Simon Lightwood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As my right hon. Friend mentioned, I have seen at first hand the impact that the bridge’s closure is having on the local community. We announced a structures fund to support rundown bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels. Local authorities have until early August to apply for this investment, and the Department is already engaging with Redbridge council on its application.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We are doing a number of pilots to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of bus franchising in rural areas. That is on top of ensuring that, for the first time, rurality is considered in bus funding.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is continuing driving examiner recruitment, with 1,577 full-time driving examiners in May 2026—an increase of 147 compared with May 2025, when there were 1,430 full-time equivalents.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, want to see more cycling in London, and in towns and cities across the UK. Dockless cycles are one way to support that aim. We want to empower local leaders to shape shared cycle schemes so that they can deliver the greatest possible benefits and mitigate any possible issues. We will introduce local licensing regulations and guidance in the coming months.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. The draft regulations make two amendments to the Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) Regulations 2020. First, they extend the period during which local authorities may be charged for using the clean air zones central services website from 31 March 2027 to 31 March 2031. Secondly, they increase the fee that local authorities pay to use the services from £2 to £4 per transaction, as a step towards full cost recovery. The regulations are due to take effect from 1 September 2026. It may benefit hon. Members if I provide some context. As many are already aware, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting vehicles a fee to enter the zone. They have been introduced selectively, only where evidence shows that they are the quickest way to reduce nitrogen dioxide concentrations in a local area, and where other options would not deliver the same results as quickly. Seven clean air zones are currently operated by local authorities in England: Bath and North East Somerset; Birmingham; Bradford; Bristol; Portsmouth; Sheffield and Rotherham; and Tyneside.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  We have said, very clearly, that if this results in a shortfall, we will top it up through the new burdens assessment. This is about good governance. The previous Government said they would review the costs when the data became clear. Good governance means that the Government provide a service that aligns with managing public money to ensure full cost recovery. We are doing this now because the last Government failed to increase the central services fee, which is designed to cover the cost of administering the services since they introduced clean air zones in 2020. Most motorists entering a clean air zone will pay no charge at all because their vehicle is compliant, and the proportion is likely to continue to increase. The Government’s £2 billion electric car grant has helped 120,000 UK drivers move to zero emission vehicles since July 2025. Clean air zones are designed to clean up air and should not be used as a revenue raiser for any organisation. I can assure hon. Members that clean air zones are not a revenue raiser for the DFT. By moving the fee to £4, we are still subsidising central services to the tune of 10%. Under the new burdens doctrine, the Department will pay for local authority deficits that arise in their CAZ operations. The Government have worked closely with local authorities to prepare them for the fee increase and to understand the impacts. Local authorities that currently generate a surplus from their clean air zone will see some reduction in revenue following the fee increase, but no local authority will be left in deficit. To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, any move to scrap a clean air zone before there is clear and sustained evidence of improved air quality would be both premature and reckless. Clean air zones were introduced to deliver compliance with legally binding air quality limits. Authorities are required to retain them until compliance has been achieved and maintained. I hope I have reassured Members that these regulations will ensure that clean air zones continue to operate effectively and fairly. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I have heard that a couple of drops of olive oil is quite good for temporary hearing loss, so let me reiterate once again that this is not a tax on motorists. We do not expect local authorities to raise their charges to motorists on account of it, and we have expressly asked them not to do so.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  At this time, the Government have no plans to introduce further clean air zones to additional cities. Our focus is to work with local authorities to support them in meeting their legally binding obligations to improve air quality in their localities. Let me be clear that these clean air zones are working. Between 2019 and 2024, in the city areas that have clean air zones, annual average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide reduced by between 18% and 46%. They dropped by about a third in Bristol, by 40% in Bath and North East Somerset, and by more than 40% in Tyneside. However, it is more than just lines on a graph; these results matter. In the UK, it is estimated that exposure to air pollution has an annual impact by shortening lifespans equivalent to 29,000 to 43,000 deaths. The impact of air pollution is felt most acutely by the most vulnerable in our society, including older people and younger children. This is about children breathing cleaner air, building healthier communities, preventing illness and protecting our NHS. As a Government, it is one of the most important things that we can do for the public, and it is the least that they deserve. In 2021, the then Government built the “drive in a clean air zone” central services website to support local authorities to introduce and operate clean air zones. The website lets drivers check whether their vehicle meets the air-quality standards for a particular clean air zone and, if not, pay a daily charge to drive in it. A call centre supports people who do not use digital channels to make payments, and it helps local authorities with enforcement. The 2020 regulations support the implementation of clean air zones. They establish a legal framework for the Transport Secretary to charge local authorities a fee of £2 for each proposed payment through the central services website. The regulations ensured that the £2 fee was payable until 31 March 2027, which is the date by which it was estimated that all local authorities with a clean air zone would have achieved compliance with air quality requirements and exited the central services. The previous Government were not able to achieve that, and some areas are now not expected to meet their air quality target until the early 2030s. Therefore, clean air zones will need to remain in place for longer than envisaged by the 2020 regulations. This instrument, which extends the charging period, is necessary to continue operating the central services. The legal framework supporting the 2020 regulations has also changed following the UK’s exit from the European Union. As a result, it is no longer possible to rely on the same powers to amend the original regulations. The draft regulations presented to the Committee are therefore made under updated powers introduced by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. These draft regulations are an important step to ensuring that the costs of providing the central services are recovered fairly and transparently, rather than falling to the taxpayer. I make it clear that raising the fee to £4 will increase cost recovery to an estimated 90% of the lifetime of CAZ central services from financial year 2020-21 to financial year 2030-31. That is higher than the 69% cost recovery we estimate for the period if the £2 fee were to remain unchanged. It leaves the Government subsidising transactions at 10% of the overall cost, as opposed to 31%. It is a sensible move towards full cost recovery. I reassure the Committee on the potential concerns that the fee increase will be passed on to motorists. Our expectation is that that will not be the case. Ministers wrote to councils in December last year, strongly urging them not to pass the transaction fee on to motorists through increased clean air zone charges. Tackling the cost of living is this Government’s top priority, and we are ensuring that this change does not add to the challenges that many people are now facing. To be clear, this is not a war on motorists. This Government are backing drivers and businesses through a range of measures, including extending the 5p fuel duty cut and introducing a 12-month road tax holiday for hauliers. The extension to the 5p duty cut is keeping taxes at a 16-year low and saving the average driver £120. We are making record levels of investment in our road network, including a £7 billion commitment to tackle potholes and improve local maintenance. Alongside that, we are supporting the transition to cleaner transport, including through the £2 billion electric car grant, which is helping drivers move to zero emission vehicles. It has already helped 120,000 UK drivers to do that since July 2025. Returning to the statutory instrument, the Government’s understanding is that the fee increase to £4 is manageable, as most of the schemes are currently running in surplus. It is not right that taxpayers across the country should be subsidising surpluses in these few authorities, generated from a scheme that is designed to clean up our air, not generate income. For example, from the information published by Bristol city council, we understand that its clean air zone surplus has been running to several million pounds a year. This fee increase could reduce that by between £400,000 and £1 million a year in each of the coming three financial years. Should any local authority fall into a shortfall with its clean air zone operating costs, that will be covered by the Government under new burdens rules. When clean air zones were established, the Government informed local authorities that the transaction fee would be reviewed once costs and income were clearer. Clean air zones have been in operation for several years, and we now have the necessary data from the past 12 to 18 months on costs, revenues and the expected duration of clean air zones to review and amend the fee. Local authorities are expecting this fee change from 1 September, and officials continue to help them prepare. The Department for Transport will work closely with its delivery partner, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to ensure that the new fee is reflected when the regulations come into effect on 1 September. The regulations will ensure that central services continue to operate effectively in a sustainable and transparent way, while supporting ongoing improvements to air quality. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Road Safety: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I obviously urge all local authorities to do everything possible in their power to improve road safety, and I hope that they will consider very carefully their actions in this area. While the number of casualties has fallen over the long term, progress has slowed in recent years. For too long, the situation has been accepted as inevitable. To those who shrug their shoulders and say, “Nothing more can be done,” this Government say clearly, “Enough is enough.” That is why our road safety strategy sets out a clear direction for change. It includes ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured by 65%, and of children by 70%, by 2035. It puts road users at the heart of our approach. We are taking action across the system. We are consulting on a minimum learning period for new drivers, strengthening motorcycle training, improving vehicle safety standards and ensuring tougher approaches to dangerous behaviours, including drink and drug driving. We will also establish a new road safety board to monitor delivery and drive progress, but we must go further, particularly for those who are most at risk. In 2024, 31% of those killed on our roads were pedestrians or cyclists. Those numbers are simply too high, and we must design a system that better protects those people. That is why we will update the manual for streets to ensure that future road designs support people who walk, wheel and cycle to do so safely and with confidence. We are also taking action to tackle work-related road risk. We will pilot a new national charter to improve safety for those who drive or ride as part of their job. It is estimated that more than 1,000 pedestrians were hit by working drivers last year. We will work with businesses to reduce work-related road risk and improve safety for all road users. Too many lives are affected by preventable incidents, and we are determined to change that. A number of Members have raised concerns about speeding. For many communities, this is not just about statistics; it is about near-misses, fear and a sense that nothing happens until a tragedy occurs, and I understand that frustration. People should not have to wait for a serious injury or fatality before action is taken to improve safety. Speed is a key factor in both the likelihood and severity of collisions, and it is right that we continue to focus on it. Local authorities have the powers to set speed limits, including 20 mph limits where appropriate, and to introduce traffic-calming measures. It is for them to determine what is appropriate in each case based on local knowledge and evidence, but we are supporting that work. We will update guidance on setting speed limits and the use of speed and red light cameras to ensure that authorities are able to take well-informed, proactive decisions. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon represents a largely rural constituency, and she is right to draw attention to the specific risks on rural roads. Those roads often carry higher speeds, have different layouts and can lack the infrastructure found in urban areas. When collisions do occur, they are more likely to be serious. We recognise those challenges. It is essential that local authorities are able to take targeted action on higher-risk routes and that decisions reflect the needs of rural communities as well as urban ones. That is why we are working to ensure that interventions are better targeted on the risks presented by different road groups, including rural routes, where the consequences of collisions can be the most severe. We are supporting local authorities through updated guidance and evidence to help them to manage those risks more effectively. Let me turn specifically to the west midlands. I recognise both the challenges and the progress that has been made. The region has a really complex road network, with busy urban centres, strategic routes and rural roads serving dispersed communities. That brings a range of risks, but this is a region showing really strong leadership. I welcome the commitment of the West Midlands combined authority to Vision Zero and the work being taken forward through its road safety action plan. My colleague the Minister for Local Transport has visited the west midlands and was able to meet with the road safety commissioner. The appointment of the UK’s first road safety commissioner is a significant step in driving that work forward, alongside increased enforcement activity and the use of technology in high-risk locations. This kind of partnership working between local authorities, police and regional bodies is exactly what we need to see. Our role as a Government is to support that work through funding, guidance and a strong national framework, and we will continue to do that. Enforcement is a critical part of improving road safety. Police forces, including West Midlands police, are responsible for deploying resources based on local priorities and risks. Their work—targeting dangerous, careless and inconsiderate driving—is essential to deterring unsafe behaviour and keeping communities safe. Technology also has an increasing role to play, whether that is through enforcement tools or vehicle safety systems that help prevent collisions or reduce their severity. We will continue to support both effective enforcement and the responsible use of new technologies. Tragically, young drivers remain over-represented in road casualty statistics. We must strike the right balance between keeping young people safe and supporting their ability to access work, education and opportunities. Graduated driving licences and their implementation vary around the world—there is not one standard type. We are consulting on introducing a minimum learning period for England, Scotland and Wales, to make sure learner drivers get the necessary time and training to prepare themselves for a lifetime of driving. We already have a two-year probationary period for all novice drivers once they have passed their test, and we are now seeking views on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers in England and Wales. Let me turn now to some of the other points raised. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon raised the issue of data at the outset of her speech. She was referring to STATS19 having near-miss data; we have no plans to change that. STATS19 is the form that the police use to record details when they attend collisions that involve a casualty. On the specific issue of schools, road safety around schools, particularly the safety of children travelling to and from school, is a priority for this Government. Of course, protection for children is not limited to the immediate school frontage—national transport policy focuses on improving safety along the whole journey commonly made by children and young people, including school routes.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Road Safety: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) on securing this important debate and I thank all hon. Members for their important contributions. I thank her for the clear and thoughtful way in which she articulated the road safety issues affecting her constituents and communities across the west midlands. Road safety is a priority for this Government. In January we published the first road safety strategy in over a decade. Safer roads support economic growth, enable more sustainable and active travel, reduce pressures on our NHS, and ensure that people can travel safely and with confidence in their daily lives. I am grateful for the constructive tone of the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon set out so clearly, road safety is not an abstract issue—it is about people, families and communities. Every road death is a tragedy. Even today, around four people lose their lives on our roads every day and many more suffer life-changing injuries. Behind each statistic is a family whose life has been permanently altered. The vast majority of these collisions are avoidable. They are too often linked to behaviours such as speeding, drink and drug-driving, distraction and failure to wear seatbelts.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Road Safety: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I very much hope that those people will have heard my hon. Friend’s message and will take action to ensure that everybody is safe using the roads. As I was saying, road safety is not the responsibility of one organisation alone; it requires action from Government, from local authorities, from enforcement agencies and from road users themselves. This Government are determined to reduce road deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Through our road safety strategy, through stronger local partnerships and through a renewed focus on the causes of collisions, we are taking a more determined and more proactive approach. I assure the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon that the concerns she has raised today will be carefully considered and that we will continue to work closely with partners across the west midlands to support further progress. I once again thank her for securing this important debate. Question put and agreed to.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Road Safety: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I will leave it to the local transport authority to make those kinds of calls, but I urge it to make sure that the safety of children is of paramount importance when making those decisions. The approach we are describing includes the use of 20 mph limits where appropriate, alongside safer crossing facilities, traffic-calming measures, school streets schemes, enforcement and school travel planning. We support delivery of those measures through national funding, which includes £7.3 billion of capital funding for local highways maintenance. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon also mentioned her concern about her local authority, saying that five fatalities need to take place before it takes action. I can say categorically that that is not the case—local authorities do not have to wait for any fatalities before taking action to improve their roads. Improving road safety is not the responsibility of one organisation alone. It requires action from Government, local authorities, enforcement agencies and road users themselves.

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

  More

  I am afraid my Roman toga is at the dry cleaners, but I would like to take up my hon. Friend’s offer at some point soon. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about the challenges in West Yorkshire, which I absolutely understand. I am sure that he will welcome the move by Mayor Tracy Brabin to introduce the Weaver network, and that he is as excited as I am to see the difference that it will make. To ensure that rural areas are not disadvantaged, the individual allocations were determined using a revised formula that considered the needs of each local transport authority, taking into account population size, levels of deprivation, bus service provision and, for the first time, rurality. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) asked about ensuring that all areas can take advantage of bus franchising. Back in September 2024, I laid a statutory instrument that opened up bus franchising to all local transport authorities—one of the first things I did on coming into government. Lancashire combined county authority’s funding settlement includes £56 million for buses, which can be used to enhance local bus services in rural areas. Active travel has a really important role to play, particularly in making shorter journeys to shops, GP practices and leisure facilities in our towns. Funding for high-quality active travel infrastructure is critical, and this Government are providing significant investment. In December, we announced £626 million for local authorities between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to deliver walking, wheeling and cycling schemes—enough for 500 miles of new walking and cycling routes. That is in addition to almost £300 million of funding announced in February 2025 and a further £108 million in March 2026. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned pavement parking. The Government are taking action to ensure that pavements are for people, including parents with young children, people using wheelchairs and those with sight loss—everyone. We will legislate to allow local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking. They will also have powers to exempt locations where pavement parking would still be necessary to ensure traffic flow, such as narrow streets, and we will monitor the effectiveness of these measures through baselining and evaluation of research. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), has some cheek to talk about potholes! For many constituents, the most visible sign of under-investment is the condition of highways. We are taking action to support local authorities in tackling the pothole plague inherited from the previous Government, including by providing a record £7.3 billion of multi-year funding for highways—it will have almost doubled by the end of this Parliament. We are clear that local authorities should focus on long-term preventive maintenance, as well as long-lasting repairs. However, I recognise that smaller and more rural communities are particularly vulnerable to disruption caused by street works. Lane rental can play an important role in tackling such disruption by allowing highway authorities to charge those carrying out works up to £2,500 per day when they occupy the busiest roads at the busiest times. That creates a clear incentive to plan works more effectively, shift activity outside peak periods and complete works more quickly. The Government strongly support the continued roll-out of lane rental, and we are currently finalising our assessment of 13 further applications. At the same time, we are developing approval powers for mayors of strategic authorities. That will support faster, more responsive delivery of schemes while reducing congestion, improving journey reliability and improving disruption. Rail has a critical role to play and was mentioned numerous times by Members. I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard about all the individual schemes mentioned today, so I will not go into them, but connecting small towns is critical for the wider economy. Reliable commuter rail services can transform opportunities, making it easier for people to access jobs in nearby cities while continuing to live in the communities that they value. We are working with industry partners to improve the reliability and performance of commuter routes and ensure that smaller stations are not overlooked. That includes looking at how timetables, capacity and infrastructure can better support passengers travelling to and from smaller towns, including those in Lancashire. My hon. Friend is a great champion for the people of Rossendale and Darwen. He will be aware that the Department is not currently funding any development work on either of the proposals that he mentioned, but my officials are very happy to support Lancashire county combined authority should any local funding be prioritised on either the City Valley rail link or the new station at Lower Darwen. The Government are also committed to ensuring that non-mayoral authorities are fully engaged in GBR’s work and not disadvantaged as the new rail system is implemented. All tiers of local government will benefit from an empowered local GBR business unit that is outward-facing and engages local authorities on their priorities and their local transport plans. That structure will provide a single point of accountability for local authorities, rather than baking in the fragmented structure that we have today. That engagement will ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities to collaborate with GBR on their priorities and consider their proposals. That approach is designed to ensure that GBR is as close as possible to local communities so that it can understand and respond to their needs, while being clear that they are part of a national system that needs to work coherently as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) rightly raised rail fares, which are a real concern for many passengers, especially when services are unreliable. The current fare system is complex and confusing, and passengers do not always trust that they are getting the right ticket. We are simplifying fares and ticketing so that passengers can easily find the best fare for their journey and get more consistent offers across the network under Great British Railways. Alongside reform, we have also frozen regulated fares for the first time in 30 years, which will help with the cost of living while improving reliability and service quality. In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for securing this debate and to all Members for their contributions today. Improving transport in small towns is central to this Government’s mission to drive growth and opportunity across the whole country. We know there is more to do, but we are already taking meaningful steps to ensure that wherever possible, wherever people live, whether that be in a city, a rural area, a small town or a coastal town, they have access to the reliable, affordable and integrated transport that they deserve.

• 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 .