Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this debate—her first Adjournment debate—and thank her for raising the vital issue of speed cameras and the criteria for their installation. It is really good to have the opportunity to discuss an issue that she has raised with me a number of times in questions and correspondence over the past year.

I begin by making it clear that improving road safety is one of my Department’s highest priorities, and measures to address speeding will be considered for inclusion in the forthcoming road safety strategy. As the hon. Member has said, there were 1,624 fatalities in reported road collisions in Great Britain in 2023. Of those, 888 occurred in collisions in which, in the opinion of the attending police officer, speed was a factor for at least one vehicle. That represents 58% of all fatalities in collisions for which the police recorded at least one collision factor. The police often refer to the “fatal four”, and I am afraid that excessive speed remains the major contributor to road traffic collisions.

[Alex Ballinger]

One issue that we have across Dudley is street racing. We often have groups of young men coming from Birmingham, racing up and down the A456 and through the back streets of Halesowen, terrifying some of my residents. Unfortunately, despite the excellent work of Operation Hercules and the police, we have not really been able to crack down on that. Does the Minister agree that street racing hotspots are areas where we should consider putting average speed cameras?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am sure that everyone in the House feels concern about the kind of antisocial driving occurring in his constituency. It is absolutely right that local partners—the local authority and the police—should look at how best to tackle that kind of behaviour, which is undoubtedly a blight on his local community and is obviously very concerning to hear about.

All available research shows a link between excessive speed and the risk of collisions, so I am really grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for raising this issue, and indeed to other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Fatalities and injuries from road collisions are simply unacceptable, and this Government will work hard to prevent those tragedies for all road users.

The hon. Member talked about action to reduce speed, including lower speed limits, and action to enforce speed limits, such as speed cameras. My Department’s guidance on the use of speed cameras and red light cameras for traffic enforcement is not mandatory—it is guidance—and authorities are invited to set their own deployment criteria if they wish. The guidance encourages authorities to develop their own deployment criteria, so that they can demonstrate a local systematic approach to site selection.

I recognise that at a time when local authorities face a great many calls on their resources, it is important that they focus those resources where they will have the most impact. Unfortunately, I imagine that will sometimes mean local authorities deciding that they need to focus on those places where there have been KSIs—where people have been killed or seriously injured. However, I encourage local authorities to consider both how they can deal with places where there have been KSIs and how they can take a more proactive approach.

[Tom Gordon]

In North Yorkshire, we do not have any average or fixed speed cameras. We have a number of temporary mobile speed vans, but they do not act as a sufficient deterrent because they move around—that is obviously the purpose and nature of them. Instead, we have seen lots of community speed watch groups set up. Does the Minister agree with me on the importance of those community groups, who work so hard to highlight the dangers of speeding in rural communities like mine?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of community speed watch groups. I will come on to that topic a little later.

The guidance on the use of speed cameras and red light cameras should be used alongside setting local speed limits. These are tools to support our primary objective, which is reducing the number of collisions and casualties and, indeed, reducing their severity. I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that speed cameras work. In the right place, speed cameras can help manage safety risks by encouraging drivers to conform to the speed limit. However, they are not the only or always the best way to improve road safety. Speed limits should be evidence-led, and general compliance needs to be achievable without an excessive reliance on enforcement. Frankly, we cannot have a speed camera everywhere, and we cannot have a police officer everywhere.

As the hon. Member knows, the enforcement of road traffic law and the deployment of available police resources, including on mobile cameras, is the responsibility of individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners, taking into account specific local problems and the demands that they face. Local government is the main delivery body for road safety. Under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, local authorities have a statutory duty to take steps to reduce and prevent collisions, and they have the power to set speed limits on their roads. It is right that they focus on the areas of highest risk, which may be where tragic collisions have occurred, but there is nothing to stop them from implementing road safety measures elsewhere. Indeed, I would agree that a more proactive, preventive approach is entirely sensible. It is clearly incredibly valuable to identify places where there is a higher risk and evidence of near misses.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks. She says that it seems entirely sensible to move to a proactive approach; does she have plans to update the guidance in a way that moves towards that approach, so as to be clear with local authorities?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Certainly I welcome the opportunity for us to debate this issue today. I will reflect on the contributions that Members have made, and on the suggestions that the hon. Member has put forward. Local authorities already have the power to take that approach, and I want to be clear about that. It is a myth to say that they cannot act until there have been a number of fatalities; they already can. Local authorities also have a range of traffic management measures available to help improve safety in their areas. In addition to the ability to set local speed limits, they can also introduce traffic calming measures, speed-activated warning signs and average speed cameras.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister consider the fact that if someone wants to install a 20 mph limit in our towns and cities—such as Wells or Cheddar, which are plagued by speed trouble—the police advice is that drivers have to already be close to 20 mph for them to accept the need for a 20 mph limit? That strikes me as utterly bonkers. It stifles any further discussion and the implementation of 20 mph limits, even near schools.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, and I will say a little more on that in a moment. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have the local knowledge of their roads. Any authority that has the support of the local community for installing such schemes has my Department’s full backing. I welcome the support expressed by Members today, and agree that sharing good practice can be helpful.

The Department gave councils updated guidance on setting 20 mph speed limits, reminding them to reserve them for sensible and appropriate areas only, such as outside schools, and that safety and local support should be at the heart of the decision. That in itself impacts compliance, as drivers are more likely to observe the speed limit when they understand why it is there. I emphasise that we support 20 mph limits in the right places. As well as influencing safety, they can influence quality of life, the environment and the local economy, but 20 mph zones and limits are best considered on a road-by-road basis. That ensures local consent, unlike blanket measures.

We are therefore not in favour of 20 mph limits being set indiscriminately on all roads, without due regard for the safety case and for local support; but when there is clear evidence, and when people support them, I think it entirely right for local authorities to pursue them, if they wish to. They will want to make decisions about local implementation in consultation with local communities and, of course, with the local police; as I have said, they know their roads best, and I cannot and should not dictate to them from Westminster.

While local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the speed limits on roads under their care, provided that they take account of the relevant legislation and guidance, they are rightly accountable to local people for those decisions. I understand how frustrating it is for communities who feel that their concerns are not being listened to and acted on. However, the Members who have spoken today have made a powerful case for lower speed limits, and we know that even the most experienced and careful drivers can make mistakes, and that collisions at higher speeds are much more likely to have tragic outcomes.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I fully appreciate how important it is for local communities to have the most influence over road safety measures in their area, but can my hon. Friend expand on the forthcoming road safety strategy? Can she tell us whether there will be an even clearer drive from central Government towards, perhaps, a “vision zero” approach, and towards giving local communities even more impetus to reduce speeding? It is, in my view, and probably that of many other Members, selfish and reckless of people to exceed a speed limit that they are required by law to abide by.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I know that my hon. Friend has been a great champion for improvements in road safety. The Department will consider what more we can do to support local authorities and hon. Members in this regard, and we stand ready to work with everyone who is trying to improve road safety locally. As my hon. Friend knows, and as the House knows, we are developing our road safety strategy, and I look forward to saying more about that in the months ahead. As the Secretary of State has said, we are hoping and aiming to publish it by the end of the year.

The police-run Community Speedwatch schemes enable local volunteers to work with the police and other agencies to address identified road policing issues in their localities. I know how important they can be to local communities, and I thank all those who are volunteering in this way. Drivers who are detected speeding are sent letters, and the police may take further action if a driver is detected multiple times. Decisions on when to adopt Community Speedwatch schemes are operational matters for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, in conjunction with local policing plans, but as I have said, the schemes can play a very important role.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the number of people killed and injured on our roads. The Department is developing our road safety strategy, and I look forward to the opportunity to set out more details in due course. I welcome today’s debate and all the contributions from Members on road safety, both today and on other occasions. I am pleased that there is so much determination in the House to tackle the unacceptable loss of life and unacceptable injuries that result from road traffic collisions, and I look forward to working with Members further on the issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing the debate. I know how committed she has been to raising the importance of transport infrastructure in her constituency, frankly at every opportunity. Today, she has set out very clearly the challenges for her constituents and the communities that she represents. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government’s ambitions.

Reliable transport infrastructure is vital to everyone’s daily life, whether it is connecting communities, family and friends, providing access to jobs and training, or moving goods. It can boost productivity by helping firms to cluster and innovate, unlocking land for housing and development, and making places more attractive to live, work and invest in. The Government recognise the challenges facing communities such as Cramlington and Killingworth, and today I will outline what we are doing to maintain and renew our infrastructure, protect vital public transport services and invest in the long-term future of our transport system.

We recognise the long-standing aspirations of local leaders, and by devolving power and decision making from Whitehall we are ensuring that local decisions are taken at the right level. I commend Mayor Kim McGuinness on her ambitions and vision for the north-east. The Government are backing those ambitions with real support, as my hon. Friend will be aware. At last week’s spending review, we outlined our commitment to the protection of vital public transport services and the maintenance of our road and rail networks. That reflects the Government’s recognition of the essential role that transport plays in driving economic growth, regional development and public service delivery.

Through the transport for city region settlements, eligible mayoral combined authorities will receive dedicated funding to deliver key local projects. The North East combined authority, NECA, will receive £1.8 billion from the TCR settlement between 2027 and 2032. That builds on the £573 million already provided from the first round of city region sustainable transport settlements.

[Ian Lavery]

I enjoyed the company of my hon. Friend the Minister in Cowpen Road in Blyth not too many months ago. Does she share my frustration, amazement and disbelief in Northumberland county council for criticising this Government for investment in transport infrastructure, when the A1 dualling has been announced more times than I can remember, and the Blyth relief road is waiting for investment. The Conservatives did absolutely nothing in 14 years; after every spending review, they would announce that they would pay for this and that, but it never happened. Yet, after mere months, Northumberland county council are criticising every decision that this Government have made. This Government will make a real difference to the transport infrastructure in Northumberland.

[Lilian Greenwood]

As my hon. Friend says, the last Government were good at making announcements, and very poor at putting real money behind those announcements. We are determined to do something very different. This unprecedented long-term funding certainty will enable enhancements and renewal of local transport networks, based on local priorities, helping to drive growth and productivity, support the delivery of new homes and decarbonise local transport networks.

I am aware of the specific concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth about the road infrastructure in her constituency, particularly the Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts, as well as the challenges that need to be addressed around congestion and the delays impacting residents and businesses. As part of last week’s spending review, the Government announced £24 billion of capital funding between 2026 and 2030 to maintain and improve motorways and local roads across the country. That funding will allow National Highways and local authorities to deliver faster, safer and more reliable journeys. Already this year, the north-east has been provided with an extra £22 million for local roads maintenance. The opportunities for new enhancements to the strategic road network will be considered in due course, as part of the future road investment strategy, which will start from 1 April next year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for North Northumberland (David Smith) and Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for highlighting the needs and challenges of their communities. Now that the spending review has been completed, we will take decisions on how best to spend that money on both strategic and local roads.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth asked some specific questions, which I will try to go through. As she rightly noted, on 11 June, alongside the spending review, the findings of the Green Book review were published. They sought to understand whether it is being used in a way that ensures a fair, objective and transparent appraisal of proposals across the country. As a Department, we will work with Treasury analysts to develop and embed any changes to the Green Book.

A new place-based business case taskforce will be established to define objectives for a particular place and bring together the relevant interventions that are needed to achieve objectives across different policy areas. This is about making sure that places like the north-east get their fair share of transport investment. The taskforce will also feature participants from local and regional government, as well as other Government Departments, and will identify appropriate test cases for place-based business cases, and what that means for existing proposals in due course. I note that my hon. Friend got her bid in early.

The deeper devolution deal and the north-east growth plan will allow the combined authority to enter into agreements with Government, other local authorities and National Highways to determine shared priorities for the strategic and key road networks. This closer working relationship, and strategies such as the north-east growth plan, will be an important consideration in the prioritisation of enhancements to the strategic road network in the north-east.

On local plans and housing targets, our Department has a close working relationship with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government on a range of transport matters to support our ambitious goals for housing. The successful implementation of local plans is a key part of ensuring development in the right places. Local authorities are encouraged to develop plans in sustainable locations that are not wholly reliant on significant investment in the strategic road network. I recognise that in some cases that is hard to avoid, and it is essential that issues such as constraints on growth form part of the assessment of individual schemes, as my hon. Friend said, and wider investment planning for the network.

On the spending review, schemes that are in the RIS pipeline, such as the A19 north of Newcastle scheme, are being considered for possible delivery beyond 2030. The Department expects to reconfirm those schemes that remain in the pipeline, and they will continue to be developed during the next period, when RIS3 is published early next year. I heard the points that my hon. Friend made about how the pressures on the network may have changed in recent times.

I will just touch on the point about local councillors. As with all schemes in the RIS pipeline, the proposals are funded for their development stages only, and there has been no commitment and no funding for their full delivery at any stage. To say otherwise is simply untrue.

In addition to considerations on the strategic road network, it is vital that we improve public transport connectivity. We are driving forward wider regional transport reforms, including rail upgrades and the resources and powers to deliver better buses as we look to build a modern, integrated public transport system. My hon. Friend highlighted the difference that investment in local rail is already making in her region. This year, we are providing NECA with £24 million to support and improve bus services by putting power over local bus services back into the hands of local leaders. That will help to ensure we meet the needs of the communities that rely on them, while protecting socially and economically necessary services. I understand that Mayor McGuinness is exploring franchising options that, if taken forward, would ensure that local bus networks across the north-east can be designed to work better for the people who rely on those services.

We have also just confirmed that from next year, we will be providing £900 million a year to maintain and improve bus services across the country, ensuring that they continue to be affordable and accessible to all. As part of the Government’s clean energy mission, we are also committed to decarbonising transport. The spending review confirmed £1.8 billion to support the uptake of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, including the provision of charging infrastructure along the strategic road network in England.

Active travel also plays a crucial role in the mission, and last week we were pleased to announce a further £616 million nationally to build and maintain walking and cycling infrastructure, and the north-east is already benefiting from more than £7 million this year to support the development of active travel facilities.

Our communities deserve transport infrastructure that supports growth, enhances mobility and ensures sustainability. The Government will shortly publish our 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will set out a long-term plan for how infrastructure projects are planned and delivered. Today’s contributions will help us as we make decisions in the weeks, months and years ahead. We remain dedicated to delivering improvements that will make a real difference to people’s lives, including in the constituencies of my hon. Friends in the north-east. Through investment, innovation and engagement with local leaders, we will continue to transform transport infrastructure for the better. I thank all my hon. Friends for the cases they have made, making sure that I understand the needs and challenges faced by communities in their area. I look forward to working with them as we go forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Dartford Crossing Charges

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

The Dartford crossing is the only fixed road crossing of the river Thames east of London, and one of the most important links in the strategic road network.

To manage demand and protect the crossing’s role as a vital component of the nation’s economic infrastructure, a user charge has been collected at the crossing since 2003. In 2014, the tollbooths were removed to help make journeys smoother, and the charge was increased to help manage increased demand. That was the last time that charges were increased for all vehicles.

In the 11 years since, demand at the crossing has grown by 7.5%, with the crossing now used by, on average, over 150,000 vehicles every day, and up to 180,000 vehicles on the busiest days. These traffic levels are well in excess of the crossing’s design capacity, causing delays for drivers using the crossing, congestion and journey disruption for drivers on the M25, and a range of knock-on impacts for local communities.

Current charging levels are no longer sufficient to achieve their stated aim of managing demand so that the crossing works well for users and local people. The need to increase the charges in order to manage traffic highlights the need for the additional capacity that the lower Thames crossing, for which the Government confirmed new funding yesterday, will provide.

To secure the effective operation of the crossing, I have therefore decided to increase the charges for all vehicle types that currently pay to use the crossing from 1 September 2025. The new tariff is given below.

Automated Vehicles Act 2024: Implementation

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I wish to provide the House with an update on steps the Government are taking to implement the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 and kick-start economic growth, a top priority in the Government’s plan for change. The AV Act delivers one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind anywhere in the world, with safety at its core, which will give potential operators, tech developers and manufacturers the confidence to invest in the UK. It sets out clear legal responsibilities so businesses know where they stand, establishes a safety framework and creates the necessary regulatory powers. The AV Act implementation programme has been designed to maximise innovation, enabling investors and operators to develop and deploy the creative mobility solutions that can drive growth. This comes as part of a Government-wide programme of work using artificial intelligence to deliver the plan for change, with AVs being a clear example of how AI will bring tangible benefits to the public.

Automated passenger services

Today I can announce that the Government will accelerate the introduction of automated passenger services regulations, subject to the outcome of a consultation later this summer. This will provide businesses with the regulatory confidence to invest in testing and deploying these innovative services on our streets, reinforcing the UK’s position among the world leaders in tech deployment. It will help facilitate commercial pilots of services with paying passengers and no safety driver to be deployed from spring 2026.

The APS permitting regime was created to address the complexities of applying current taxi, private hire vehicle and public service vehicle legislation to passenger services that would operate without a driver.

Protecting marketing terms for AVs

Today, I launched a consultation, and an accompanying draft statutory instrument, on protecting marketing terms for AVs; the consultation will run for 12 weeks. The AV Act sets out an authorisation process to determine whether a vehicle can safely drive itself without being controlled or monitored by a human. We want to support the innovators and businesses that are building genuinely groundbreaking tech by protecting certain terms, so that they can only be used to describe authorised self-driving vehicles, boosting investor confidence, consumer trust and driver certainty.



This consultation aims to identify the words, expressions, symbols or marks that should be used to describe only authorised AVs. The Government expect to bring forward secondary legislation following careful consideration of consultation responses. Our aim is for these regulations to come into effect in early 2026; they will be subject to the negative procedure.

Statement of safety principles for AVs

Today, I have published a call for evidence on the statement of safety principles, which will consider the safety outcomes that should be sought by self-driving vehicles; the call for evidence will also run for 12 weeks. Public confidence in the safety of these vehicles will be essential to take advantage of the huge economic opportunities they will present. The Department for Transport’s monitoring and annual reporting will consider performance against these principles. The AV Act specifies that the safety principles must be framed with a view to ensuring that authorised AVs achieve a safety level equal to or higher than careful and competent human drivers, and that road safety in Great Britain will improve due to the presence of these vehicles.

I intend to publish a further consultation on the statutory principles in the coming months that will be informed by stakeholder feedback from this call for evidence. The final statutory guidance will be laid in Parliament and will be subject to parliamentary approval.

Transport AI action plan

The announcements made today are a cornerstone of the Department’s new transport AI action plan. This publication is a 23-point plan that sets out how the Government are using AI to improve transport for everyone in the UK. The plan builds upon the transport data strategy and the AI opportunities action plan to align the transport sector with the broader AI agenda, drive economic growth and deliver on the plan for change.

A copy of these publications and associated annexes will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS692]

Mass Transit: West Yorkshire

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this timely debate and on his passionate words in support of his city and region.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government’s support for West Yorkshire’s ambitions and why we are committed to working hand in hand with local leaders to deliver transformational change. West Yorkshire is a region with enormous potential. Home to 2.4 million people and a £67 billion economy, it contains some of the fastest growing towns and cities in the country. However, it also faces significant socioeconomic challenges. Productivity has lagged behind the national average for 15 years. Too many people still live in areas of persistent deprivation, and poor connectivity is holding back housing, regeneration and access to opportunities. Around one in five people in West Yorkshire live in the 10% most deprived neighbourhoods nationally.

Improving transport connectivity is key to unlocking growth across West Yorkshire. Better links between Leeds and Bradford—just 9 miles apart—will help to reduce reliance on car travel, which currently accounts for 74% of journeys.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am very conscious of time, and I want to make a bit more progress.

Leeds remains the largest city in western Europe without a mass transit system. For a city of its scale, potential and ambition, that is unsustainable. That is why Government intervention is vital and why we are already acting. We recognise the long-standing aspirations of local leaders and communities to build a modern, integrated mass transit network. Those ambitions, as we have heard, stretch back years, but setbacks have not weakened the determination, and I commend Mayor Tracy Brabin and the West Yorkshire combined authority for their persistence and vision.

The Government have backed the ambitions with real support and real money: £200 million has already been provided in development funding, to enable the combined authority to progress its plans. That includes a £160 million allocation from the first city region sustainable transport settlement. Now, I am pleased to confirm that the support is growing under the new funding settlement announced last week. As a Government, we have made a £15.6 billion commitment to improving local transport across the north and the midlands, to be delivered through transport for city regions settlements. Between 2027 and 2032, West Yorkshire will receive an impressive £2.1 billion—a strong vote of confidence in the region’s plans.

It is right that prioritising use of the funding will be for West Yorkshire to decide on, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) will be making the case for improved transport connectivity, including to Leeds Bradford airport. We are bringing £30 million of transport for city regions funding forward into the next two financial years, to support early preparation and delivery of schemes. Most importantly, the combined authority has confirmed that this funding will enable the delivery of phase 1 of West Yorkshire mass transit, connecting Bradford and Leeds city centres, to begin. Mayor Tracy Brabin is keen to have spades in the ground from 2028. Of course, the period beyond 2032 is for a future spending review. Beyond mass transit, TCR funding will also support a new bus station in Wakefield to replace the existing facility, and a modern bus station replacement for Bradford interchange, expanding services and improving reliability across the region.

Our support extends beyond finance. With West Yorkshire combined authority, we have put in place a new model for working together. It features a joint sponsor board and close collaboration between Government officials and the combined authority. We are working side by side to progress at pace, align with national priorities and support delivery, so hopefully there will not be the kinds of hold-up that we have seen in the past.

The prize and the benefits of mass transit to West Yorkshire are clear. It will improve local transport for over 675,000 people, many of whom are from communities currently disconnected from opportunity. It will reduce congestion, cut carbon emissions and enable access to jobs, education and services, especially for those who do not have a car. It will support transformational regeneration, housing and growth, particularly in areas such as central Bradford that have previously been overlooked for major investment.

The scheme complements wider regional transport reforms, including rail upgrades and bus franchising. We welcome the introduction of the Weaver network, which will mean a single brand across the transport network in West Yorkshire and will make transport easier and more accessible for passengers. Together, those efforts will build a modern, integrated public transport system worthy of this growing city region, which is central to the growth ambitions of the Government and the country.

Looking ahead, we will continue close collaboration with the combined authority to move from planning to delivery. Key milestones include submission of the strategic outline business case for approval in 2026, when many of the questions that have been posed in the debate will be explored and fulfilled; route consultations; and the development of a growth prospectus to maximise the economic benefits of mass transit in West Yorkshire. That will include an employment and skills action plan to train and recruit the skilled workers needed to deliver the programme. Our shared ambition is to see spades in the ground in 2028, and I assure Members that the Department is fully committed to enabling that ambitious timeline.

The Government back West Yorkshire’s mass transit ambitions because better transport means better lives, safer journeys, cleaner air, more opportunities and stronger communities. I once again congratulate my hon. Friends on their support and advocacy for this absolutely vital investment. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) nodding along with that. The West Yorkshire region has huge potential, and this Government will give it our backing into the future.

A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing today’s debate on the A66 northern trans-Pennine project, and I thank him for his powerful arguments. It has been some time since I travelled on the A66, which tells me that it is time for a trip to the Lake district sometime soon—although I will be rather wary now about how much time to allow for that journey.

My hon. Friend has been an incredibly determined campaigner for this project, which runs through part of his constituency. As he acknowledged, we have already met to discuss the importance of the project to the region, and indeed its wider national significance. He has written to me to reiterate its value to business users, including freight, and highlighted the need to address safety concerns, which I take very seriously, as does the Secretary of State.

Although the Chamber is rather empty this evening, I am pleased to take the opportunity to thank other right hon. and hon. Members with constituencies along the route, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for their correspondence and for our meetings to discuss their aspirations for the A66. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway and others that they have convinced Ministers of the overwhelming local support for this important project.

Rebuilding Britain means modernising our transport infrastructure. This Government will maintain and renew our road network to ensure that it serves all users, remains safe and tackles congestion. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, the financial inheritance that this Government received is extremely challenging. Communities up and down the country have been given hope for new transport infrastructure with no plans and no funds to deliver them. We will not repeat that mistake.

This Government will rebuild our economic foundations while restoring transparency and public trust. That is why on 30 July 2024 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a multi-year spending review. But let me be absolutely clear: the A66 project is being considered as part of the second phase, which will conclude on 11 June. A decision on the A66 cannot be taken separately from that process, and whatever has been claimed by other local politicians, I can assure my hon. Friend that the project has not been shelved.

The spending review will support the development of our new long-term strategy for transport, developing a modern and integrated network with people at its heart. Within the north of England, the A66 link between the M6 at Penrith and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner is a key artery in our strategic road network, providing a vital east-west connection across the Pennines. It links ports on the east coast of England with north-west England, southern Scotland and ferry links to Northern Ireland. The nearest alternative east-west motorway is the M62, which is much further south, and, looking northwards, the M8 in Scotland. Today the A66 between the M6 and the A1(M) is approximately 50 miles long and a mixture of single and dual carriageways. Approximately half of the route has already been dualled, leaving six sections of single carriageway to be upgraded.

National Highways notes that collision rates on the single carriageway sections tend to be higher than on the dualled sections and, tragically, a number of lives have been lost on the route in recent years. More than 22% of the vehicles on the route are goods vehicles, which is approximately twice the average proportion of such vehicles on the strategic road network as a whole. As my hon. Friend knows, the A66 is a vital link for people living along the route, enabling them to reach shops, services and employment in nearby towns. For many living along the route, there is no alternative rail connection.

Upgrading the trans-Pennine A66 would enable traffic to flow more quickly. The scheme would make the A66 a more viable option for freight operators as they move goods across the country, aiding economic growth. As my hon. Friend noted, the economic case for the scheme could be improved if higher values for the freight value of time were included in the transport analysis guidance. We aim to do that in the future, but I am pleased to be able to assure him that the economic assessment of this project for spending review deliberations included a sensitivity test to show the impacts of using higher values for freight value of time. Dualling the remaining sections would make the route more resilient when incidents occur, as most collisions would be confined to one carriageway, allowing traffic to pass on the other—although we would of course prefer that there were no collisions at all.

My final point on the A66 northern trans-Pennine project is that National Highways estimates that the scheme could support the building of thousands of houses and the creation of thousands of jobs as part of growth deals and local plans along the route. It could also support Carlisle’s planned St Cuthbert’s garden village—an ambitious proposal to provide 10,000 new homes and create economic opportunities.

Until the conclusion of the spending review, the interim settlement is the framework for the £4.8 billion investment for National Highways for the current financial year. The investment includes more than £3 billion for capital enhancements, including the A66 northern trans-Pennine scheme. This is a one-year settlement while we prepare to return to the road investment strategy settlements in a sustainable way.

The A66 northern trans-Pennine project is being considered alongside other future road projects as part of the spending review. Until that concludes, the Department is not in a position to make a judgment on individual schemes, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of this mission-driven Government. I am determined to ensure that we build the transport infrastructure needed to drive economic growth and opportunity in every part of the country, including the rural north.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing this debate, and thank him for the important contribution he has made. I hope that he is reassured that the Department fully appreciates the proposal’s importance to his constituents, to people in other constituencies along the route and to the wider country, and that the scheme is being considered carefully. I thank him again for this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Roadworks: Cheshire

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) on securing this important debate regarding the impact of roadworks on communities in Cheshire, and indeed in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. I commend him on his assiduous efforts to raise the profile of the extremely difficult situation that his constituents face. Their lives are clearly being significantly impacted, as he described so vividly, with everyone from children to pensioners forced to change the way in which they live their lives, and suffering real pain and inconvenience as a result of diversions and traffic delays. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) said, daily journeys should not be a source of misery, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) highlighted, road safety must not be compromised in these circumstances.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield pointed out, the traffic lights on Mill House bridge have been in place for over a year, and it is absolutely right that a solution to these problems is found quickly. I know that the patience of residents is growing very thin indeed, and I understand why. I also understand that the roads have become even more of a hot topic recently, because the council has been forced to extend the permit until the end of the year to secure the road space, as several utility companies also need to carry out urgent works in the area.

Although it is welcome that some co-ordinated work is going on, that of course brings a risk of further disruption to local road users over the months ahead. It is essential that the council works with the utility companies to keep that disruption to an absolute minimum, and that it considers how to expedite the works, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described.

I understand that the permitting extension is largely a precaution, as the council hopes that the remedial work will be done in the summer and autumn. I understand that the complexity of the work means that that cannot be guaranteed, but the council must do its utmost in consultation with local people and keep them apprised of what is going on. People’s frustration only rises when they do not understand or they are not communicated with in an adequate and timely way.

As my hon. Friends have said, the appalling state of local roads in Cheshire is an indictment of the previous Government’s failure to invest in the vital national infrastructure that all our constituents rely on. It is frankly unforgiveable to allow our local road network to crumble and fail. By contrast, this Government are firmly on the side of all road users in this country. We are already delivering by providing £500 million of extra funding for highway maintenance this year, with a huge increase in funding for every local authority in England.

That takes highway maintenance funding this year to nearly £1.6 billion, which is the largest ever funding amount for local highway maintenance in England in one year. We are investing those amounts precisely because we want to deliver a transformation in the condition of our highways. That means authorities have been able to make an immediate start on resurfacing roads and fixing other more significant structural problems. I want communities everywhere to start seeing the benefits.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will also note the new incentive requirements announced by the Secretary of State in March this year. We are ensuring that local people can hold their local authority to account and see for themselves how the investment will be spent to maintain and improve their local highway network. We are requiring every local authority that receives funding, including Cheshire East, to publish its plans by 30 June for how it will use that extra money.

That means that everyone, including the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield and for High Peak, will be able to log on to their council website and see the difference the funding is making, and challenge the authority if it is not delivering. For Cheshire East council, the additional £5.54 million in highway maintenance funding that it has received this year comes on top of nearly £15.485 million in baseline funding. I am sure that funding will go a long way to help to improve roads in and around Macclesfield very soon.

In addition, Cheshire East will receive more than £2 million from the integrated transport block and more than £7.7 million through the local transport grant. That is only the start. My hon. Friends will be more than aware that we are awaiting the outcome of the forthcoming spending review in the next few weeks, to agree funding beyond 2025-26.

Turning back to the here and now, the more pertinent matter is how we resolve the difficult situation that is causing such distress for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. It is absolutely crucial that highways officials in Cheshire East council continue their efforts to resolve it as promptly as possible, and that they keep local MPs and residents up to date.

Officials have told my Department that they have been carrying out extensive drainage surveys, an ecology survey and a topographical survey to give the council a better picture of what is happening above and below ground. I note from my officials that the next stage of geotechnical surveys is due to be undertaken immediately; I believe that is on the B5470.

Further actions may need to be taken in that regard. I firmly encourage Cheshire East council to keep my officials fully sighted on this matter in case further support from the Government can be provided. I know that both departmental and council officials appreciate the tight timeframe for this issue—and if they did not appreciate it before, they will appreciate it when they read the Hansard report of our debate. We are all keen to see rapid progress, so I hope those officials are listening to the debate and the representations of my hon. Friend, and they will act accordingly.

I have been told that data from the surveys will be shared to allow an evidence-based decision to be taken. It is so important that local people understand the work that is being undertaken. Sometimes things take longer than expected, and sometimes there are unexpected discoveries when the council does survey work, but it needs to explain to local people what it is doing and how it will expedite the repairs.

That community engagement is critical, and the highways team in my hon. Friend’s authority must work closely with the community. I understand that they have explored alternative options, such as the reopening of the old road to the south of the B5470, but from what I have been told, they do not believe that is a viable option because doing it safely would require extensive work. Those are the sort of things that they need to explain so that people are confident that they have looked at every option to reduce the disruption that my hon. Friend described.

As the council is fully aware, our maintenance budgets are already allocated to all highway authorities, specifically so that they can fund repairs of this sort. There is no additional Department for Transport funding available now, but as my hon. Friend has heard, the authorities have received a substantial uplift in funding this year, which should enable them to tackle such problems.

To conclude, my Department will continue to work with all parties to establish what help can be provided by the Government, both now and in the future, when we will have the evidence from the surveys being undertaken. I am more than happy to be kept up to date by my hon. Friend with how things are progressing. If I can do more to ensure that his constituents see an improvement in the position they are facing on those local roads, I would be happy to discuss that with him too.

I also look forward to the conclusion of the spending review in helping to secure multi-year funding settlements for all authorities up and down England, so that councils—including Cheshire East in the constituency of my hon. Friend—have the funding they need to make long-term plans for the repair and maintenance of their road networks, including those that he mentioned today. We want everyone to have the local roads that they deserve, rather than those that they inherited from the previous Government and previous local administrations, which were simply not adequate. I am committed to doing all I can to ensure that my hon. Friend’s constituents see that improvement in the months and years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

6. Whether she plans to increase rail capacity on the Brighton main line.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

Officials in my Department are in regular discussions with Network Rail and train operators on opportunities to improve services across the Brighton main line, taking account of changes to commuter travel since the pandemic. Decisions about the Department’s capital portfolio will be announced after completion of the 2025 spending review, ensuring that every penny spent supports our missions and our plan for growth.

[Peter Lamb]

Network Rail has identified that if the Croydon area remodelling scheme is not undertaken, capacity through East Croydon will be exhausted by 2030, preventing passengers from across much of southern England from being able to travel to London. Given that the Department for Transport has outlined that it is minded to approve Gatwick airport’s capacity increase, almost doubling the overall numbers, so long as 54% of passengers travel by public transport—that is in addition to the 2030 figure—will the Minister outline how it is possible to achieve that without the works being undertaken?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I appreciate the work that my hon. Friend is doing to stand up for his constituents, who rely so much on rail services. As he acknowledges, plans for a major upgrade to the Brighton main line were cancelled by the previous Government in the 2021 spending review, and they did not even acknowledge that that had happened. Network Rail is funded to progress automatic route-setting signalling technology to further enhance performance across the Brighton main line. Further decisions will be made after the spending review.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What steps she is taking to support the aviation sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to reduce the backlog for driving tests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

Last month, the Secretary of State announced further measures to tackle the unacceptable driving test backlog, including doubling training capacity for driving test examiners and offering overtime pay incentives to provide extra tests. That will create up to 10,000 extra tests a month. We are determined to get Britain’s drivers moving.

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank the Minister for her efforts towards improving access to driving tests. However, in my constituency of Broxtowe, I continually get emails saying that people are struggling to book tests due to a shortage of examiners. Will she provide us with an update following the instruction made last year to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to double the number of examiners being trained?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are holding the DVSA to account for successfully implementing the measures in last December’s seven-point plan. Some 165 new driving examiners have already passed their training and are working in driving test centres, and last year the DVSA provided 1.95 million tests. This month, it will launch an accelerated consultation on improvements to the test booking system to end the reselling of tests and the exploitation of learners, which is completely unacceptable.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that part of what has happened as a result of the pressure tests has been a displacement of learner drivers to test centres in rural areas, where they perceive that there might be less waiting time? That is prejudicing against local applicants. Will she do everything she can to ensure that local applicants for tests get priority?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We know that people are booking tests in parts of the country where they have no intention of taking a test, because they can swap that for a test in another driving test centre. That is one of the issues addressed in the call for evidence that was launched in December. We have heard that evidence, and we will consult on further changes to the booking system that might address the issue that he raises.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

At the Transport Committee in April, the Secretary of State admitted that under Labour’s watch,

“waiting times for access to driving tests hit new highs.”

For all the talk of a new plan, she then admitted that the Government only aim to reduce driving test waiting times to seven weeks by “summer next year”. That is no good for young people waiting, needing the freedom to drive to get to college or work now, is it? When will the Government see the real urgency for real people and pick up the pace?

[Lilian Greenwood]

We are acting to fix the mess that the shadow Minister’s Government left behind. Our seven-point plan is being implemented, and last month, the Secretary of State announced additional measures. We are determined to succeed where the last Government failed.

[Greg Smith]

I do not think the Minister has got the memo that she is in charge now. The Government cannot hide behind the same old excuses and try to blame others, as average test volumes are now lower—on a month-by-month basis—than they were in the previous two years. In quarter 1 alone, nearly 100,000 fewer tests were conducted than in the same period in 2024. The average waiting time for a driving test in the UK sits at 22 weeks—over five months. That is up from 17.1 weeks in July 2024 and 20.4 weeks in February 2025. For all the Government’s promises, there has been no actual delivery. Why has capacity not increased or, at the very least, stayed the same as when we were in charge?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman is not listening. We are implementing the seven-point plan, but turning around the mess and the problems that the Conservatives left us takes time. I am determined that we will see the results, that waiting times will come down and that we will support learner drivers. It cannot be done overnight when we are trying to fix 14 years of mess.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions she has had with local authorities on pavement parking regulations.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

12. When she plans to respond to the consultation entitled “Pavement parking: options for change”, published on 31 August 2020.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

This Government are committed to publishing a formal response to the consultation and announcing the next steps for pavement parking as soon as possible. We are currently considering the consultation outcome, including the views of many local authorities, and the options for tackling this nuisance.

[Liz Twist]

Back in 2018, I had an Adjournment debate on pavement parking after meeting my then constituents Margaret and Laurel, who are both visually impaired. They told me—in fact, they demonstrated to me—that pavement parking prevented them from using pavements safely, which undermined their independence and confidence, and put them at risk of injury. My Blaydon and Consett constituents continue to raise this issue, but we saw little action under the last Government. What progress has the Minister’s Department made on responding to the consultation and on providing guidance to local authorities?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The previous Government failed to act and, like her, I am determined to tackle pavement parking. That is why I have met representatives of Guide Dogs, Living Streets, Sustrans and Transport for All to discuss this very important issue, which is absolutely fundamental to the safety and accessibility of our public realm. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am on the case, and I look forward to setting out the way forward very soon.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I am really pleased to see that she is committed to addressing pavement parking. It is absolutely essential that it is addressed for my constituents in Redhill, where it is a real problem. As the Minister will know, Guide Dogs has been running a campaign for many years on addressing pavement parking, given the impact it has on those who are visually impaired. Given the Minister’s enthusiasm for solving this problem, can she please give us an idea of the timescale for delivering a solution—not the recommendations, but a solution—so that those with visual impairments and my constituents can navigate pavements safely?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support in acting to tackle what is a nuisance not just for disabled people, but for children walking on the pavement and for parents pushing buggies and prams. It is really important that we get this right. I am working speedily with my officials to do so, and I look forward to being able to announce the outcome of the consultation and our next steps shortly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her answers and for all she did on this issue in her previous role as Chair of the Transport Committee. Regulations prohibiting pavement parking already exist in London, but that alone will not solve the problem. At All Saints’ primary school in south Wimbledon, for example, pavement parking is a long-running issue, forcing parents and children into the road and obvious danger, and it is proving very difficult to solve. Has the Minister considered how the public can be better educated and restrictions enforced? Are the Government planning to create a new offence of obstructive parking, as the Minister recommended in her previous role?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and he is right to raise the impact that pavement parking has on the ability of children to walk safely to school, which we want to encourage. There are many things we can do, and he is right to say that part of the mix is communication and publicity to explain the dangers that pavement parking poses to pedestrians.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to help improve compliance with vehicle registration regulations by drivers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

My hon. Friend has rightly identified the importance of holding the correct information to identify the keeper of every vehicle operating on our roads. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency works closely with the police, who have the power to seize non- compliant vehicles.

[Sarah Coombes]

I recently spoke to a roads policing officer about drivers who use illegal number plates, such as ghost number plates that cannot be read by police and speed cameras. He told me:

“The scale at which this problem now exists is frightening. These plates are on every street, in every town and they are being used to openly commit offences and evade capture, in the knowledge there’s very little we can do about it. The problem is only getting worse, posing huge danger on our roads. We need to toughen up the law urgently”.

Will the Minister set out the action she is taking to increase the penalties for using these ghost plates to at least £1,000 and six penalty points, and put an end to this number plate wild west that is endangering our streets?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is a great campaigner, and she is right to continue to highlight this issue. It is already illegal to sell and display that type of number plate, but I recognise that there is more to do. The DVLA is working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Home Office, various police forces and trading standards on the supply and use of these illegal number plates, and implementing stricter penalties and fines will be considered as part of our work on the new road safety strategy.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

11. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the condition of local roads.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the condition of local roads.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

We are determined to end the pothole plague on our roads, which is the result of a decade of under-investment by the previous Government. We have provided an extra £500 million for councils this year to allow them to make an immediate start on this.

[Laurence Turner]

In Birmingham, people are fed up, as they are in other parts of the country, of potholes and drains that go uncleared, after years of underfunding and short-term budgets, but unlike in other parts of the country, those services are provided under a historical private finance initiative contract. Will the Minister update the House on when a decision will be made about the future of that contract, and what steps she will take with the local authority so that Birmingham’s roads get better?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has been dogged in raising this issue with me and the Department, and I assure him that we will make an announcement on the way forward as soon as possible. Following a consultation with the council, we have been carefully considering its formal representations on this matter, and we are committed to working together in the best interests of his constituents, the people of Birmingham and the taxpayer.

[Baggy Shanker]

Motorists and cyclists across the country are still facing the Tory pothole plague. In Derby, 17% of our roads are in a poor condition due to Tory austerity. It is not right that drivers have to fork out hard-earned cash to the tune of a whopping £460 for repairs that are more severe than a puncture. Can the Minister please outline how her Department plans to crack on with protecting drivers and fixing potholes in Derby, the east midlands and across the UK?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. This year, we are providing local authorities in England with £1.6 billion of funding for roads maintenance, including more than £75 million for the East Midlands combined authority, of which over £4.3 million is for Derbyshire. Those councils can now get on with the job. We have also introduced new reporting requirements, meaning that from next month people will be able to see exactly what their councils are doing with that money. We will end Britain’s pothole plague.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

On-street parking has an effect on our local roads. In Kings Langley, my local high street is suffering significantly from the Liberal Democrat-led council imposing parking restrictions in a way that has caused confusion not just to businesses but to local residents. Can the Minister give any guidance to Dacorum council on how to communicate better with residents to ensure that on-street parking is properly adhered to, but not to the detriment of our high streets?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I understand how important it is for people to access their high streets. That issue obviously relates to parking, but it is also about the availability of active travel and public transport. I am not going to dictate how local authorities should implement parking restrictions in their area; that is for them to decide. We provide them with the powers and the resources, and it is for local people to decide what is right for their area.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The previous Government spent £250,000 on a study of the A259 coast road in my constituency, yet residents have seen no improvement whatever to the road. The town of Newhaven is particularly badly affected; daily gridlock is affecting businesses and residents, to the detriment of the condition of the road. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we might work together to resolve the traffic crisis on the A259 in my constituency?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to hear more about the issues affecting his constituents and to discuss what we may be able to do to support them so that they have an enhanced road network.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking to improve rail access to Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

T4. Residents in Cheltenham remain extremely frustrated about the state of the roads. We have too many potholes and the approach taken to the maintenance of our high street by the previous Conservative county council administration has been substandard. The state of our strand and the threat to our promenade are at the forefront of people’s minds. We have finally had a change of administration, with the Liberal Democrats now in charge of the county council. What can the Secretary of State and Ministers do to reassure me that the Liberal Democrat county council will be given the tools that it needs to fix our roads and maintain our high street properly?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

The Department is providing Gloucestershire county council with an extra £9 million of highway maintenance funding this year, taking its total funding to £35 million. That will allow the council to get on with the job of fixing those potholes.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

T6. I am absolutely delighted to see the Government pushing forward with the new lower Thames crossing. Are there plans to explore widening the carriage in the parts that need it from the crossing to Dover to assist trade transit?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Improvements to the A2 as it approaches Dover are being considered as part of the pipeline of enhancements being developed for possible delivery in a future road investment strategy beyond 2030.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

T7.  Last month, I visited the Pidley Lorry Group to discuss its campaign to introduce a 7.5 tonne weight limit to prevent HGVs from using the village as a shortcut. Having enforced the use of the self-funded route by Cambridgeshire county council, the cost to the group so has been in excess of £7,000. There are similar examples affecting Upwood and Alconbury, which are also villages impacted by high volumes of HGV through traffic. What are the Government doing to reduce the bureaucracy and expense for our rural communities, so that they can maintain their quality of life and the safety of those who live there?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Local authorities already have the powers that they need to restrict HGVs to certain vehicles or to place weight limits. If the hon. Member wants to write to me with further details of the particular issues to which he refers, I would be happy to look at that.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

My constituents in Bishopthorpe and Copmanthorpe are sick of putting up with unsafe HGV movements. Children walking to school have been involved in near misses, yet the traffic commissioner cannot take that into account, so will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss this case?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Traffic commissioners consider road safety up to the point where the operating centre joins the highway, but, beyond that, it is probably a matter for the local authority or the police. Although traffic commissioner independence is crucial and ministerial influence would be improper, I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his road safety concerns and how they might be tackled.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

T8. My constituents in Tiverton and Minehead face many challenges when it comes to transport connectivity. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the merits of a strategic outline business case set out by West Somerset Railway to reconnect the heritage railway line at Bishops Lydeard to the mainline at Taunton? That would allow students to access the only sixth-form facilities in Taunton, take the pressure off the No. 28 bus, and massively improve our ability to entertain more tourists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Businesses on the Newhouse and Bulwark industrial estates in Chepstow are desperate to keep using the M48 Severn bridge, which will be closed to lorries for at least 12 months. By the end of May, they will have to add at least 30 miles to their journey over the border, seriously affecting profitability and growth. Will the Minister meet me and Monmouthshire county council to find a solution, such as controlled flow, so that we do not hold back economic growth in Monmouthshire?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Safety is our No. 1 priority, and the weight restriction is about future-proofing the bridge for years to come, but I know how disruptive it is when a key crossing is closed or restricted to traffic. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Jeremy Hunt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

Residents across my constituency regularly raise with me the issue of potholes and the state of our roads in general. I greatly appreciate the additional funding provided by the Government to South Gloucestershire council to help with improvements. This is about safety. It also about pride of place and the costs of vehicle repairs—all these things matter—so what will the next steps be to support councils to keep roads up to scratch once the potholes are filled?

[Lilian Greenwood]

We are providing record amounts for local authorities this year, and we hope to provide a long-term funding settlement for local roads maintenance after the spending review.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State accept my warm invitation to visit my constituency and sit in traffic with me so she can experience what my constituents experience morning, noon and night on the A27, which is strangling economic growth in the area and preventing investment?

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

Economic growth requires people to be able to get to work. This morning, yet another road traffic accident happened on the stretch of M6 motorway that goes through my constituency and yours, Mr Speaker. This has a hugely disruptive impact on the mainly small roads around it in my constituency. Yet again, my residents in Longridge, Grimsargh and all the surrounding areas woke up to the prospect of another journey to work that takes two hours instead of 20 minutes, and that is becoming a monthly—if not weekly—occurrence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what can be done?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Congestion on the A38 in Bromsgrove is making it nearly impossible for residents to get around easily—yet, despite current investment, there is widespread scepticism that the Bromsgrove route enhancement plan, known locally as BREP, will improve the situation. Does the Minister agree that investment in transport must deliver a tangible improvement in traffic flow, and will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss investment in Bromsgrove so that we can keep Bromsgrove moving?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I understand the hon. Member’s wish to get his constituents moving; it is one that we share. I would be happy to look at his concerns in relation to the A38, and I will contact him with further information.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

In 2022, the previous Government cut a significant number of Southeastern services that my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford rely on. My constituents continue to raise concerns that direct services from London Charing Cross to Barnehurst and Bexleyheath should be reinstated during the evenings and weekends. Could the Minister provide an update on progress to reinstate those services?

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate and on his compelling arguments for more active travel and for improving road safety. We heard from 23 hon. Members—probably more, if we include the recent interventions—and I value their contributions to the debate. I cannot possibly answer all the issues raised, but I welcome the support for further action on these issues. I am responding as the Minister responsible for road safety.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s ambitions for active travel. Whether it is walking, wheeling or cycling, it is positive to see more of it. I am sure we have all seen how much quieter the roads are during the school holidays. That is a visible reminder of how many children are being driven to school and how much less congestion there could be if more people felt able to walk or cycle their children to school—or to let their children walk or cycle to school themselves, as perhaps some of us did when we were young.

Transport is at the heart of our mission-driven Government, and active travel is one of the strongest interventions that we can make to boost the health of the nation. Building safe, accessible and high-quality active travel infrastructure gives people the choice to walk and cycle. It can also improve the safety of our roads, reduce the number of collisions and, very importantly, cut the number of people who are killed and seriously injured. I assure hon. Members that we are keen to support local authorities to develop the infrastructure that works for their local area, whether that is introducing lower speed limits, segregated infrastructure or improved or new crossings, as a number of Members mentioned.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Labour-run Ealing council has introduced 41 school streets across the borough, which has caused a 29% increase in children walking and cycling to school and taken one in five cars off the road in terms of school runs. Will the Minister look at that sort of evidence when she is coming to her road safety strategy, and will she consider visiting constituencies such as mine to see the success of Ealing Labour’s programme?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend highlights the fantastic work that many local authorities are doing, and I welcome the evidence that she shared.

Since Active Travel England was created, we have seen a fivefold improvement in schemes meeting minimum quality standards, ensuring that what is being built is of a higher quality, enhancing safety and increasing uptake while reducing collisions. That represents a significant improvement, considering that 70% of people cite safety as the main barrier preventing them from walking, wheeling or cycling. The work of Active Travel England is key to delivering high quality and value for money improvements to our roads and the public realm. That includes rural areas.

As a number of hon. Members rightly highlighted, this is about not only safety, but extending opportunities for young people and others who cannot or do not want to drive. As part of its role, Active Travel England is improving connections with new housing developments. That is vital for places experiencing housing growth, as a number of hon. Members mentioned. Where roads and public services, including new schools or health centres, are being built, it should be the perfect opportunity to build in active travel infrastructure from the start, which is much cheaper and easier than trying to retrofit it later.

[Richard Foord]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not, because I am very conscious of the time.

If we want to encourage modal shift and improve health through transport, we absolutely must improve safety on the roads. People will only change their travel behaviour if they feel that it is safe for them and their families. As has been mentioned repeatedly, too many people, including children, are killed and seriously injured on our roads. That is precisely why this Government, alongside investing in active travel, are developing the first road safety strategy in more than a decade.

I wholeheartedly agree that we can and should do better than a decade of stagnation when it comes to road deaths. The Department is considering a variety of road safety measures for inclusion. As we develop the strategy, I am committed to continuing to engage with hon. Members, stakeholders and road safety organisations. I very much welcome the many suggestions made this evening, and I look forward to publishing the strategy in due course—I hope that that will be sooner rather than later.

One issue often mentioned by members of the public that can have a significant impact on the school run, and in particular on more vulnerable road users, is pavement parking. Many hon. Members have raised it in this debate. Interestingly, by coincidence, I met Guide Dogs, Living Streets, Sustrans and Transport for All just this afternoon to discuss the issue. The Department intends to publish a formal response to the 2020 consultation and to set out next steps on this policy area in due course. In the meantime, highway authorities can of course introduce and enforce specific local pavement parking restrictions if they so wish.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Cycling is great for young lungs and kind to the environment. Will the Minister join me in commending Avonbourne boys’ and girls’ academies, Avonwood primary school and King’s Park academy in Bournemouth East for their fantastic work in spotting cycling infrastructure opportunities and getting them built?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am delighted to recognise that fantastic work. Giving children the opportunity to walk, wheel or cycle to school is fundamental to their development and, as many people have said, builds good habits from an early age. When a quarter of children leaving primary school are overweight and 40% of primary school children are being driven to school, now is the time to provide healthier alternatives.

A number of hon. Members talked about school streets. Active Travel England recently published guidance that will assist local authorities in planning, developing and implementing school streets. As a direct result of its funding, 180 school streets have been developed, and of course there are many more. They are a great opportunity, and the benefits speak for themselves: cleaner air, fewer cars, less congestion, improved physical and mental health, and of course safer roads. I would love to mention the school streets trial in Hackney, which has provided fantastic evidence; my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Select Committee, talked about the evidence from Hounslow, and we also heard about Ealing.

Alongside school streets, Active Travel England is funding a wide range of support to enable more children to walk, wheel and cycle to school, including Bikeability cycle training, which I am keen to see, the Living Streets Walk to School outreach programme and Modeshift support for travel planning.

I am conscious that I have run out of time. We have announced a further £300 million for active travel and we will set out plans for future years following the spending review. I had better sit down now, but I am sure there will be many more opportunities to discuss these vital issues in the days ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered road safety and supporting active travel to school.

Road Maintenance

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is clear that local roads maintenance is an issue that affects every one of us, and that our constituents care about deeply. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken up on behalf of their constituents. I assure them that the Government get it and are determined to do something about it. There were too many contributions for me to mention them all, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) highlighted why it is important that local councils are required to publish reports on their plans. We want people to know if their local council is choosing not to spend the extra funding that we are providing on fixing their cratered, potholed, pimpled roads. I assure her and other members of the Transport Committee that work is already under way on a complete review of the guidance—the code of practice on well-managed highway infrastructure, to give it its full name.

I am really pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) highlighted the innovation that has been adopted by Stoke-on-Trent’s Labour council and its highways department—investing in AI to properly understand and monitor its road network and using the Pothole Pro to undertake long-lasting repairs. I am really sorry to hear that Conservative Staffordshire county council is not as responsive to the concerns of my hon. Friends’ constituents who are calling for investment in road safety. As my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) rightly reminded us, Staffordshire residents can do something about that problem by voting Labour on 1 May, as can residents in Derbyshire, Northumberland, Hertfordshire, Lancashire and many other parts of the country.

I am grateful to Scottish colleagues for their contributions. It is disappointing to hear that the SNP Government are not acting to tackle the state of Scotland’s roads, as this Government are in England and my Labour colleagues are in Wales. The Scottish people deserve better. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) raised the important issue of pavement parking, as did others, and he was right to do so, because it contributes to our broken pavements, which are so unsafe for many elderly and disabled people. The previous Government promised action for almost a decade and did nothing. We plan to respond to the 2020 consultation and set out our policy in this area.

When I tell people that I am the roads Minister, I can pretty much guarantee that the first question they will ask is, “What are you doing to fix my street?” It is not surprising that this issue is so often raised with us when we are out and about in our constituencies. The appalling state of our local roads and pavements is all too visible to us every single day. As we have heard time and again in this debate, it is unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and bikers, it makes motorists’ lives a misery and it is holding back economic growth.

The shadow Minister suggested that things were worse in 2006 than under his Government, but according to the RAC pothole index, drivers were nearly 40% more likely to have a pothole-related breakdown in 2024 than they were under the last Labour Government.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Not right now, as the hon. Gentleman has already had an opportunity to speak on this issue.

[Jerome Mayhew]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you give me some advice? Where the Minister has misquoted me and refuses to give way, what steps can I take to correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I think that is a matter of debate, and it is now on the record.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As the Secretary of State said earlier, this Government inherited crumbling roads with local highway authorities struggling to stay on top of an ever-increasing backlog of maintenance. Of course, there are many reasons for that, including the weather and the increasing volume and weight of traffic using our roads, but it is abundantly clear that the funding provided by the previous Government was simply not enough to allow local authorities to deal with the problem.

No one knows this better than Karen Shore, our Labour candidate in Runcorn and Helsby, who served for many years as the cabinet member for highways on her local council. As she and we remember, the Tories made promises for 14 years but, in reality, any funding uplifts were short-lived and never fully materialised. It is perhaps not surprising that the Conservative Benches have been so empty during this debate.

This Government are determined to ensure that things will be different, and we will do better.

[Peter Swallow]

Does the Minister know whether any Reform MPs have constituents with pothole issues? Of course, we would not know because they are not here.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and people can see for themselves which party is on the side of motorists and road users.

We have provided an extra £500 million in the current financial year, on top of the previous Government’s funding baseline and the Network North money for 2024-25. It is a huge increase. For most authorities, it means around 36% or 37% more than last year, and of course it is just the start.

As many hon. Members have observed today, a one-off uplift will not fix all the problems—it was never going to. However, through the spending review, we are determined to secure a long-term funding settlement to allow local highway authorities to plan ahead with confidence. Strangely, the only time the previous Government promised long-term funding was nine months before the general election, knowing full well that they had not put any cash aside to pay for it.

We are determined to ensure that the extra funding we are providing genuinely leads to extra spending by local authorities, rather than simply allowing them to put less of their own funding into highway maintenance. That is exactly why we are introducing the extra reporting requirements that the Secretary of State set out.

The information that councils publish in June will shine a spotlight on this issue in a way that has not happened before. It will allow local people to see for themselves what repairs and resurfacing their council is planning, and how this compares with other local authorities. It will help the Department and the public to understand matters such as which authorities are putting their own funding into the pot, and which are doing the most to prepare their networks for the wetter winters that we are already seeing.

[Robbie Moore]

I welcome the announcement on better transparency in how local government is spending money on potholes, but the challenge I have in the Bradford district is that, according to the answer to a freedom of information request, only 4% of highway spending over six years was spent in the Keighley and Ilkley constituency. The vast majority of the highway spending has been spent within Bradford city centre. How will the Government ensure that, across a local authority area, there is fairness in the amount of highway spending allocated across the whole district, rather than just on city centre projects?

[Lilian Greenwood]

This Government believe in devolution. It is for local councils, elected by local people, to decide their own priorities.

I know we have spent a lot of time talking about potholes this evening, and despite all the attention they get and the headlines they generate, potholes are only a small part of what local highway authorities are dealing with. Local highway authorities have to look after complex networks of pavements, cycle lanes, bridges, tunnels, lighting columns, drainage channels, culverts, retaining walls and much else besides. Potholes are just the tip of a very large iceberg, but they are the thing that is most visible to road users, whether they are in a car, on a bike, or being jarred while sitting on a bus. Yes, we are asking local authorities to give us their best estimate of the number of potholes they have filled in recent years. We also want them to tell us what they are doing to shift their focus to long-term preventive maintenance, because avoiding potholes forming in the first place is, as the Public Accounts Committee recognised, generally much better value for money than temporarily patching the same pothole again and again once it has become a safety-critical problem.

Let me move on to street works and to what we are doing to respond to the complaints that our roads often seem to be dug up again and again by utility companies in an unco-ordinated way. It is the responsibility of the highway authority to co-ordinate any works taking place on its roads. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) rightly described the cost of failing to do so for local people and businesses. We are committed to ensuring that the proper policy framework is in place to enable authorities to co-ordinate and plan road and street works effectively. My hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) and for Stafford will be pleased to hear that we have recently announced that we will be doing more to hold utilities to account for disruptive works. We will be doubling fixed penalty notices to increase the level of deterrent they provide and improve compliance. Charges will also be applied at weekends and on bank holidays to reduce congestion and disruption during those times.

Lane rental can help highway authorities to reduce the impact of works taking place on the busiest roads at the busiest times. Schemes allow authorities to charge utilities up to £2,500 per day for works on those roads, encouraging companies to work smarter. We know that many more councils are developing lane rental schemes, and we plan to update our guidance to help them develop those schemes. We have announced changes that mean that highway authorities will be required to spend at least 50% of surplus funds raised from lane rental on road maintenance.

To conclude, I repeat my thanks to all hon. Members who have contributed to what has been a rich and positive debate. We all want to see an improvement to the state of our local roads, pavements and other parts of our highways networks. I doubt that this will be the last time we discuss potholes, but this Government are determined to give local authorities the tools and resources they need to get on top of the problem. We want local councils to be more transparent about what they are doing with taxpayers’ money, and we want them to follow best practice. We want councils to learn from each other and benchmark each other’s performance, so that the overall standard of delivery is driven up. Getting on top of the backlog in local highway maintenance is a high priority for this Government. We recognise that there are tough choices here for councils, but getting more potholes fixed was a manifesto commitment and one we are determined to deliver. We have hit the ground running but I know that there is a lot more still to do. I will say more in a few months’ time about the longer term funding outlook for all local authorities. We look forward to working with councils over the months ahead to ensure that our funding uplift is making a real difference to all our constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered road maintenance.