Vehicle Type Approval

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

Today, the Government are confirming that they intend to legislate to mandate that vehicles placed on the market in Great Britain must hold dual GB and EU type approval and marking, enabling their sale in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the absence of evidence that manufacturers are doing so voluntarily. I am also today publishing a call for evidence on this approach.

A GB type approval scheme for passenger and commercial vehicles was introduced in 2024. Type approval is an established regulatory approach for ensuring that vehicles meet mandatory safety and environmental requirements before they can be registered and used on the roads. Vehicle manufacturers have been given two years to transition all their vehicle models on to the scheme. Good progress is being made, and as the scheme approaches its final stages of implementation, we are working with the manufacturers to ensure that they are ready. I encourage any vehicle manufacturers that have yet to begin the process to contact the UK’s approval authority, the Vehicle Certification Agency, to ensure that they have the correct approvals in place.

The scheme largely applies technical requirements that are harmonised internationally, which ensures that components like braking systems, seatbelts, and lighting are the same in both Great Britain and the EU, supporting UK exports and economic growth. However, I am aware of business concerns about current and potential future divergence between EU and GB requirements, which can lead to unnecessary barriers to trade in a global market. To this end, the former Minister for the Future of Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), sent an open letter to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in June to reassure its members that this Government will continue to monitor regulatory activity in the EU and adopt an explicit presumption in favour of alignment in the GB scheme to remove unnecessary duplicative burdens on manufacturers while maintaining high regulatory standards.

The Government are fully committed to supporting the motor industry across the whole of the United Kingdom, recognising the vital role it plays in our economy. Our most recent update to the GB scheme illustrates this approach by removing the need for dual EU and GB approvals for eCall components, and we have recently laid legislation implementing international UN regulations for cyber-security and software updates. We intend to continue to address areas where unnecessary barriers to trade may exist or might arise for manufacturers in future amendments.

We are aware of the importance of an effective single UK market for vehicles, which is important for maintaining consumer choice as well as business flexibility on how they source and supply vehicles, and I am committed to removing barriers that may prevent or hinder this, in line with the Government’s commitment to the protection of the UK’s internal market.

To sell a vehicle throughout the UK, it must be approved to the GB approval scheme and the EU’s equivalent approval scheme, which applies in Northern Ireland. The EU has historically been the largest export market for UK-produced cars, accounting for around 54%—or over 300,000—of cars exported in 2024, and UK supply chains are highly interconnected with Europe. Large-volume manufacturers are selling across both markets and already hold EU type approvals for the majority of vehicles they supply. The GB scheme was designed to support manufacturers to mark vehicles to show that they have both EU and GB approvals—known as “dual marking”—and the Government fully expect that vehicles will be dual-marked wherever possible to ensure that they can be sold across the UK.

While the majority of vehicle models are being dual-marked, I am aware that some are not. The Government have engaged extensively with vehicle manufacturers and dealerships in Northern Ireland to address this. I recognise that failing to mark vehicles as suitable for both the GB and EU markets has the potential to cause issues for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. I am committed to resolving this and will take the steps necessary to ensure that businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged compared to those in Great Britain. This will also provide a more consistent regulatory landscape that will provide industry with certainty for the future, removing unnecessary duplicative trade frictions and supporting economic growth.

This Government therefore intend to legislate to mandate dual marking if there is not a clear commitment from industry to make this the default approach for vehicles sold in the UK. We will be seeking input from industry and others to better understand the factors leading to the current situation and to help us identify the most effective way of resolving this issue.

I am pleased to inform the house that today I am publishing a call for evidence on the approval and marking of road vehicles placed on the market in Great Britain, and with a view to solidifying Northern Ireland’s vehicle retail industry within the UK internal market. In the meantime, the Government continue to urge manufacturers to dual-approve vehicles to ensure a consistent regulatory landscape across the UK vehicle market.

The call for evidence will be open until 12 February 2026. I encourage industry to engage with it so that together we can find a solution that protects the UK’s internal market.

[HCWS1205]

Roads Infrastructure: Variable Speed Cameras

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I wish to inform the House about a technical anomaly that has impacted how some variable speed cameras interact with signs on a limited number of A roads and motorways for a number of years. I would like to apologise to all who have been affected.

On 10 September, National Highways informed the Department for Transport of an anomaly on the M5 following a challenge to a speeding offence. Ministers were informed of the anomaly and that National Highways was expanding its analysis to additional sites. On 13 October, Ministers were informed that National Highways had identified that this was a national issue, whereby a technical anomaly with the way some variable speed cameras interact with signs was affecting some enforcement on parts of England’s strategic road network.

National Highways identified that on rare occasions there can be a slight delay between the two systems, meaning drivers had not been given sufficient time to respond to a change in speed limit, or were detected as speeding when the variable speed limit had already changed. This issue began when cameras were upgraded under the previous Government.

This issue has led to incorrect enforcement action being taken in a small number of cases, which I recognise will have been frustrating for those involved. National Highways confirms that this technical anomaly has occurred approximately 2,650 times on the impacted cameras over four years since 2021. To place this in context, during the same period there were approximately 6 million camera activations in total on the affected cameras, meaning that fewer than 0.1% of activations were impacted. Not all of the erroneous activations will have resulted in enforcement action, so the numbers of those actually impacted will be smaller still. These cameras are used on only 0.2% of roads in England.

National Highways has provided data to the police to enable them to begin to contact those impacted, and to allow the process of redress for cases affected by this issue to get under way. I understand that the police will prioritise the most serious cases. I can confirm that the Government will provide financial redress. Anyone who has been wrongly fined will be refunded, and where points on licences have been incorrectly applied, these will be removed. Steps will be taken to remedy any incorrect prosecutions.

A Home Office approved solution to this issue has now been agreed. National Highways will be working with the police to allow them to implement this solution as a priority. Interim measures, such as increased traffic patrol officers, will be put in place by National Highways. The police have a range of tactics to enforce speed limits on the strategic road network, including mobile camera deployments, roads policing patrols and average speed sites.

I have instructed National Highways to continue its investigations back to 2019, when the upgrade of cameras began. This will ensure that we can be fully confident that anyone who has been impacted is identified.

As soon as I was alerted to the issue on 13 October, I worked to ensure that there would be no further incorrect fines, points, or prosecutions. On 17 October, National Highways’ executive was able to instruct its camera supplier to pause the transfer of variable speed data to police forces, in order to ensure that no further individuals were incorrectly prosecuted.

Independently, the National Police Chiefs’ Council took action to instruct all affected police forces to cancel wider prosecutions related to infringements in progress, regardless of whether they were impacted by this issue. As a result, tens of thousands of people’s speed awareness courses are being cancelled, and thousands of historical fixed penalty notices and criminal justice prosecutions are being discontinued.

Throughout this process, I have been clear with all partners that we must ensure that our road network remains safe. We therefore took the decision, following a safety assessment from National Highways, not to undermine public confidence in enforcement and risk impacting driver behaviour before we had a solution to this issue approved and ready to roll out.

We will ensure that there is an independent investigation into how this technical anomaly came about, to ensure that lessons can be learned. Compliance with the law is being enforced in a variety of ways across our roads, as has always been the case. If you break the law, you can expect to be punished.

We have provided further information online at:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-highways-variable-speed-camera-anomaly

I will keep the House updated on this issue where necessary.

[HCWS1183]

Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and a pleasure to see all hon. Members at this Westminster Hall debate on the impact of the timetable change on rural communities. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on securing the debate, and everyone else on their contributions.

The hon. Member rightly raised concerns about the impact of timetable changes on rural communities. Timetables are the core product of the railway, ensuring that local, regional and inter-city communities are connected. On the east coast main line, the first major timetable change in more than 11 years will go live in a matter of days, on 14 December. It will deliver 60,000 additional seats per week and will improve journey times between London and Edinburgh by 15 minutes, unlocking the benefits to passengers of the £4 billion invested in infrastructure and new rolling stock on the route.

After a number of delays over a number of years, including delays in addressing stakeholder concerns, it was left to the Rail Minister to take the decision to implement the timetable. Relying on the Rail Minister to decide on timetable changes is not, frankly, a sustainable way to make decisions for an efficiently run, evidence-based and demand-led railway. It highlights the urgent need to reform our railways.

Building a timetable is a very complex task that requires balancing a number of competing demands. Balancing high-speed inter-city services with local and regional connectivity while also giving space for freight; ensuring stopping patterns are balanced with faster journey times; matching capacity to forecast demand and growth; ensuring sufficient infrastructure, power and rolling stock are in place to operate the services; maintaining a reliable service that is not prone to disruption—the list goes on and on.

Given how busy the east coast route is, the trade-off between stopping patterns and faster journeys is and will remain a common theme along the route. That is particularly important for rural communities, who quite rightly seek greater connectivity to support their local economies. Berwick-upon-Tweed station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), is an example: some 20% of passengers travel to London King’s Cross or other mainline stations south of Newcastle. That compares with around 52% of passengers who travel to either Edinburgh or Newcastle.

I remain confident that the changes to the east coast main line timetable better align the train service to the journeys passengers make, while retaining the key early-morning LNER trains to London. Furthermore, nearly all tickets to London will be interchangeable on other services, even for passengers having to change trains for LNER services at Newcastle. Additionally, while my hon. Friend may rightly point to fewer LNER services at Berwick-upon-Tweed in the new timetable, the service level is comparable to similarly sized destinations with a similar draw for tourism.

TransPennine Express introduced five additional services post covid; that will increase to eight in the new timetable. Berwick, with 147,000 passenger journeys to London each year, will have two hourly services to and from King’s Cross with additional trains in the morning. That is comparable to Harrogate and Lincoln, which have annual passenger journey numbers to London of over 250,000 and 275,000 respectively.

Other inter-city services provided by CrossCountry and TransPennine Express will offer at least hourly services each way from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Edinburgh, Newcastle and cities in Yorkshire. CrossCountry will continue to offer hourly services linking Berwick-upon-Tweed with Birmingham, Bristol and destinations in Devon. Despite these complexities, no timetable is ever the final one, as the Rail Minister told my colleagues. There is always scope for improvement, investment and growth. Passenger and economic needs change, and the railway will always need to adapt.

However, it is only fair to allow the new east coast main line timetable to settle in and embed. Once established, potential tweaks to stopping patterns or the wider timetable may be possible. Before I move on, it is worth noting that customers travelling from Berwick to London can purchase tickets from the same range of fares, regardless of whether they are travelling on a direct service or changing at Newcastle or York.

Under the Government’s plan for growth, it is not solely the reliance on rail services that will underpin growth in local communities, particularly in rural areas. The Government’s integrated national transport strategy is a critical piece of the jigsaw. It will focus on creating a transport network that works well for people wherever they live across England, including those in rural areas, and will empower local leaders to deliver good transport for their areas.

[David Smith]

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. I may be slightly gazumping him—he may be coming to this—but one key thing that has not come out in the debate so far is investment. Ultimately, we all realise that the east coast main line is overused and very stretched. I thank the Government for the £3 billion of extra investment in the first year of our Government compared with the previous year. My key question for the Minister is: can rural lines be considered? The Northumberland line in south Northumberland has been a great success; we need something similar in north Northumberland. Could that investment go to rural areas as well?

[Simon Lightwood]

This Government remain ambitious for our rail and have set up fantastic objectives in the Railways Bill. I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard exactly what my hon. Friend has said about further investment in the rail system. Of course, by addressing the main barriers that people face in accessing good transport, such as reliability and integration, we will improve access to opportunities and services, drive economic growth and create sustainable—rather than environmentally impactful—journeys that connect all our communities.

Devolution also has a role to play, whether that is in the form of local economic growth initiatives or by helping to shape local and regional transport networks across all modes of transport. Another key part of the new approach to devolution is funding. We have listened to what local government needs and are working to simplify funding to help local authorities to deliver on their local priorities. Multi-year, consolidated funding settlements will give local transport authorities greater freedom and flexibility to make the strategic decisions that best impact their local areas.

Let me return to the railways, and specifically the work of reform that we are carrying out. Great British Railways will be established to be the directing mind when future timetables are designed. Above all, it will be more responsive to local needs. GBR’s geographic business units will bring today’s infrastructure management and passenger services together in a single local team to manage track and train together, providing a locally focused face of the railway and a single point of leadership for local leaders.

Local stakeholders will have a role in providing evidence to Great British Railways to support the case for how future timetables can be designed to support local and regional GDP growth. They will have a say on how investment is prioritised to ensure that our railways continue to grow in terms of both revenue and capacity for more journeys, as well as supporting the high levels of performance that passengers rightfully expect. Through the rail reform agenda, local communities will be able to set out their aspirations for more stops or faster journeys, work with Great British Railways to identify the priority areas for investment and agree plans for sustainable growth that can and will be delivered. That is how this Government, the Department for Transport and Great British Railways will better serve rural communities.

As for the comments from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), I find it difficult to take lessons from the Conservatives when it comes to our railways after the complete mess they left our railways in. He did touch on buses. On the bus fare cap, the previous Government had allocated no further funding beyond the end of the last cap. Despite the terrible fiscal inheritance, we managed to sustain a £3 bus fare cap and will continue to do so until March 2027. On top of that, just a couple of days ago I announced £3 billion—a billion pounds over each of the next three years—which is going directly to local transport authorities in order to improve buses in any way they see fit. That could include further concessions on bus fares. Crucially, rather than being a “Hunger Games”-style competition for bus funding, the new formula includes an important element on rurality, recognising the distinct challenges that our rural communities face. That has been built into the funding formula.

Today’s discussion was an opportunity to reflect on the importance of timetable changes and their impact on rural communities. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members for their contributions.

Automated Vehicles Regulatory Framework

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I wish to provide the House with an update on further steps the Government are taking to implement the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 and kickstart economic growth. Self-driving vehicles have the potential to increase opportunities and break down barriers for how people and goods move around the country, making transport safer, greener, and more reliable. Strengthening road safety, improving accessibility, and ensuring safeguarding remain central to this vision.

The AV Act delivers one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind, with safety at its core. It sets out clear legal responsibilities, establishes a safety framework and creates the required regulatory powers. This includes measures designed to protect all road users—pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people, and vulnerable groups—through a consistent, evidence-based safety framework.

The AV Act implementation programme supports the Government-wide programme of work using artificial intelligence to deliver the plan for change, with AVs providing a core example of how AI could bring tangible benefits to the public. This technology has the potential to enable safer journeys, improve access to essential services, and enhance independence for people with accessibility needs.

Today, we have published an ambitious call for evidence on developing the AV regulatory framework. This call for evidence will help inform secondary legislation, guidance and policy development, ensuring the AV regulatory framework remains proportionate, forward-looking and responsive to emerging technologies while upholding strong safeguards for public safety, data protection, and responsible operation.

The call for evidence is split into two main chapters: “getting AVs on the road” and “once AVs are on the road”.

Chapter 1 seeks further evidence relating to:

Vehicle type approval: the assessment of whether the vehicle is technically safe before it is allowed on to the GB market; this is closely linked to the ongoing work at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to develop automated driving systems regulations.

Authorisation: the new process of authorising a self-driving vehicle for use on GB roads without a driver, allowing legal responsibilities to shift to the authorised self-driving entity when the vehicle is driving itself.

User-in-charge: if a self-driving feature requires a responsible human inside the vehicle, that human is the driver while the feature is disengaged, and becomes a UIC when the self-driving feature is engaged. The UIC will not be responsible for the way the self-driving vehicle drives when the feature is engaged.

Transition demands: a time-bound demand for the UIC to take control of the vehicle when a self-driving vehicle needs to safely transfer control to a human driver.

Operator licensing: the use of vehicles with self-driving features that do not require a human driver to be present while active in vehicles which may have no human on board at all.

Insurance: AVs must be insured to legally drive on our roads, but motor insurance for AVs will be different from that for conventional vehicles. As a result, insurers will need timestamp data recorded by the vehicle, showing if the system was active, to determine liabilities.

Chapter 2 seeks further evidence relating to:

In-use regulation: ongoing monitoring to confirm that vehicles continue to meet the self-driving test requirements, and in particular, the requirement to be able to safely and legally drive themselves once on the road. In-use regulation will also monitor where authorisation requirements and operator licensing requirements continue to be complied with.

Sanctions: a new set of civil and regulatory sanctions available to Government. They include compliance notices, redress notices and fines as well as variation, suspension or withdrawal of an authorisation or a licence.

Incident investigation: a process for no-blame incident investigation involving AVs, similar to existing aviation and rail investigation branches, allowing for continuous improvement based on real-world evidence

Cyber-security: appropriate cyber-security controls must be in place throughout the vehicles service life; this extends to the security of the operation centre and includes cyber, personnel and physical security.

Questions relating to data, costs and benefits appear throughout the call for evidence, and there are stand-alone sections on accessibility and environmental impacts. While the focus of the call for evidence is on the safety framework, we are particularly mindful of potential accessibility benefits and so have included accessibility considerations.

We seek views from a broad range of respondents, including road users, industry, academics, road-safety experts, accessibility specialists, first responders, trade unions, and the wider public. Their insights will help ensure that as AV technologies develop, they do so in ways that strengthen safety, widen access, and safeguard the public.

A copy of this publication will be placed in the Library of each House and published on gov.uk.

[HCWS1131]

M6: Junction 38

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this debate on the M6 Lune gorge project and his passionate advocacy on behalf of his constituents. Our strategic road network is one of the nation’s most vital pieces of infrastructure, with our motorways and major A roads forming the backbone of connectivity across England. The network links our towns and cities, ports and airports, and it is relied upon by millions of people and businesses every single day. The Government remain firmly committed to its resilience, renewal and replacement, with nearly £1.3 billion allocated for capital renewals in 2025-26.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s commitment not only in securing the debate but through his wider engagement with National Highways and the Government on this matter. He is a strong advocate for his constituents, businesses and local road users. While recognising the need for the M6 Lune gorge scheme, he has campaigned extensively to minimise the impact on his constituency. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to address the M6 Lune gorge project and the concerns raised regarding traffic management, and in particular the option of providing temporary slip roads.

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government, working closely with National Highways, fully recognise the scale and significance of the project. We understand the profound impact that transport infrastructure has on local communities, and not just in terms of connectivity but in safeguarding economic growth and quality of life. That is why we are committed to delivering a solution that is both robust and responsive to the needs of those it serves.

The M6 is a key corridor on our strategic road network and the main north-south transport axis. Early intervention is therefore essential to ensure those structures remain safe, resilient and in service. The M6 Lune gorge project is a significant and complex renewal scheme on the strategic road network. It is located within the gorge of the River Lune in Cumbria, between the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales national parks. Its purpose is to enable the vital replacement of bridge decks along a 10 km stretch of the M6 from Castle Howe bridge, adjacent to junction 38, to High Gill bridge, north of junction 37. The scheme involves eight similarly constructed structures, each now at, or approaching, the end of its operational life. Over time, these bridges have suffered significant deterioration, driven by increased traffic volumes, heavier vehicles and the growing impacts of climate change.

Construction on this project is scheduled to commence in the spring of 2027. During this period, road closures will be necessary, including the consecutive closure of both the southbound and northbound carriageways at junction 38, with diversion routes in place for road users throughout to maintain connectivity.

Safety remains National Highways’ foremost priority. To protect both the workforce and road users, there will be occasions when the full closure of the junction is unavoidable. These closures will be scheduled during weekends and overnight periods, when traffic is lighter, in order to minimise disruption. As construction approaches in spring 2027, National Highways will finalise these plans and provide clear, timely communication to ensure that road users and local communities are fully informed, to enable them to plan their journeys. The Government and National Highways remain firmly committed to engaging with local communities, to listen to the concerns and to mitigate disruption wherever possible. Following feedback from the local community, National Highways announced in September 2025 the deferral of works on Lawtland House bridge to provide an additional route of access for residents of Tebay while essential works are undertaken at junction 38.

During the initial design stages of the project prior to May 2024, National Highways considered and assessed the opportunity of using temporary slip roads. At that time, this approach was not considered feasible due to spatial constraints, value for money considerations, the need for significant lane and speed restrictions and the likelihood of a costly extension to the overall construction period.

[Tim Farron]

If possible, I would be grateful to have sight of the workings showing National Highways’ consideration of the slip roads, and what drawings and designs it did and then discarded. I have not heard of this to this date, and I am not convinced that it did that at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman will continue his engagement with National Highways, and I am sure that they can have that conversation together.

As I said, during the initial design stages of the project, prior to May 2024, National Highways considered and assessed the opportunity of those slip roads. However, following further engagement by National Highways with local communities, additional proposals for temporary slip roads were submitted by stakeholders in September and October 2025. While these broadly reflected options previously deemed unfeasible, further information was provided by an independently commissioned engineering consultancy company. National Highways has committed to a detailed feasibility review of the information produced by that consultancy company. The review is under way and will consider the impact on road users and the costs of the scheme, and with consideration of local communities. The review is expected to conclude by January 2026 and National Highways has committed to provide the outcome of this work by the end of January. I look forward to receiving the report, alongside the hon. Member and other stakeholders.

The hon. Member mentioned traffic impact assessments. National Highways understands the impact this work will have on the region and has undertaken an assessment of the impact on traffic flows of the proposed traffic management arrangements. In line with standard practice, National Highways has prepared and shared a traffic management strategy with stakeholders, which will be refined into detailed plans as we approach construction in spring 2027.

I fully understand the hon. Member’s concerns regarding the impact of road closures during the construction of this project. These are legitimate and important considerations for local communities and road users alike. National Highways has no intention of inconveniencing road users, but it accepts that, due to the nature and scale of this type of work, especially where there is a need for road closures, some level of disruption is unavoidable. However, let me assure him that National Highways is committed to carefully reviewing the proposals submitted for temporary slip roads.

The M6 Lune gorge project represents an essential renewal of the strategic road network—a critical transport corridor in our country. The scheme is not simply about replacing infrastructure; it is about safeguarding connectivity, supporting economic growth and ensuring the safety and resilience of a route that serves thousands of road users every day. Without sustained and strategic investment, the strategic road network risks deterioration, which would constrain economic growth, erode productivity and lead to significantly higher long-term costs. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that investing in the maintenance and renewal of our road network ultimately benefits the whole community.

This Government, working in close partnership with National Highways, are fully committed to delivering this project in a way that minimises disruption to road users and local communities. That is why every effort is being made to plan carefully, communicate clearly and implement measures that reduce inconvenience wherever possible.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter for debate and for his continued advocacy on behalf of his constituency. I welcome ongoing engagement with him following National Highways’ review of the additional slip road proposals, and as this important project progresses to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users and all stakeholders, including his constituents.

[Tim Farron]

I feel that the Minister is about to conclude, so I just want to press him on the meeting with myself and the local community. Is he willing to do that? He is welcome to come to Westmorland, but we would happily come down to see him here.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I mentioned, I think it would be a good idea to wait until January to understand the outcome of the assessment that National Highways is undertaking on the slip road proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Driving Test Availability: South-east

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for the opportunity to respond to today’s debate on driving test availability in the south-east. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents.

We fully recognise the frustration felt by families and young people, especially in the south-east. We recognise the financial strain on families, from lesson costs to travel and accommodation for distant tests. No learner should have to travel hundreds of miles for a test. Reducing waiting times and making the system fairer will help to ease those pressures, especially in rural and semi-rural communities. The Government are committed to restoring fairness and functionality to the driving test system. The ability to drive is not a luxury; it is a necessity for many, opening doors to employment, education and independence, as has been mentioned.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I will make some progress first because there is a lot to cover. When access to driving tests is delayed, those opportunities are put on hold and, frankly, that is unacceptable. Across the south-east and the country, driving test waiting times remain a significant concern. Across Great Britain, the average waiting time for car practical tests in October 2025 was 21.9 weeks. In England, it was slightly higher at 22.4 weeks. In some parts of the south-east, learners face waits of five to six months; in London the figure can reach 23 weeks.

Those are not just numbers; they represent real frustration for learners, families and businesses. The pandemic increased demand for provisional licences, and more learners passing theory tests and population growth have all contributed to unprecedented pressure on the driving test system. I need to be transparent: the approaches the DVSA has taken so far have not been sufficient to meet the aspiration of reducing waiting times to seven weeks.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I do not wish to delay the Minister, but there is a concurrent theme throughout, which is the sheer incompetence of the DVSA over a long period. Does the Minister think that it would be better to have an inquiry into what is wrong with the DVSA and its failure to deal with these issues? It should not be left just to politicians; it should have tackled those issues. Will he commit to having a serious look at the functionality—the bureaucratic dysfunctionality—of the DVSA?

[Simon Lightwood]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I will leave no stone unturned when looking for solutions to drive down those test delays. Even with all the measures we have put in place—including the additional test allowance incentives for examiners, which resulted in 56,000 additional tests being conducted between June and October this year, when compared with the same period in 2024—we are still not able to keep up with the rising demand. Reducing waiting times remains our top priority and we will continue to do all we can.

I want to update right hon. and hon. Members on the measures announced by the Secretary of State for Transport to the Transport Committee on 12 November. They are based on the outcome of a major consultation—not rushed or knee-jerk as the Opposition said—that received more than 90,000 responses, and are designed to make the driving test booking system fairer and to stop learner drivers being exploited.

I acknowledge the stress experienced by those who feel the need to join the early morning website queues. There are more new booking slots available on Tuesday to Friday for those who choose not to or cannot book tests on Monday mornings, but there is more that we can do. That is why we are taking strong action against bots and third-party resellers. We will reform the booking system so that only learner drivers themselves will be able to book and manage their practical driving tests. The number of times that a learner can move or swap a test will be limited to two, and there will be a limit on the area that a test can be moved to once booked.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister elaborate on whether there will be further input from driving instructors? Has there been an impact assessment of the effect that removing their ability to book tests will have on the system overall?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

These actions were taken as a consequence of the 90,000 submissions and the work that we did in the DVSA and the Department, so they are based on feedback. These changes will make access fairer and will prevent unofficial businesses and third parties from reselling tests at inflated prices. They will prevent tests from being booked in quiet areas, only to be moved to high-demand areas.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will make some progress.

Local learners in quiet areas will have better access to tests at their preferred centres, and examiner resources will be focused where demand is highest. Reform to the booking system will give greater control to learner drivers. It will remove the ability for third parties to exploit the system, and will make booking a practical driving test fairer for all.

These changes require both legislative and technical updates, and implementation is expected to begin by spring 2026. I assure Members that I will do everything I can to move as quickly as humanly possible.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

As the mum of three teenagers, I know at first hand the challenges of getting a driving test—it took us a year to get one for my son. Constituents have shared their concerns with me. One person said that they logged in at 6 am on Monday morning, and they were 24,000th in the queue. I welcome the Government’s crackdown on bots and third party bookings—that is good to hear—but will the Minister clarify what plans he has to help constituents between now and the implementation in spring 2026?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will come on to those points. I assure Members that I will provide regular updates on the bots work as we move towards delivery. I absolutely accept that it is urgent.

Our agreement with the Ministry of Defence is not a headline-grabbing gimmick. It is important that we do everything at our disposal to drive down the wait for tests, and I make no apologies for that. Thirty six defence driving examiners will conduct driving tests for one day a week for 12 months. They will focus on car tests, but that offers the flexibility for vocational testing if required.

Those measures are in addition to the action we have taken so far, which includes doubling examiner training capacity to accelerate the recruitment and qualification of new examiners; introducing tougher terms for driving instructors who book tests on people’s behalf; reintroducing the additional testing allowance scheme for up to 18 months to provide more tests; continuing with the Ready to Pass? campaign, which 95% of users rate as useful, to encourage learner drivers to take the right action to prepare for the driving test; and recruiting and training 450 new examiners.

Despite the DVSA recruiting and training 344 driving examiners, the number of full-time equivalent examiners has increased by only 46, so retaining driving examiners is just as important as recruiting them. That is why we are giving examiners an exceptional payment next year of £5,000 to encourage more to stay. Those combined actions demonstrate our commitment to tackling this issue systematically and listening to feedback to create a fairer system for everyone.

Let me pick up a few of the comments from hon. Members. On temporary test centres, obviously we continue to review the DVSA estate, but frankly we need to focus on ensuring that we have enough examiners. I hear the pleas from some hon. Members, but it is not possible to have a driving testing centre in every town, although we do try and make sure it is as equitable as possible. I hear the idea behind extending the hours. However, our regulations state that we have to ensure that the eye test is done in good light.

The DVSA is already increasing capacity by conducting more tests through overtime and additional testing allowance. I am assured that it is not possible to block-book car practical driving tests. A driving licence number can be assigned to only one car practical driving test within the booking system at this time. Additionally, it is not possible to book beyond the 24-week window; DVSA only releases tests for that period.

We have been honest in admitting the challenges that the DVSA faces to meet that seven-week target. We will be assessing the input of the new measures that we announced the other day, as well as continuing to look for more ways to get waiting times down. We will be looking to that new leadership to get a grip of this as its top priority.

There was an ask to extend the two-year validity for theory test certificates. I have every sympathy with that ask, but theory test certificates are valid for two years by law, for road safety reasons. Safety should always be of paramount importance. Road safety knowledge and hazard perception skills must be up to date when the customer takes their practical test, and the Government have no plans to change this.

[Zöe Franklin]

We are here in the UK Parliament, and it is within our power to change the law to address the current situation around theory test validity. It is clear that people are struggling as a result of the two-year limit.

[Simon Lightwood]

As I went on to say, it is important for road safety reasons, and we should never we should never relax road safety. It must be paramount. I have every sympathy with that position, but it is not something that the Government plan to change.

Driving is a lifeline for many, especially in areas where public transport is limited, and we remain committed to ensuring that learners in the south-east and across the country can access tests promptly and safety. We are determined to restore confidence in the system and ensure that every learner who is ready to drive has the opportunity to enjoy a lifetime of safe and sustainable driving.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

2. What discussions she has had with North Yorkshire council on the progress of the development of the A59 Kex Gill bypass.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

The A59 Kex Gill bypass scheme has been subject to delays and increased costs because of design changes, poor ground conditions and further landslips on the A59. The scheme is overseen by the Conservative-run North Yorkshire council, which provides regular reports to the Department on its progress.

[Sir Julian Smith]

This link is vital for east-west transport. I urge Ministers to talk more frequently with the council, because the cost overruns are now becoming quite a challenge for it, and it is vital that we get the project completed.

[Simon Lightwood]

Under the major road network programme, once the Department has approved a scheme and agreed its funding contribution, covering any cost increases is entirely a matter for local authorities. The Department has provided over £56 million towards A59 Kex Gill, and no further funding is available, but of course I would be happy for my Department to provide advice to the Conservative-run council on how to deliver the scheme with the funding provided.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

3. What steps her Department has taken to help support the decarbonisation of the maritime sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

20. What steps she is taking to help improve local bus services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

We are taking ambitious steps to improve local buses, and our landmark Bus Services Act 2025 empowers local authorities to deliver better services. We are investing over £1 billion in 2025-26, and in the coming weeks, we will confirm multi-year allocations for local authorities, to help improve bus services in the long term.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

In constituencies like Hendon, bus services are not a luxury—they are a lifeline for the community, in particular the elderly and disabled people, yet there is more to be done to ensure that all residents are within easy reach of a bus stop. Does my hon. Friend agree that frequent, well-placed bus stops are essential to ensuring that local bus services are truly inclusive and accessible?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are clear that everyone should have access to high-quality, accessible bus services. Responsibility for services in London sits with the mayor, and 96% of Londoners live within 400 metres of a bus stop. To expand the progress made under London’s Labour mayor, we will be developing a new national strategy of stopping place guidance to support inclusive bus stop provision throughout England.

[Peter Prinsley]

At a lively church hall meeting in Barningham, which is a quintessential Suffolk village, a number of my constituents raised concerns about the state of rural bus provision. They highlighted not only the infrequency of the services, but the fact that the buses are larger than demand requires; many seats are unused. Does the Minister agree that a more flexible approach, including the use of smaller, more frequent buses, potentially powered by electric motors, would be preferable in rural areas?

[Simon Lightwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend that everyone should have access to reliable and frequent bus services. While it is for operators to manage their fleets, our ambitious bus reforms are giving local leaders the tools to deliver buses on which communities can rely, including by using flexible service models.

[Sam Rushworth]

I welcome the new powers relating to buses, and the new funding for them that the Government are giving, but the problem is that what this Labour Government are giving, our Reform local authority is taking. It has announced plans to cancel the 35A out of Coundon, and the 104, which connects Canney Hill with Binchester and Newfield, and to double concessionary fares before 9.30 am. Will the Minister join me in condemning that Reform council plan, and in calling on our county council to build up our bus services, not knock them down?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will indeed join my hon. Friend in condemning that. There is no representation here from that party today, but I urge the council to use the bus grant that we have given it to support local bus services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

My constituents in Cranleigh, Shamley Green, Bramley and Shalford find it very difficult to get to their local hospital in Guildford, and to the community hospital in Milford. There is no direct bus service. A quarter of older people do not have cars. What will the Government do to help them solve that problem, which is becoming more and more difficult?

[Simon Lightwood]

That is why we brought forward the Bus Services Act 2025, which gives local leaders the tools that they need to shape bus services around needs in their community.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The age of participation increased from 16 to 18 some 10 years ago, but the age until which funded bus travel is available for those children who live too far away from the nearest school stayed at 16. I visited Purbeck school a couple of weeks ago. Many of the children who attend that school live in villages, and this was their top concern. Will the Minister look again at this anomaly, as it is simply not right that children should have to pay to get to their nearest school?

[Simon Lightwood]

Home-to-school transport is the responsibility of the Department for Education. However, we know how important affordable and reliable bus travel is, and we are committed to working with local authorities and bus operators to improve bus services for those passengers. We have already extended the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027, to help passengers continue to travel for less, and the substantial funding we have provided for local authorities to improve bus services can be used on local fares initiatives.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

In my constituency, residents face the challenge of there being four different bus companies, with four different tickets available, potentially at four different prices. Different providers’ tickets are not interchangeable, even when residents are trying to get to one location. What are the Government doing to empower local councils to work with bus companies to create joined-up ticketing systems, which would make bus travel simpler and more affordable, and would encourage local people to use bus services?

[Simon Lightwood]

Under the Bus Services Act, we are giving local leaders the powers that they need to take back control of their bus services, and to ensure that services truly reflect the needs of their community. We are working closely with local authorities to look at more integrated ticketing, and the hon. Lady will hear more about integration in our national integrated transport strategy, which is coming soon.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to improve passenger rail performance.

--- Later in debate ---

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

8. What steps her Department is taking to improve bus services in York Outer constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

We are taking ambitious steps to improve local bus services, including in York and North Yorkshire. These have included the allocation of £12.6 million of funding in 2025-26 through the local authority bus grant. I was pleased that my hon. Friend could join me, alongside the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire, to discuss their participation in our bus franchising pilots.

[Mr Charters]

Last week, I held a survey of my constituents on bus services. I got a great response, but one response stayed with me. My constituent said that the No. 11 bus—the only route to the crematorium—does not run on Sundays, meaning that they cannot visit loved ones on Mother’s Day or Father’s Day, the days that hurt most. Reading that put a real lump in my throat. No one should be stopped from remembering those they have lost because of a bus not running, so I have written to the operator, but will the Minister join me in arguing that this is the sort of practical, kind change we need to make across the country?

[Simon Lightwood]

It is vital that local bus services work for local communities, and that is at the heart of the Government’s bus reforms. I encourage the local operators to consider the feedback that my hon. Friend has mentioned, recognising the role that bus services play in supporting people to meet their families and friends and make important visits, such as to the crematorium.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

9. What steps she is taking to help improve the integration of public transport in the Isle of Wight East constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

11. What steps her Department is taking to reduce the backlog in practical driving tests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency conducted a record 1.96 million tests in 2024-25, and delivered nearly 42,000 extra tests between June and September 2025 compared with the same period in 2024. Waiting times remain too long, however, which is why last week the Secretary of State announced measures to prevent tests being booked up and resold by bots, and we are bringing in support from the Ministry of Defence to bolster examiner numbers.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Rachel, a constituent of mine, reached out to me regarding booking a driving test for her daughter at the Huddersfield centre. There are no appointments available next week, next month or even in the next year. Young people across the country are facing similar delays since the covid pandemic, forcing them to pay for months of extra lessons just to stay test-ready. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Department is taking to tackle the severe backlog in practical driving tests, increase examiner capacity, and ensure that test centres such as Huddersfield and Heckmondwike are accessible to learners within a reasonable timeframe?

[Simon Lightwood]

The DVSA has introduced measures to deliver 10,000 additional tests a month by recruiting 450 new driving examiners to increase capacity, introducing incentives for everyone delivering driving tests, encouraging qualified DVSA staff to return to frontline roles, doubling the number of trainers and extending the cancellation notice period from three to 10 working days. On top of the stuff the Secretary of State announced just the other day, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency an additional examiner is conducting tests in Heckmondwike, while another additional one for Heckmondwike is due to complete training by December, and there is an additional examiner in Wakefield, all of which is helping to drive down waiting times.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I warmly welcome the tough action taken by this Government to cut the backlog in driving tests, but one thing that will help drivers more than anything, and help pedestrians too, is a crackdown on drug drivers such as Leon Clarke, who crashed his car and killed his eight-year-old son while driving under the influence of cocaine. Does the Minister agree that we need to change the law on roadside drug tests to stamp out this rising menace?

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

T2. In June this year, the average wait time for a driving test in the UK was over 22 weeks. That backlog is holding back learners in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State outline what action she is taking to deliver extra tests and remove those barriers for young people in West Dunbartonshire?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

Driving test wait times remain too high, and this Government are committed to getting them down. Last week, the Secretary of State announced further actions to do so, including measures to prevent tests being booked up and resold by bots, and bringing in the Army to bolster examiner numbers. We continue to develop and assess further measures to tackle this serious issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

T7.   At a recent church hall meeting in Elmswell—yet another quintessential Suffolk village—a number of my constituents raised concerns about the local railway crossing. This rapidly growing village relies on an outdated level crossing, creating enormous hold-ups that are inconvenient at best and dangerous at worst. In nearby Thurston, passengers can only access the platform by walking across the tracks. Although I welcome Mid Suffolk district council’s recent decision to invest, what action are the Government taking to improve safety and reduce disruption at rural railway crossings?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am enjoying the tour of village halls this morning. Level crossings can be a significant safety risk. Network Rail, the owner of that level crossing, has legal responsibility to reduce risk so that it is as low as practically possible. The Rail Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the specifics of the crossing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Yesterday in Parliament, I met a number of bus drivers who told me that in their research of 420 routes, 222 did not have any toilets on the route, and 155 of those had no procedures in place for drivers who needed to access toilets during their route. These drivers deserve toilet dignity in their workplace. Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that those providers give their drivers toilet dignity, and will she meet me to discuss this matter further to ensure they get that access?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend. Welfare facilities for drivers are extremely important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Bracknell Forest council, supported by Department for Transport funding, has delivered an early Christmas present for residents, with free bus journeys on the first three weekends in December. Will my hon. Friend share my joy in that scheme, which will boost our local economy? I know it is only November, but will he also join me in wishing everyone in Bracknell Forest a very merry Christmas?

[Simon Lightwood]

It is my pleasure to wish my hon. Friend a very merry Christmas. I am pleased to hear about that. We have confirmed £1 billion of funding for buses to support and improve services in 2025-26 and to keep fares affordable.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Cross-channel rail was already mentioned this morning. Specifically, trains from Ashford to Paris were a massive boost for my constituents in the Weald of Kent and are much missed. It is fantastic news that Virgin would like to run trains again from Ashford and also from Ebbsfleet, but I know that there are some open questions about how the stations will be updated. It would be great to hear about any conversations that the right hon. Lady might have had with Virgin regarding what might need to happen next to move this forward.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Considering the imminent publication of the 10-year bus pipeline and rapidly rising Chinese market share in UK bus orders, will the Minister expand on what the Government will do to ensure that domestic manufacturers have a level playing field, which the SNP’s infamous ScotZEB2 shopping list for Chinese manufacturers dismally failed to deliver?

[Simon Lightwood]

As my hon. Friend is aware, we have been working closely with operators and manufacturers as part of our bus manufacturing expert panel. We will publish that pipeline of orders in the near future.

Northwich Railway Station: Accessibility

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on accessibility at Northwich station. It is an issue that clearly has a massive impact on the Northwich community and the local travelling public, regardless of their mobility, age or the fact they are travelling with heavy luggage.

Many of Britain’s 2,581 railway stations were constructed before modern accessibility standards were established, making them challenging to navigate for many disabled people. My Department’s recent accessibility audit found that approximately 56% of stations are step-free. It might also be helpful for me to explain that around 66% of the 1.3 billion journeys that take place on the network every year are between those step-free stations. This is significant progress, compared to where the network was just a few years ago, but we still have a long way to go.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and other hon. Members that accessibility is an absolute priority for this Government and, once it is fully established and operational, it will be of critical importance for Great British Railways. We are absolutely committed to delivering accessibility improvements, allowing more people to travel easily, with confidence and with dignity. We also know that the experience for disabled people when travelling on rail too often falls short of what is expected and, frankly, what passengers deserve.

That leads me on to our recently published rail accessibility road map, which ensures that we remain on track to deliver improvements, both to facilities and to the little things that create a better passenger experience. The road map includes a range of tangible actions that will improve the experience of disabled passengers on existing lines, including the assistance they receive, access to journey information and improvements to how we maintain lifts, escalators and facilities such as toilets.

Meaningful improvements are being delivered across the railway to improve the accessibility of the network. Through the Access for All programme, we have already delivered step-free access at over 270 stations right across Britain. This has included new lifts and bridges, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage and wayfinding changes that make a real difference to the everyday lives of passengers. Thirty-two station accessibility upgrades have been completed since the beginning of April 2024, with accessibility upgrades at a further five stations planned for completion by the end of March 2026.

Smaller-scale accessibility upgrades have also been completed at more than 1,500 locations, including everything from accessible ticket machines to better lighting, handrails and help points. This is real progress. We are making strides to transform journeys for passengers who previously struggled to use the railway or were unable to use it at all, and we are continuing to invest in station accessibility. As part of the 2025 spending review, the Chancellor confirmed £280 million for Access for All projects over a four-year period.

Now that I have addressed some of the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that we provide adequate accessibility at stations, I will turn to the specific topic of this debate: accessibility at Northwich railway station, in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Mid Chesire. I regret that Northwich station does not offer full step-free access. As he set out in his speech, the Chester-bound platform remains accessible only via a bridge with stairs. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and travellers with luggage, this is a real challenge and hugely regrettable in 2025.

In 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations across Britain to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received, including for Northwich station; indeed, this nomination received strong support from my hon. Friend. The previous Government announced that the initial feasibility work would be undertaken for 50 of these projects, and as my hon. Friend knows, Northwich railway station was not one of the stations announced. Of course, it is not for me to comment on decisions made by the previous Government, but I absolutely recognise his disappointment and frustration at that decision.

My hon. Friend spoke clearly and passionately about the gable end of the station building collapsing into the Victorian canopy and the immense disruption that it caused to users of the station. As he observed, this created an opportunity to deliver step-free access at Northwich station. Again, I recognise my hon. Friend’s frustration that such an opportunity was not taken under the previous Government.

Let me now respond to some of the specific questions that my hon. Friend put to me. First, he asked whether the Department will publish the process by which stations will be submitted for consideration under future rounds of the Access for All programme. Our recently published rail accessibility road map includes a clear commitment to reform the Access for All programme as part of establishing Great British Railways. As colleagues may know, the Railways Bill recently had its First Reading. As the Bill progresses, we will be able to provide a clear timeline for reforms to the Access for All programme, but the House can be assured of our commitment to transparency and a reformed, more efficient approach to this programme.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

The Minister is making a compelling case for why the Government are so insistent on making all stations accessible to ensure that everybody has access to public transport. In my home town of Redditch in Worcestershire, the plan for a newly redeveloped station has been cancelled by the local Reform-led council, just when this Government have pledged hundreds of millions of pounds to improve cross-city lines via the midlands rail hub. The plan was to bring the station up to compliant standards for accessibility. Does he share my frustration, and will he urge the county council to think again about the redevelopment plan?

[Simon Lightwood]

I do indeed share my hon. Friend’s frustration and that of, I suspect, hundreds of his constituents, who will continue to face challenges when using the rail network. We are very much committed to delivering a more accessible rail system, and I am sure he will continue to voice the thoughts of his constituents loud and clear to his local council.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire asks about the timescale for the next tranche of Access for All stations, which will be announced soon. Network Rail has completed feasibility studies on the 50 stations selected by the previous Government, and in the coming months we will announce which of these will progress.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

It is very exciting to hear the proposals coming forward from Network Rail. Can the Minister give us some more information on how we local constituency MPs can support our local communities in pushing forward with the campaigns to have our stations included in that? As he heard me say earlier, it took 20 years of campaigning by very committed local Labour councillors in Alfreton town council to get the measures put in place in Alfreton so that everybody can enjoy access to the train station. We still have a train station in Langley Mill, which is much simpler to resolve, but I am told by Network Rail that although it is not against doing improvements there, it depends on footfall. More people would be able to use the train station if it was accessible, but it will not be accessible unless more people use it, so it is a bit of a Catch-22. I would very much welcome advice on that.

[Simon Lightwood]

We have seen some great examples across the country of where local stations have managed to attract third-party funding. What I am able to do is volunteer the time of the Rail Minister. I will ensure that he reaches out to have a one-on-one conversation with my hon. Friend.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire asks whether Northwich station will be considered for inclusion in the next round of accessibility funding. Given the powerful case that he has made today, I fully expect Northwich to be considered for future rounds of Access for All funding. Indeed, the limitations of the current station and the benefits that step-free access would bring, which he set out so clearly today, are exactly the sorts of factors that I expect to inform bids for future rounds of funding.

Finally, my hon. Friend raises an important point about ensuring that when stations are refurbished or rebuilt, accessibility improvements are properly considered for delivery at the same time. I share his disappointment that under the previous Government, opportunities to deliver such improvements at Northwich station were missed. I am happy to commit to my hon. Friend that we will write to the chief executive of Network Rail to ask him to consider whether accessibility is sufficiently embedded in planning and delivery, and how these arrangements can be strengthened further as we move towards the full stand-up of Great British Railways.

During the course of this exchange, we have addressed some of the important issues and considerations around rail accessibility. Drawing on the example of Northwich in my hon. Friend’s constituency, we have discussed missed opportunities under the previous Government to integrate accessibility improvements. Let me finish by reiterating that this Government are absolutely committed to developing a rail network in which accessibility is incorporated from the outset, not just as an afterthought. That is demonstrated by the £280 million of funding that the Chancellor has made available to the Access for All programme through the recent spending review.

I thank my hon. Friend for leading this important debate. I also thank him and other hon. Members for their patience as we continue to move towards a more accessible rail network that works for all passengers.

Question put and agreed to.

Rural Railway Stations: Step Free Access

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner.

It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on rail accessibility in rural areas, which plays a vital role in opening up our railway to people who do not happen to live in towns and cities, regardless of their mobility, their age or the fact that they are travelling with heavy luggage. Accessibility is a core priority for this Government and will continue to be for Great British Railways. We are committed to delivering a rail system that allows disabled people and others who might need assistance to travel easily, confidently and with dignity; of course, this applies equally to those living in rural areas.

We know that too often disabled people’s experience of travelling by rail falls short of what is expected and what passengers deserve. We are not waiting for GBR to be established to deliver improvements to facilities and to the passenger experience. Our short to medium-term ambitions are set out in the accessible rail road map, which we published last week alongside the Railways Bill. The road map includes a wide range of accessibility improvements across seven priority areas, such as station and train accessibility, consistency and reliability of both assets and information, ticket retailing, monitoring, culture and training. The road map also announced that eligibility for the disabled persons railcard will be extended in two phases next year. This will make the application process simpler and reflect a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse barriers that disabled people face when travelling.

The accessible rail road map is a practical transitional plan focused on delivering immediate improvements to accessibility, while laying the foundations for longer-term transformation under GBR. It is the beginning rather than the end of delivering a more accessible railway for the future. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for her ongoing work in making the case for improved accessibility in rural areas, particularly in her own constituency, which I will address in the course of my remarks.

The Government remain fully committed to improving accessibility across our rail network. Like Members in all parts of the House, we recognise the significant social and economic benefits that accessible transport brings to individuals, families and of course communities. Through the Access for All programme, we have already delivered step-free access to more than 270 stations right across Britain. This work has included providing lift installations, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage and wayfinding changes, all of which make a real difference in the everyday lives of passengers. Smaller-scale accessibility upgrades have also been completed at more than 1,500 locations. This work has included providing everything from accessible ticket machines to better lighting, handrails and help points. That is real progress. We are making strides to transform journeys for passengers who previously struggled to use the railway, or were unable to use it at all. We are also continuing to invest in improving station accessibility. As part of the 2025 spending review, the Chancellor confirmed £280 million for Access for All projects over a four-year period.

I now turn to the specific topic of this debate: accessibility at rural stations. Like all taxpayer-funded programmes, Access for All needs to demonstrate value for money. Funding is therefore targeted at the busiest stations to benefit the maximum number of people. Consequently, stations in rural areas that are used by fewer people are unlikely to be prioritised for accessibility upgrades, although I should also make it clear that that is equally applicable to stations in towns and cities that are less used than other stations.

It might be helpful to our understanding of the issues around accessibility in rural areas to reflect on the accessibility of stations in the North Shropshire constituency, which is a largely rural area. On a positive note, I think that Prees, Gobowen and Wem railway stations in her constituency already provide step-free access to all platforms. All three of these stations are categorised as B1, which means that step-free access is provided to all platforms, albeit it might be via a steep ramp. In the case of Gobowen—I checked the pronunciation beforehand, but still cannot manage it; apologies to constituents there—and Wem, I am aware that access can also require the use of level crossings. If a passenger arrives when the barrier is down, they might not be able to reach their platform in time to catch the train.

[Helen Morgan]

I want to re-emphasise the point that to a person who lives in Whitchurch, Gobowen is a long way away; they have to drive there. There is no parking at Prees. It is in the middle of nowhere—literally, because the station is not in the village. At Wem, the barrier is down for seven minutes when a train comes in; it is really inaccessible. Although fewer people use those stations, they have fewer options for public transport. I wonder whether the criteria are the right ones.

[Simon Lightwood]

I am reminded that Cumberland is one of our bus franchising pilot areas. So far, from just looking at our city regions as discussed earlier, we are investing money in those franchising pilots to ensure that the major improvements promised under the Bus Services Act 2025 can also be realised in more rural areas.

Passengers’ access to parts of the railway via level crossings is an extensive feature of rural railways across Britain, and while we would all like to see a world where that is not the case, I regret that such changes will take many years to achieve. For now, it is important for passengers to plan their journeys carefully and arrive at the station in plenty of time. I also urge passengers in North Shropshire and other rural areas to make use of the railway Passenger Assist service, which allows those with mobility requirements to book assistance for their journeys from all stations, including rural ones that may not have full-time, on-site staff, as the hon. Lady mentioned.

Whitchurch station is categorised as B3, meaning step-free access is available only to one platform—platform 2, for trains to Crewe and further north. Access to platform 1, for trains to Shrewsbury and for those travelling back from the north, is via a footbridge with 44 steps. Clearly, that limits which passengers can make use of Whitchurch station.

Turning to our plans for further accessibility upgrades at railway stations across Britain, in 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received, including for Whitchurch station. That nomination was supported strongly by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The previous Government announced that initial feasibility work would be undertaken for 50 of those projects, and, as the hon. Lady knows, Whitchurch was one of them. I am pleased to confirm that those initial feasibility studies have now been completed. I know that she and the hon. Members representing the other 49 stations are keen to understand the next steps. I thank them for their patience while we carefully consider these important matters, and I can confirm that we plan to provide that information in the coming months.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) for talking about Par station. The Government have invested more than £50 million in the Mid Cornwall Metro project, which is funding a new bridge and lifts. I am delighted with the progress that has been made toward delivering better accessibility across that part of Cornwall, and with the really collaborative approach taken by Network Rail, Great Western Railway and Cornwall council. Crucially, that demonstrates that there are potential funding sources other than Access for All to improve accessibility at rural stations.

During the debate, hon. Members have addressed some of the important issues and considerations around rail accessibility in rural areas. Drawing on examples in the North Shropshire constituency , we have identified challenging factors, such as the need to use level crossings for step-free access to some parts of the railway. We have also discussed stations such as Whitchurch, which, frustratingly, is only partly accessible—a legacy of the Victorian railway, which did not consider such issues.

This Government are absolutely committed to improving the accessibility of our railways, and we are in no doubt about the social and economic benefits of doing so. That is demonstrated by the £280 million that the Chancellor made available for the Access for All programme in the recent spending review. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire for leading this important debate, and I thank her and other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their patience before we announce which new Access for All projects will progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards

Simon Lightwood Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on securing this debate about the potential merits of a new standard for headlight glare. I am sure that it will have not gone unnoticed that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. But the effect of every death or injury on our roads is devastating for the individuals and families involved.

I make it clear that this Government treat road safety seriously and are committed to reducing the number of those killed and injured on our roads. The Department is working to develop its road safety strategy, which will include a broad range of policies, and will set out more detail in due course. More widely, the Department recognises the importance of the road network to many people’s lives and to the economy. But we know that not everyone shares the same positive experience. Glare from headlamps is a perennial issue, as there is a compromise between providing illumination with sufficient intensity and distance to enable drivers to see and anticipate potential hazards, and the propensity to cause glare for other road users.

To strike the right balance, all vehicle headlamps are designed and tested to follow international standards developed under the United Nations to ensure that they are bright enough to illuminate the road but do not unduly affect the vision of other road users. Those standards define the beam pattern and include maximum and minimum light intensities. None the less, we know that lots of people raise concerns about headlamp glare, and we are told that some drivers, as has been mentioned, choose not to drive at night because of its effects. While police collision statistics do not indicate an increase in collisions caused by headlamp glare, the issue can lead to social isolation, which impacts on people’s wellbeing and their ability to undertake everyday tasks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley highlighted the impact on older residents in particular. Obviously, we have an ageing population with increasing numbers of older drivers. As people age, their eyes become more susceptible to glare due to changes in the photobiology of their eye. Better vehicle technology such as power-assisted steering, automatic transmission and improved braking and parking aids have made the driver’s task easier, and people tend to drive for longer before surrendering their licence. The number of adults more than 70 years old in England holding a full car licence has actually increased by more than 50% over the last 10 years.

[Shockat Adam]

I agree wholeheartedly that better cars mean that we are driving for longer, but does the Minister share my concern that the UK is the only country in Europe that allows people to hold a driving licence until the age of 70 without ever being required to take a sight test? Perhaps we need a sight test at initial licence application, at every 10-year renewal and at every three years from the age of 70 because we are driving for much longer.

[Simon Lightwood]

We will always keep all these considerations under review, but, as with anything, we will be evidence-led on the measures that we put in place, working with our international partners.

Road users will have experienced discomfort from headlamp glare when driving. From personal experience, I know that that is not pleasant. A few Members raised headlight aim, which is checked in an MOT once a year. During normal wear and tear, headlights can become out of alignment. The manual controls that many of us have to adjust our headlight focusing need to be changed if we have passengers in the back seats or luggage in the boot. Many Members I spoke to in advance of the debate did not know that, if they have luggage in their boot or people in the back seats, they should adjust their headlights. There is more education to be done there.

Over the years, the Department for Transport has raised the issue at the United Nations international expert group on vehicle lighting, and it was asked about the UK playing an international role. Following lengthy and significant negotiations, proposals to amend headlight aiming rules were agreed in April 2023, together with requirements for mandatory automatic headlamp levelling —a system that automatically recorrects the aim of the headlights based on the loading of the vehicle, to go back to the issue of when passengers are in the back seats or there is luggage in the boot. Those new requirements are expected to take effect in September 2027, to permit sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers to redesign their products and adapt the manufacturing process. Once implemented, those tougher requirements will help alleviate the number of cases where road users feel dazzled by vehicle headlamps.

There is, however, still much to do and much that we do not know about the underlying causes. To address the lack of clear evidence into which factors are impacting on drivers, the Department for Transport commissioned independent research in 2024 to understand better the root causes of the glare. Over several months, researchers gathered real-world glare data when driving at night, using an instrumented vehicle and machine learning analysis tools to determine the main factors that influence glare. That work was recently completed, and the final report is due to be published in the next week.

As might be expected, the results indicated that road geometry, in combination with brightness, is a key factor in glare events. The second most important factor, however, was identified to be vehicle type, suggesting that certain vehicle characteristics may be contributing to problems of glare. Given the findings of this innovative and groundbreaking research, the Department plans further research examining a range of vehicle makes and models, aimed at identifying what vehicle design factors may be responsible for increased glare. That can then be used to generate proposals for amendments to the international vehicle lighting regulations at the United Nations.

[Lauren Edwards]

Given that SUVs, which are generally larger, higher cars and have LED lights, now make up more than half of new cars sold in the UK and demand is growing, does the Minister agree that it is critical that the Government address this issue urgently?

[Simon Lightwood]

I heed the comments of my hon. Friend. Again, it is important that we are evidence-led, hence the commissioning of further research to drill down on the cause and effect.

In parallel, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, which leads for the Department on market surveillance of vehicles and automotive components, has stepped up its activities to intercept the sale of illegal retrofit headlamp bulbs for on-road use, which we believe is one of the contributing factors. Anyone caught could face a fine of £1,000. The Department is also an active member of the Euro NCAP consumer information programme, which assesses a range of vehicle characteristics to determine a vehicle’s safety rating. Work is under way to develop a new vision protocol for 2029, which is planned to include an assessment of vehicle lighting systems to ensure that they provide forward vision while minimising the risk of dazzle for some road users.

Much has already been achieved, but we have listened and we understand that more can and must be done. We will continue to develop the evidence and work domestically and with our international partners to help ensure that people feel able to drive at night without experiencing glare or dazzle.