases such as those notified online for well controlled diabetes can be resolved quickly—sometimes within days—but an increasing proportion are complex and require detailed clinical evidence from NHS professionals or specialist reports and examinations, all of which, I will add, should be paid for by the DVLA. Those decisions cannot be rushed. The DVLA’s overriding duty is to protect road safety, and every decision must be based on sound medical advice. That evidence is informed by six independent medical advisory panels covering key conditions that affect safe driving, including cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric and visual disorders. The expert panels ensure that decisions reflect modern clinical practice and support the introduction of new treatments. A good example is the recent change allowing drivers with diabetes to use continuous glucose monitoring, removing a significant burden for drivers while improving efficiency. Despite the dedication of DVLA staff, at times demand has exceeded capacity. That pressure was compounded by the need to replace a legacy IT system. Introducing a modern casework system was essential, but it required investment, experienced staff input and training. In the short term, that has contributed to longer decision times, which rose to 71 working days, alongside increased complaints, call volumes and, of course, correspondence from hon. Members. What matters now is progress, and progress is being made. Since September 2025, all new and renewed medical cases have been processed through a single modern digital casework system. Legacy cases have also been migrated, meaning that all driver medical teams are now working in one digital environment. On 31 March, the DVLA launched its new digital medical services platform, which allows far more drivers to notify conditions, apply for new licences and renew licences online. It reduces errors, improves accuracy and enables staff to focus on the most complex cases. Initial case actions can now be taken within 24 hours. Staff are supported by decision-tree logic, and customers can be contacted by email, reducing uncertainty and ensuring that communication is flowing. On the email point, some sections of the law stipulate that communication must still be done in writing. The system will continue to be developed. Further automation of letters and medical questionnaires is planned, and more customers will be brought on to the platform over time, driving further efficiency. Alongside digital reform, the DVLA has also increased staffing capacity. An additional 43 medical caseworkers are already in training, with a further 22 joining shortly. The steps that we are taking are already delivering results. So far in April, the average time to make a licensing decision in medical cases is 56.6 working days, which is a significant reduction from 71.4 days in February. The DVLA will continue to prioritise cases where drivers need their licence for work or other urgent purposes. Hon. Members may also be aware that in many cases drivers are legally able to continue to drive while applications are being processed—when it is safe for them to do so—under section 88 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as has been mentioned. While the delays in the return of those licences, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), should not be happening, drivers should be covered by that section 88 ability. However, I am happy to pick up specific cases for my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the Chamber. Some delays remain unavoidable, particularly when information from healthcare professionals is outstanding. The DVLA issues automated reminders, but safe licensing decisions depend on adequate medical input. That is why the DVLA is also working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology through the CustomerFirst programme, which is exploring further reforms to the drivers’ medical processes, including secure digital links with the NHS. Those changes sit within a wider transformation of the DVLA. The new driver and vehicles account allows motorists to manage their details digitally and to self-serve more easily. By 2030, the DVLA intends to operate as an even more digital insight-led organisation that is faster, fairer and more consistent, while retaining safeguards for vulnerable drivers. No one underestimates the impact that the delays have had, but it is right to acknowledge that real action is under way and that real progress is now being delivered. Every life lost on our roads is a tragedy. Younger drivers are disproportionately involved in serious road collisions. Drivers aged 17 to 24 make up just 6% of licence holders, yet they are involved in nearly a quarter of all fatal and serious collisions. Those figures are stark and demand action. That is why the Government’s road safety strategy includes a consultation on minimum learning periods before a learner driver can take their practical test, which would allow learners greater exposure to various conditions, such as driving in poor weather, at night or in heavier traffic, helping them to develop essential skills and judgment while preserving the freedoms that come with passing a test. We are also consulting on lowering the drink-drive limit for newly qualified drivers, alongside continued investment in the THINK! campaign, which targets those most at risk—particularly young men—by focusing on speeding and drink-driving. Road safety is not only about young drivers, though; everyone deserves to feel safe on our roads, including older drivers and families. Around 24% of the drivers killed in 2024 were aged 70 or over. Although many older people drive safely well into later life, it is right to address risks linked to eyesight and cognitive change. That is why we are consulting on mandatory eye testing for drivers aged 70 and over, and developing options for cognitive testing, recognising that fitness to drive is about capability, not age. I encourage Members to ensure that their constituents engage with the consultation that is under way. I will pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) made about optometrists. They are able to inform the DVLA of a medical condition, including eyesight issues, if a patient cannot or will not do so. It is important to point that out. I turn to the growing concern around ghost plates and other non-compliant number plates, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) mentioned and which undermine road safety and enforcement. Let me be clear: it is already illegal to sell or display ghost or non-compliant number plates. Only DVLA-approved registered number plate suppliers may supply plates, and they must meet strict standards and keep records. Drivers who use illegal plates can face fines of up to £1,000.

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

  More

  indicated assent .

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  I have felt strangely popular all of a sudden, since last week’s announcement opening the fund to applications from councils across England, which can apply for funding to repair or replace key transport structures that are failing, and that they cannot afford to fix alone. That is part of a £1 billion package to enhance England’s road network. The fund will target England’s most critical road structures and give councillors direct access to funding for proper, lasting fixes that make journeys safer and communities proud of the infrastructure that they depend on. For too long councils have known which bridges and flyovers need fixing, but they have not had the funding to do it properly. The structures fund will put funds directly into the hands of councils to fix those structures for good. That will allow people to get safely to where they need to be on infrastructure of which they can be genuinely proud. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will be aware, my Department considers Hammersmith bridge a good candidate for investment from the structures fund. We intend to consider the viability of future funding for the next stage of works through that route. However, to ensure absolute fairness, any funding for Hammersmith bridge will be subject to the same controls and eligibility criteria as other schemes funded through the structures fund. In addition, any funding for Hammersmith bridge will be contingent on identifying a cost-effective engineering solution within a reasonable timescale. It is important that any chosen engineering solution must be affordable within the constraints of the structures fund. It is also an expectation of the Government that the local contribution toward the cost of any future repairs for Hammersmith bridge is provided. That is the case for all projects being assessed for funding through the structures fund. Although at present there are no plans to specify a minimum level of contribution, my Department intends to assess higher contributions and additional third-party contributions favourably. Some hon. Members mentioned a historical agreement to split the funding into a third, a third and a third. Obviously that was under a different Administration; I just know where we are today. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney continues to call for a further meeting of the taskforce. Indeed, I think we have had many exchanges on that question. Following the previous meeting of the forum, my officials continued their work with key stakeholders to progress viable engineering solutions for the next stage of the works on Hammersmith bridge. A final decision on those solutions will now be made via the structures fund. I assure my hon. Friend—and my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—that when we are in a position to hold a further taskforce meeting, it will discuss issues of significance to the project and ensure that it remains a good use of stakeholders’ time. As such, I intend to convene a further meeting of the taskforce to discuss next steps once funding awards are made through the structures fund and agreed. My officials will be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney to arrange the specifics of that meeting in due course. I will remark briefly on the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). It is a shame that he chose to make his response to this issue an overtly party-political broadcast. All I would say is that nobody is buying what he is selling in this instance. People have seen the history. They remember the history. They remember the inaction of the previous Government. We have a structures fund that will help to restore structures across our country. We are taking action; we are not just leaving it there on the desk with inaction. In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for her continued dedication to highlighting the issues of the closure of the bridge to motor vehicles, and the issues that causes to her constituents and others in the surrounding area. I assure her that my Department will provide appropriate support to LBHF for the Hammersmith bridge restoration project as it looks to progress the next stage of repairs through the structures fund.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who I have worked with extensively since taking up my post, for their contributions. I listened carefully to the remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Putney made about the future of Hammersmith bridge, which I appreciate is of particular interest to the constituents of all three Members that I mentioned, as well as the people in other constituencies across south and west London. As my hon. Friend is aware, Hammersmith bridge is an historic, grade II listed suspension bridge. It opened in 1887, and was built on the foundations of an earlier bridge that opened in 1827. As has been said, the bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, with which the responsibility for maintaining and making decisions about the repair of the bridge ultimately lies. This unique wrought iron structure has served generations of Londoners for nearly 140 years, and although it is deeply unfortunate that it has been closed to motor vehicles since 2020, the safety of those using it is, of course, the utmost priority. My Department has worked closely with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London to help to ensure the ongoing safety and stability of Hammersmith bridge. In March 2025, my Department provided the borough with £4.7 million for crucial repairs to Hammersmith bridge hangers. That funding has allowed the continued use of the historic structure by pedestrians and cyclists, and brought the total amount of Government funding for the bridge to £17 million to date. Furthermore, my Department has reconvened the Hammersmith bridge taskforce, which had been on hiatus for several years. That was instrumental in providing a forum in which interested stakeholders could discuss the next steps, go back to basics and look at all viable engineering solutions for the future of Hammersmith bridge. Last year, my Department reached a spending review settlement with the Treasury, which provided the overall capital envelope for transport investment. As part of the settlement, we secured funding to create a structures fund. It was not about paying lip service for local elections, as suggested by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, but was established back in SR 25. It will inject urgently needed funds into repairing run-down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels across the country, making everyday journeys safer, smoother and more dependable.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. These draft regulations are being made under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to lower the minimum age at which the Office of Rail and Road, or ORR, can issue a licence to drive trains on the British mainline railway from 20 to 18 years. The conditions for driving trains under the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 2010 regulations, will remain the same. The conditions include the completion of at least nine years of primary and secondary education, or vocational training equivalent to level 3 qualifications, and proof of passing medical, psychological, fitness and general professional competence examinations. I will begin by providing some background on the legislative regime and why the changes are being brought forward. The rail network depends on approximately 19,000 train drivers to operate passenger and freight services. The 2010 regulations require train drivers to hold a licence confirming that they are fit and competent, and an employer-issued certificate authorising them to drive specific trains on specific routes. The 2010 regulations implemented the EU train driving directive, which sets a default minimum licensing age of 20 across the EU, and gives member states the option to adopt a lower age of 18 for domestic services. The UK did not take that option when it transposed the directive in 2009, but other countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, have since done so successfully. In February 2024 the Rail Safety and Standards Board, or RSSB, published research on lowering the minimum age to be a train driver in Britain. It found that 18 and 19-year-olds can drive trains safely when held to the same standards as older recruits. Crucially, the research found that training, practice and exposure to train driving, not age, are the determining factors in whether a train driver will perform the responsibilities of the role effectively. Support for lowering the minimum age was reaffirmed in May 2023, post the implementation review of the 2010 regulations. That research prompted the previous Conservative Government to consult on the proposal. The consultation, published in May 2025, showed broad support from major industry bodies, including ASLEF and the train operators.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are proud to be able to contribute towards diversifying the occupation of train driver and giving more people access to becoming drivers and working on the railway. Lowering the age of driving is just one step in the process, of course, and moves us closer to delivering a railway fit for the future. We are grateful to ASLEF for drawing this needed legislative change to our attention, and for working with us in Government to lower the driving age and to deliver the Railways Bill. For the reasons that I have set out, on 7 May 2025 my Department confirmed that we will proceed with lowering the minimum age to be a train driver, bringing Great Britain in line with many international counterparts. To ensure a smooth transition, we asked the industry to prepare an implementation plan, which was used to inform a timetable for changing the law. The Rail Delivery Group gathered industry specialists, who confirmed that existing safeguards, testing and supervision remain appropriate for younger entrants, reconfirming that a lower minimum age for train driving can be introduced safely. The Department and the ORR approved the implementation plan in December 2025 and published it on gov.uk on 19 March 2026. The plan proposed improvements that industry will implement to strengthen recruitment, assessment, management and training for all new drivers, not just younger applicants. The improvements include preparing formal guidance for operators to ensure recruitment, training, safeguarding and management practices are updated to support line managers and younger drivers, strengthening entry routes and training through revisions to the train driving level 3 apprenticeship standard, and the development of a new foundation apprenticeship. Other proposed improvements include developing a communications plan to raise awareness of the new opportunities afforded by the change in law and how applicants can prepare, developing a new recruitment portal with resources and information to support applications for train driving roles, working with pathfinder operators to identify and share best practice, and running a long-term study to monitor the effects and experience of the change to help to refine the system over time. The industry has assured us that the arrangements will be in place by June of this year, which is why we have scheduled this legislative change to take effect on 30 June 2026. From that date, young people will be eligible to apply for train driving positions. I turn now to the reasons why the Government are bringing forward these regulations. The rail industry is facing significant skills shortages, particularly in train driving. Around 25% of the current workforce are expected to reach retirement age by 2030. We project a deficit of 2,500 train drivers by the end of the decade unless action is taken. It is imperative to address that retirement cliff edge, which risks the industry’s ability to maintain current service levels; indeed, operators are already reliant on overtime for sustained timetables. Lowering the minimum age of train drivers will not on its own solve train driver shortages—it is the responsibility of operators to take steps to secure their workforce—but it is an important first step. The current minimum age of 20 acts as an arbitrary barrier to entry to the profession. By that age, many young people have already committed to other employment, vocations or study. Lowering the minimum age to 18 will allow operators to engage school leavers and offer a clear, structured route into a highly skilled and respected profession. This policy is about not only creating new opportunities for young people, but taking decisive action to ensure that the railway remains resilient, safe and properly staffed for the future. Alongside this measure, we will be working with industry to support an increase in training capacity to ensure that more train drivers are trained into roles and put into service. The policy’s aims are therefore clear: to lower the average age of the driver workforce, increase the number of train drivers in the industry, and create a more stable and diverse profession that reflects the communities it serves. I now turn to questions raised by the scrutiny Committees in their consideration of the draft regulations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the draft regulations on 4 March and did not draw special attention to them. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had some questions concerning implementation and policy aims. and wished to draw the special attention of the House to them in its 52nd report, published on 26 February. I will outline and respond to those questions in turn. First, the Committee asked how regulations will support 16 and 17-year-olds into train driving, and whether the minimum age for the train driving level 3 apprenticeship could be lowered. Since our announcement, my Department has worked with the Rail Delivery Group, Skills England and the Department for Education to explore that. As a result, the minimum entry age for the train driving apprenticeship will be reduced from 18 to 17 and a half, with the intention that that should take effect alongside the regulations. The practical effect of that is to allow young people to begin classroom learning and supervised practical training earlier, while remaining fully compliant with the Working Time Regulations 1998. Secondly, the Committee asked when the implementation plan would be published. The plan was issued on 19 March and is available on gov.uk. The period between the laying of the regulations on 10 February and 19 March was needed to finalise the apprenticeship offer and ensure that it aligned fully with the new licensing arrangements. Thirdly, the Committee asked whether there will be a clear pathway for 16-year-olds, so that the train driving apprenticeship becomes a viable option for school leavers. Alongside lowering the eligibility age for train driving apprenticeships, the industry is developing a rail foundation apprenticeship for 16-year-olds, providing a structured skills route into driving. Additional access courses have also been developed to help school leavers to build the non-technical skills needed for driver assessment and selection. Fourthly, the Committee asked for assurance on operational safeguards and oversight. I can confirm that all existing testing and competence requirements will remain in place. In addition, the implementation plan specifies that operators will update internal procedures and safeguarding arrangements for younger trainees. We expect operators to share learning and best practice to support long-term implementation. That will be formalised through a 10-year longitudinal study to monitor the progression, wellbeing and performance of younger drivers, providing a clear mechanism for oversight. Fifthly, the Committee asked about the timetable for wider reforms to the train driver licensing regime, noting concerns about training capacity and projected shortages. Reasons for projected shortages and capacity issues vary across operators and across the country. The Department is developing proposals to reform the 2010 regulations to address those issues and intends to consult on them between 2026 and 2027, as part of the transition towards Great British Railways. We will look to GBR to provide strategic leadership on this matter in the long term. Finally, the Committee asked whether the findings of the longitudinal study will be published. The study will be led by the industry through the Train Drivers Academy, and the Department has been assured that the results will be published annually, ensuring transparency and continued scrutiny. In summary, these regulations lower the minimum age at which an individual may be issued a train driving licence from 20 to 18, provided that they meet the same rigorous licensing conditions that apply to all drivers, which will remain unchanged. The change in law is scheduled to come into force on 30 June 2026, enabling young people from across Great Britain to apply for train driving positions from that date. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespersons for their contributions. The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay is quite right to mention those stats on the challenges we face. The average train driver is 47 years old, with 40% of drivers over the age of 50 and just 4% under the age of 30. That trend is set to continue, and we expect 25% of train drivers to reach retirement age by 2030. Turning to other industries, the right hon. Member mentioned coach and bus, but in his time as the Buses Minister he also did not take that forward. We did a consultation in 2024 and we are looking at the topic. We will continue working with Confederation of Passenger Transport and the Road Haulage Association before we take any action, to ensure that it is evidence led and safety focused. But indeed, 18-year-olds can fly planes and join the armed forces; surely they can drive our trains. The right hon. Member also asked about available routes into train driving for school leavers aged 16 and 17. They will have several clear routes. First, a new rail foundation apprenticeship is being developed for young people from the age of 16; it will introduce them to the rail environment and help them to build the technical and behavioural skills needed before progressing to a full train driving level 3 apprenticeship. Secondly, the minimum age for entering the train driving level 3 apprenticeship will be lowered from 18 to 17 and a half. That will allow young people to begin classroom learning and supervised practical training earlier. Thirdly, operators are preparing new access and preparatory courses that will help school leavers to develop the essential non-technical skills required for the driver assessment process. Together, those pathways will provide a structured and well supported opportunity for 16 and 17-year-olds to prepare for a career in train driving before they are eligible for a licence at 18. To conclude, these regulations deliver a focused and widely supported reform. They lower the minimum licensing age from 20 to 18 while fully ensuring that the safety, medical and competence standards that underpin the railway are maintained. These changes will widen opportunities for young people and help operators draw from a broader talent pool at a time when many experienced drivers are approaching retirement. In doing so, the regulations will help to build a more resilient, diverse and sustainable driver workforce and secure the long-term future of our railways. I urge the Committee to support these measures and approve the regulations. Question put and agreed to .

• 14 Apr 2026 · Dualling of the A21 · Hansard source

  More

  This is not to say that dualling will never happen, and it is entirely right for the hon. Member and other hon. Members to continue to advocate and build the case for such major improvements. Where there is strong cross-party support from across the region, that sends a clear signal for potential future investment, and I encourage hon. Members to continue to engage with National Highways and other regional partners on what more can be done to improve the performance of the route for the communities it serves. To touch on some other points, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about other forms of transport connecting communities, and I know that she has made representations in favour of improving the speed and frequency of trains between Hastings and London. While that sits outside of my remit as the Minister for roads and buses, I obviously encourage her to continue pushing for those upgrades. I cannot commit to dualling the A21 at this stage, but I can make the commitment that National Highways will continue working with the hon. Gentleman and the A21 reference group to ensure that safety is prioritised on this route. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye spoke about overnight closures, and I commit to raising that personally with National Highways to see what we can do to improve those circumstances.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Dualling of the A21 · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, there are no current plans considering dualling, but National Highways routinely considers the performance of the strategic road network as part of its route strategies process. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that the current performance and potential future investment needs of the A21 will continue to be assessed in that context to inform future road investment strategies. I have no doubt that he will continue to lobby and to engage with National Highways, along with the A21 reference group. As I have said, I will take away the issue of overnight closures. In closing, I reiterate that the Government recognise the strategic importance of the A21 and the strength of feeling of Members and the communities affected by its current performance. While difficult decisions must be taken about investment priorities, we remain committed to working constructively with National Highways to deliver benefits for road users, and I welcome the continued engagement of Members in building that case. The concerns raised in this debate will be carefully considered as we look ahead to future investment opportunities on the strategic road network. Question put and agreed to.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Dualling of the A21 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) for securing this important debate and for his continued advocacy alongside the work of the A21 reference group on what I know is an important issue for the communities they represent. I welcome the opportunity this evening to set out the Government’s position on the A21, its strategic importance and how it has been considered in our longer-term approach to investment in the strategic road network. The A21 is a key route in the strategic road network, performing a vital role in connecting coastal communities in East Sussex and larger towns in Kent to the M25 and the wider national network. The road supports a wide range of journeys, such as commuters travelling to work, businesses moving goods and services, tourists visiting the coastal towns of Bexhill and Hastings, and people making everyday local trips. When the road falls short in terms of capacity and reliability, particularly on its single-carriageway sections, this can have a real impact on economic opportunities, journey times and quality of life. Turning specifically to the southern section of the A21, National Highways recognises performance concerns, particularly around safety. It has invested over £20 million since 2021 to improve safety between Sevenoaks and Hastings. I recognise, however, that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle wants further investment. As the House will be aware, on 26 March, the Government published the third road investment strategy, committing a total of £27 billion to operate, maintain and improve England’s strategic road network over the next five years. That investment will ensure that the network remains safe and reliable while supporting economic growth and improving journeys for users across the country. RIS3 places a greater focus than ever before on the maintenance and renewal of our existing network, with a smaller number of enhancement schemes. Improvements to routes such as the A21 need to be considered in that wider context. RIS3 will deliver tangible improvements through safer and smoother journeys for road users and through targeted programmes tackling key pinch points on the network. For the A21—as the hon. Member will be aware —one of the main pinch points can be found at the Kippings Cross roundabout, where the dual-carriageway section meets the single-carriageway section. That junction is being considered for improvement as part of one of the new national programmes in RIS3, and I encourage hon. Members to engage with National Highways over the months ahead as this work progresses and the schemes within the programme are prioritised for delivery. As for dualling the remaining single-carriageway stretches of the A21, there are no plans to do so at the present time. It does not form part of the plans set out in RIS3, and it is not one of the schemes included in the pipeline of schemes for construction in the early 2030s. Dualling the A21 would carry a significant cost, and the delivery of such a scheme would be really challenging, given the local topography and the number of settlements that the route passes through. It would also have significant environmental impacts—I know that there are sites of significant environmental interest in the area, including ancient woodland—and would require, I think, at least three or four bypasses around villages.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her question. This sounds like a scheme that could benefit from the structures fund.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Department continues to give funding that is devolved to local leaders. It is up to the democratically elected local leaders to decide how to spend it. Funding is allocated for the whole of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to deal with that.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. We have ambitious plans in England, and a record £7.3 billion investment and clear standards to ensure that councils fix roads properly for the long term. Only Scottish Labour has a plan to build on this approach and to end the pothole plague north of the border.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Pothole Repairs: Strategic Road Network · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that constituents should report potholes to their local authority. The good news is that by the end of this Parliament we will have almost doubled the amount of funding to allow those councils to get on top of this pothole plague.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Pothole Repairs: Strategic Road Network · Hansard source

  More

  It is not acceptable for this Reform-led council to refuse to provide basic information to my hon. Friend’s constituents. As I mentioned earlier, 25% of Reform-led councils have been rated red—the lowest rating. It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that Labour councils have come out on top. I hope that her constituents will keep that in mind when they go to the polling stations in a couple of weeks.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Pothole Repairs: Strategic Road Network · Hansard source

  More

  National Highways targets the most serious potholes for repair within 24 hours. Under the new road investment strategy, published today, it must keep 96.2% of road surfaces in good condition and resurface around a quarter of its network over the next five years. In addition to National Highways’ work on the strategic road network, Lancashire combined county authority is eligible to receive £268 million in highways maintenance funding over the next four years as part of our £7.3 billion investment in local roads.

• 26 Mar 2026 · A14 Environmental Mitigation: Huntingdon · Hansard source

  More

  On the specific topic of trees, it is an absolute scandal that something like 600,000 trees died as part of the previous Government’s road schemes—some 90% of the trees died at that particular scheme—but of course I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the individual issues that he raised.

• 26 Mar 2026 · A14 Environmental Mitigation: Huntingdon · Hansard source

  More

  National Highways has assessed the status of the land and is taking steps to improve its condition, including replanting substantial numbers of trees, protecting ecological sites and creating new wildlife habitats.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Driving Test Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  This Government will continue to do all we can to drive down the waiting times, and of course, we will always keep the affordability of driving tests under review.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Driving Test Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  I know that driving test waiting times remain too high, but there are signs that we are starting to turn the corner thanks to the action that we have taken since coming into government. We are increasing examiner capacity, improving booking rules and using Ministry of Defence examiners to provide additional tests. We now have over 100 more examiners in post than in February last year, and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has delivered over 124,000 more tests this financial year than last year. We will keep the House updated as progress continues.