UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Transportation

  • Sarah Edwards – 2026 Speech on School Minibus Safety

    Sarah Edwards – 2026 Speech on School Minibus Safety

    The speech made by Sarah Edwards, the Labour MP for Tamworth, in the House of Commons on 12 February 2026.

    It is good to see so many hon. and right hon. Members present to take part in this important debate on school minibus safety. No family should ever have to question whether their child will return home safely from a school activity. For my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, that unthinkable fear became a devastating reality. In November 1993, a minibus carrying 14 children was involved in a catastrophic crash on the M40 near Hagley. Twelve children and their teacher lost their lives, and among them was Liz and Steve’s beloved daughter, Claire.

    I first met Liz and Steve while campaigning in my by-election in 2023. They bravely shared their story with me and invited me to support their ongoing campaign to make school minibuses safer, so that no child would ever be put at risk while travelling to or from school activities. Since then, I have stood with them in their tireless efforts to improve safety, not just for the children who travel in these vehicles, but for the teachers and staff who are asked to drive them. More than 30 years have now passed since that tragedy, and while important improvements have been made in areas such as seatbelt provision and vehicle construction standards, the underlying regulatory framework that allows teachers to drive minibuses without full professional training remains largely unchanged.

    Children’s safety should not be up for debate. This is about reducing risks that we already know can be prevented. It is about asking whether the legal framework that governs the transport of pupils to and from school activities truly matches the weight of that responsibility. Every time a child steps on to a school minibus, parents place their trust in the system that stands behind it. That system must be strong, consistent and—above all—capable of keeping every child safe. At the moment, many of us believe that that system falls short.

    The system that governs school minibuses is built around section 19 permits, introduced under the Transport Act 1985. These permits allow not-for-profit organisations, including schools, to run minibuses without holding a full public service vehicle operator’s licence. Under that system, drivers must meet certain basic licensing conditions, but they are not required to hold a full passenger carrying vehicle licence. Nor are they required by law to undertake accredited professional training.

    The official guidance, which dates from 2013, states that drivers must be suitably trained and correctly licensed. It even recognises that driving a minibus requires additional skills, and is simply not the same as driving a large car. However, it is guidance, so it is advisory, and there are no checks by the Department for Education or Ofsted on its implementation or use. Schools are encouraged to consider specialist training, but they are not required to do so. At the moment, the guidance is not strong enough to guarantee children’s safety. That is why, alongside Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the NASUWT, I have been calling for stronger, clearer regulations to make sure that every child can travel safely, and that teachers and staff are properly trained and supported to carry out that responsibility.

    It is also important to understand how and why the framework came about. Section 19 and 22 did not emerge from a careful review of child passenger safety. They were shaped largely by European market rules designed to regulate competition. In other words, the system that we rely on today was driven more by economic considerations than by the safety of schoolchildren. That historical origin has left us with a fragmented and confusing framework.

    Private schools that are not charities are treated as commercial operators, and they must hold a full operator’s licence, meet strict financial and safety requirements, appoint a qualified transport manager, and employ fully licensed, professionally trained drivers with regulated hours. That comprehensive legal framework is designed to protect children and ensure accountability. By contrast, many state schools transport children daily under section 19 permits without the same safeguards. They operate largely on guidance rather than law, with no mandatory professional training or oversight. In practice, teachers may drive minibuses at the end of a full teaching day without the protections required of commercial drivers.

    That raises simple but troubling questions. Why should a child’s safety depend on the type of school they attend? Why should children in private schools travel under a full safety regime, while children in state schools rely on discretion and good will? I criticise not independent schools, which are complying with the law, but the two-tier system that affords different levels of protection to children—that is unfair and unacceptable.

    The inconsistency goes further. Across the UK, standards vary by nation. In Northern Ireland, for example, driving a school minibus without a full D1 licence can be a disciplinary offence. Children’s safety should not depend on postcode, school type or geography. Every child deserves the same standards, protections and assurance that those responsible for their transport are properly trained and accountable.

    The Government recently stated before the Transport Committee that they do not wish to relax D1 licence requirements for community minibus drivers, citing road safety concerns. Around one in five candidates fails the D1 test, even after extensive training. That failure rate is a clear indication of the level of skill and competence required to operate such vehicles safely.

    Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)

    I am concerned that under the current system, someone could fail their test to drive a minibus in a professional setting and it would not stop them from driving one in a school setting, which does not require a D1 licence. Why is that licence not required to drive children to and from school activities? It fundamentally does not make sense. Does my hon. Friend agree?

    Sarah Edwards

    That is precisely my concern. It does not make sense at all given that failure means an inability to drive safely. We should surely apply the same standards or higher when children are involved.

    Under the current school system, a teacher over the age of 21 who holds only a standard category B car licence and has just two years’ driving experience can legally drive a minibus carrying children, without holding a full passenger carrying vehicle licence and without undertaking any mandatory accredited training—so, too, can the individual who has failed their D1 driving test. This creates a stark and troubling inconsistency in the Government’s own stated aims.

    In every other context, professional passenger transport is treated as high risk, with rigorous training, testing and regulation designed to protect passengers. Yet the law allows schoolchildren—the most vulnerable passengers, some might argue—to be transported under a system that relies on guidance rather than on statutory safeguards. We must ask ourselves: if the Government recognise the dangers and the skill required to drive a minibus in every other setting, why do they not apply the same standards to those entrusted with the lives of children? The safety of our school pupils should not be left to chance or good will.

    Current guidance recognises the dangers of driver fatigue and advises against long journeys after a day of work, but those are only recommendations. In practice, teachers are often expected to drive minibuses at the end of long teaching days. They are responsible for driving larger, more complex vehicles while supervising pupils at the same time. In some cases, they are the only adult on board. That presents serious risks in the event of a breakdown, an emergency or a behavioural incident. This is not about blaming teachers—they are dedicated professionals—but the system places enormous responsibility on them without the professional safeguards that exist in other areas of passenger transport. It is no surprise that growing numbers of teachers are choosing not to drive minibuses, citing stress and concerns about personal liability.

    There is also clear confusion and inconsistency in the system. Guidance on section 19 permits has been interpreted in different ways, and some local authorities and academy trusts apply their own requirements that differ from national guidance. That uncertainty does not make children safer. The NASUWT teaching union has described the current regime as “not fit for purpose”, and a 2024 survey found inconsistent compliance with legal requirements and guidance across many schools. In some cases, management is aware of the shortcomings. In others, problems arise because guidance is unclear and training is lacking. Vehicle faults and poor maintenance have been identified, leaving teachers unknowingly responsible for the vehicle’s roadworthiness. The same survey found that 24% of teachers felt pressured to drive a minibus despite feeling unqualified to do so. Although NASUWT guidance is available to teachers, the union ultimately advises staff not to drive minibuses at all, due to the legal, safety and personal liability risks involved.

    Concerns have also been raised about the use of lightweight minibuses, which are basically converted vans fitted with seats. Many of these vehicles weigh less than 3.5 tonnes, which allows schools to bypass the training and licensing requirements that would otherwise apply to those who obtained their category B car licence after 1997. In effect, these vehicles have become a cheaper workaround for schools, but that cost saving comes with significant safety compromises: these lightweight minibuses often lack essential features such as side impact protection or full airbag coverage, leaving children and staff more vulnerable in the event of a collision. In practice, gross vehicle weight limits are not always routinely checked before journeys begin. Many teachers are unaware that once they take a vehicle on to the road, they are legally responsible for not only their driving but ensuring that the vehicle is roadworthy and compliant with regulations.

    This combination of under-equipped vehicles, insufficient oversight and limited professional training creates a serious safety risk. Teachers can find themselves responsible for dozens of children in a vehicle that is not designed to carry them safely, with no back-up if something goes wrong. The risk is not theoretical; it is a real and present danger that must be addressed. We should not accept a system where cost, convenience or outdated loopholes determine the level of protection that children receive. Every child, in every school, should be transported in a vehicle that meets robust safety standards, driven by someone who is properly trained, and supported by a clear and enforceable legal framework.

    The so-called short distance exemption further complicates matters. Section 19 permits assume that journeys will normally take place within a 10-mile radius, except in rural areas, but many schools, including church schools and large multi-academy trusts operating across several counties, regularly travel well beyond that distance for sports fixtures and other activities. When what is meant to be exceptional becomes routine, it is reasonable to ask whether the legal framework is still fit for purpose.

    At the same time, parents are often unaware of the regulatory distinctions that underpin school transport. Traditional written consent forms once gave parents a clear understanding of arrangements. Increasing reliance on digital systems means that many parents simply assume that robust, uniform standards are already in place. How many parents have been informed prior to a trip and asked whether they were happy for their child to be driven in a minibus by a teacher or staff member who could not demonstrate the level of training required for professional minibus operators?

    Everything that we have heard and considered today makes it clear that the current system is failing both children and staff. We are allowing a two-tier approach to safety, where the protection that a child receives depends on the type of school that they attend. That cannot continue.

    Sarah Edwards

    I met Ministers from the Department for Transport in May 2025 and from the Department for Education more recently, but the suggested changes are yet to be made. The issue was not mentioned in the Government’s road safety strategy. I have already raised that concern with the Minister, and I am raising it in the House today to provide the detail and substance behind those concerns for the official record.

    The road safety strategy sets out excellent ambitions for the protection of road users and cites issues around appropriate licences, which I applaud. I know the Minister is rightly proud of the strategy as a piece of work. I raise the issue of the continued use of permits for school minibus driving precisely because it cuts across the sentiment of the strategy, and I am disappointed that terms like “community transport” or “school minibuses” do not appear in the document at present, despite these inconsistencies being known to Departments.

    I ask the Minister to take action about the following suggestions that I will set out. All schools, whether state-funded or independent, must be held to the same safety standards, with best practice an absolute minimum. Section 19 permits for schools should be replaced with statutory regulations, moving from guidance-based advice to enforceable legal standards, and aligning all school minibus operations with road safety priorities rather than simply community exemptions.

    The Department for Education should have a list of all associated minibuses that schools use and operate, regardless of whether they are a local authority or an academy trust school. This information should be jointly shared with the Department for Transport, because at present no such information exists, nor does the ability to extract minibus accident data from generic passenger vehicle data, meaning that minibuses are treated in the same way as buses or coaches in Government data. That makes further analysis of the issue difficult.

    The professionalisation of school minibus driving must be mandated. All drivers should hold a passenger carrying vehicle licence or D1 qualification in order to operate a school minibus. Every school fleet should be overseen by a transport manager, and drivers must undergo checks on eyesight, health and driving records.

    The use of lightweight minibuses must be phased out or banned. Children should travel in vehicles built to proper safety standards, not those chosen to save costs. A national inspection and enforcement regime must be introduced. DVSA inspections should cover all school transport, not just commercial operators, with vehicles and drivers tracked in a centralised, transparent system.

    Legal grey areas must be clarified. Government guidance should remove ambiguity around terms such as “volunteer”, “hire or reward” and “non-commercial”, and the guidance must be court-tested and enforceable.

    Teacher wellbeing and safety must be protected. Driving duties should not fall to teachers after a full working day. Minibus driving should be recognised as a specialised responsibility in schools, not an informal task. We also believe that transport safety should be included in Ofsted inspections, and the long-term impact of accidents on both pupils and staff, including mental health and trauma, must be taken seriously.

    In closing, these are not abstract or minor reforms. They are essential steps to ensure that every child can travel safely to and from school activities, and that the adults entrusted with that responsibility are fully supported, trained and accountable. I think of Liz and Steve Fitzgerald, and the courage it has taken them to turn their personal tragedy into a tireless campaign for safer school transport. Their determination reminds us all why reform cannot wait, because sadly during the time that we have been campaigning together and meeting Ministers, other such tragedies have occurred.

    I urge the Government to take steps to close the ambiguity and to further their aims for road safety for all who use them. Our children deserve nothing less than a system that guarantees their safety, values the teachers who transport them and removes the inequalities and risks that underpin the current framework. It is time for decisive action. I thank the Minister for coming here today and I commend this debate to the House.

  • Steve Rotheram – 2026 Comments on the Government’s Northern Powerhouse Rail Announcement

    Steve Rotheram – 2026 Comments on the Government’s Northern Powerhouse Rail Announcement

    The comments made by Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, on 14 January 2026.

    Two hundred years ago, we built the world’s first passenger railway between Liverpool and Manchester – and changed history. After more than a decade of dither, delay and broken promises, this is the start of a new era, with a genuinely strategic approach and a government finally backing Northern Powerhouse Rail in full.

    A creaking rail system has held the North back for too long. Our journeys aren’t just slower – our growth has been slower too. Poor connectivity doesn’t just hold people back – it holds our economy back. It limits our productivity, restricts freight capacity, and chokes off opportunity.

    Today that changes. This is the kind of ambition we’ve been crying out for. Not another empty slogan or back of a fag packet plan but real investment, delivered in a proper partnership with local leaders that will unleash our latent potential and unlock growth in all of our communities right across the great North.

  • Keir Starmer – 2026 Comments on the Government’s Northern Powerhouse Rail Announcement

    Keir Starmer – 2026 Comments on the Government’s Northern Powerhouse Rail Announcement

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 14 January 2026.

    I spent three happy years in Leeds as a university student, a vibrant city I was proud to call home. But I’ve seen first hand what underinvestment and empty pledges do to cities across the North. 

    A reliable commute, a secure job, a thriving town centre – these are all things that everyone should expect. But over and over again people in Northern communities, from Liverpool and Manchester to York and Newcastle have been let down by broken promises. 

    This cycle has to end. No more paying lip service to the potential of the North, but backing it to the hilt.  

    That’s why this government is rolling up its sleeves to deliver real, lasting change for millions of people through Northern Powerhouse Rail: a major new rail network across the North that will deliver faster, more frequent services. 

    This investment is proof we’re putting our money where our mouth is, working with local leaders to deliver the transport links that will help working people do what they need to in life – getting to work, taking the kids to school, or days out with the family.

  • Andy Burnham – 2026 Comments on the Government’s Northern Powerhouse Rail Announcement

    Andy Burnham – 2026 Comments on the Government’s Northern Powerhouse Rail Announcement

    The comments made by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, on 14 January 2026.

    Finally, we have a government with an ambitious vision for the North, firm commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail and an openness to an underground station in Manchester city centre. A modernised Manchester Piccadilly could become the Kings Cross of the North, acting as a catalyst for major growth in our city region and beyond.  

    Over the past decade, we’ve become the UK’s fastest growing city region, but underinvestment in rail infrastructure has long acted as a brake on further growth. Today marks a significant step forward for Greater Manchester. We’ll now work at pace to prove the case for an underground station and work up detailed designs for the route between Liverpool and Manchester.

  • Olly Glover – 2026 Speech on Road Safety Strategy

    Olly Glover – 2026 Speech on Road Safety Strategy

    The speech made by Olly Grover, the Liberal Democrat MP for Didcot and Wantage, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2026.

    I thank the Minister for her statement and for the strategy. We welcome it, having called for an updated road safety strategy for some time, following years of neglect of our roads by the previous Conservative Government. The strategy shows serious intent, and I commend the thought and research that has gone into it and the breadth of thinking on display. It is welcome that it is largely substance rather than gimmicks, which could have been the case. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Ryan’s law campaign on penalties for hit and run, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), is incorporated into the strategy.

    Our concern is that much of the strategy is based on a commitment to undertake consultations. I hope the Minister agrees that we would not want to see a repeat of the time it has taken to undertake a pavement-parking consultation—admittedly one initiated by the previous Government—with a wait of five years until the welcome announcement of something today. Consultations need to be meaningful, but they also need to be time-bound and then translated into action.

    A number of areas need focus. We need to consider the significant impact on some groups in society that these measures will have, right though they are for advancing road safety. The first group is older people. The older generation have grown up in an age of decades-worth of Government policy promoting travel by car, so this runs the risk of having a significant impact on them. As I know from constituency casework, they also suffer from DVLA administration failures in processing medical changes and so on. This underlines the importance of improving public transport to reduce car dependency—in particular, the development of demand-responsive transport in rural areas, which the Transport Committee has looked at in detail.

    These measures also run the risk of placing further pressure on the rural economy. Our pubs and farming communities are already under real pressure from increased alcohol taxation, business rates and inflation and poor international trade arrangements, which makes it even more important that they are properly supported and that the Government listen, including to Liberal Democrat calls for a 5% cut to VAT for hospitality.

    It is welcome that the strategy mentions potholes, which drive all our constituents mad—particularly mine on the A4130 between Didcot and Wallingford and the Milton interchange in Queensway. Most importantly, we need to support young drivers. More is needed, given that the Government have twice moved the deadline for reducing the wait for tests to seven weeks. The six-month wait is understandable, but it is important that we support young people.

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. Those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench know that they have two minutes, not two minutes and 50 seconds or three minutes and 10 seconds.

    Lilian Greenwood

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. Let me be clear that we are consulting on a number of the measures in the road safety strategy so that the public and stakeholders have an opportunity to share their views. The intent is not to delay. The consultations will be open for 12 weeks, and then we intend to take concrete action as a result of the feedback we receive. Some of the measures in this strategy will take very little time and do not require legislation. Others will require secondary or, indeed, primary legislation, but we intend to take action in order to meet the ambitious targets we have set for just nine years’ time.

    I totally understand what the hon. Gentleman says about older people. We do not want to restrict older people’s independence, and we know how important driving can be, but the truth is that we need to keep people safe. We do not want anyone on our roads whose medical condition means that they are not safe to drive. Some people may be unaware that their eyesight has deteriorated and poses a danger to others. I know that many families find it difficult to have those conversations with an older relative about when is the right time to stop driving. We hope that the measures we are proposing on eyesight testing will help in those circumstances.

    I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about rural areas and the need to ensure that these measures are rural-proofed. When it comes to potholes, he is right: they are not only very annoying for all our constituents but a real danger to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. That is why this Government are investing £7.3 billion over the spending review period in local roads maintenance, on top of the additional £500 million this year. We are giving local authorities that long-term funding settlement so that they can improve the shocking quality of the roads we were left with by the previous Conservative Government.

    When it comes to young drivers, we have considered carefully the right balance between protecting young people, who we know are at particular risk, and not curtailing their opportunities for work, education and social activities.

  • Richard Holden – 2026 Speech on Road Safety Strategy

    Richard Holden – 2026 Speech on Road Safety Strategy

    The speech made by Richard Holden, the Shadow Transport Secretary, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2026.

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, although obviously some of it was reported in The Times earlier this week. I welcome the fact that the Government have published the road safety strategy, and I welcome the broad ambition, shared right across the House, to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. As a former Roads Minister and as a local MP, I too have met many grieving families torn apart by deaths on our roads. The fact that we have seen a 10% to 15% reduction since 2010 does not mean that we do not need to go further.

    In that spirit, I welcome the comprehensive look at motorcycle training that the Minister has announced, as well as the expansion of Project PRIME from Scotland on motorcycle safety. That will be a major improvement to our road safety. I also welcome stiffer fines and enforcement against bad faith drivers, particularly those on ghost plates, as has been mentioned, and against those trying to evade justice via the use of dodgy number plates and other things to conceal their identity. I also welcome the road safety investigation branch and the better use and collation of data and data sharing—those are incredibly important. I also welcome the inclusion of Sharlotte’s law, which will help to prevent people trying to evade justice by ensuring that timely blood testing can take place in the most serious of cases.

    It is clear that there will be concern about some of the new moves announced and whether they are wholly related to road safety, and I would like to look at a couple of those. In oral questions, the Minister appeared to suggest that part of the reason for the six-month delay after getting a theory test was to ensure that more driving tests are available. In reality, it will mean an even larger group of people waiting to book driving tests, so I fear that the Government have not fully thought through the consequences of that. I remember meeting a woman aged 60 who had just lost her husband of 40 years. She lived in a small village with no bus service. She had always relied on him to drive. Are we really telling her that she will have to take a theory test and then wait six months after passing it to take a driving test?

    I can think of women in similar circumstances—men take more driving tests than women at an earlier stage in life—who maybe only take a test when they move for jobs or after having children. We need to properly think through the consequences of some of what the Government are proposing. It is important that we look at this broadly to ensure that we are not restricting freedoms via legislation to fix problems that are the result of not sorting out driving tests.

    No one in this House disputes that drink-driving is totally unacceptable, but I hope that Ministers and the Secretary of State will reflect on the experiences in Scotland, where changes in this space have already been made, and on the concerns right across the hospitality sector that there is no clear evidence of improved road safety outcomes following those changes. In fact, it is extraordinary that the Department—to quote an answer to one of my written questions—

    “has not made an assessment of the impact on the economic viability of pubs in Scotland”

    as a result of the changes that have already happened up there. Changing the legal limit alone will not change behaviour, and any reform must be based on a thorough examination of the evidence and impacts, not on attempts to look tough.

    Alongside alcohol, the House must not lose sight of drug-driving, and I welcome some of the measures announced today. However, the commitments to testing seem rather vague. It would be great to hear more from the Minister on that because the police are pushing for more roadside drug testing. Governments of all stripes have pushed for an emphasis on education and behavioural change. However, that sits uneasily with this Government cutting the budget for the THINK! road safety campaign by £1.2 million last year, particularly when lifelong learning and changes are so critical to many of the plans that the Government have announced today.

    That brings me to my final major point, which is around enforcement. This place can pass all the laws it wishes, but if they are not enforced, all that does is undermine faith in our democratic institutions. The House will be aware that police numbers under this Government are down by around 1,300 in the latest figures. Enforcement sits at the heart of any credible road safety policy, so are there are plans to ensure additional roads policing to ensure that enforcement happens?

    Finally, there are some omissions. Why still exclude vulnerable road users and motorcyclists from bus lanes in many areas? There is a real missed opportunity to improve safety and survival for those people. There is also a glaring absence when it comes to tackling the scourge of unlicensed and uninsured criminals driving with impunity. Measures such as requiring proof of identity to register a vehicle could have been included, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) might mention that in her remarks, too.

    Road safety is not delivered by strategies and consultations alone; it is delivered when the law is clear and evidence-based, enforcement is consistent and the Government are willing to confront difficult issues, rather than relying on process and pre-briefed headlines. While we welcome many of the measures, there are still many questions to be answered, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

    Lilian Greenwood

    I welcome the support from the shadow Secretary of State for our measures to tackle road harm. I was slightly surprised by his comment about the coverage in the press because we did of course publish the strategy yesterday, giving him the opportunity to have a full 24 hours to read it. Nevertheless, I note his comments and welcome his support. I also note his comment about the reduction in those killed and seriously injured over the previous Government’s term. I welcome the fact that the numbers went down slightly, but they are nothing to the level of ambition that this Government are showing and the seriousness that this problem requires.

    The right hon. Member questioned why we are introducing a minimum learning period for new drivers. This is a safety measure. It is about saying that in order to set people up for a lifetime of safe driving, whenever they take their driving test and learn to drive, they need to get a range of pre-test practice in a variety of conditions. We want people to take the time to learn properly, to ensure they know how to cope with things like extreme weather, driving at night and driving on different sorts of roads. We think that that is the right thing to do. Nevertheless, it is, of course, subject to a consultation, and we will listen carefully to all the views expressed in that.

    When it comes to drink-driving, of course we do not want to stop people going out and enjoying our hospitality sector. What we are clearly saying is, “If you’re going to go out and have a drink, leave your car at home.” Reducing the drink-drive limit would simply bring England and Wales into line with Scotland and the rest of Europe. We are the only countries, except perhaps Malta, that have this higher drink-drive limit—

    Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)

    We are one of the safest.

    Lilian Greenwood

    We are no longer the safest. We have been dropping down the rankings, and progress has stalled compared with other countries across Europe. Sir Peter North’s review in 2010 estimated that reducing the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg would save an estimated 43 to 168 lives each year and avoid a very large number of serious injuries—a conservative estimate put it at 280. We are acting on the evidence.

    When it comes to drug-driving, we are looking at how we can make better use of testing. I know that too many people who have suffered as a result of someone drug-driving wait a long time for their case to come to court. It takes too long to process, which is why we are looking at things like roadside testing. Through our award-winning THINK! campaign, we continue to target publicity at those who cause the most danger: young men aged 17 to 24. At the end of last year, we did an anti-drug-driving campaign—the first in 10 years—using the sorts of media channels that get to those we are trying to target, including TikTok and Instagram.

    Finally, the shadow Secretary of State is right to speak about enforcement. That is why this Government are investing in additional police officers—an extra 3,000 police officers by March and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are responding to the requirements of the police. We are giving them the legislation and the powers they need to crack down on those who cause danger on our roads. I am pleased to see that our strategy has been welcomed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for roads policing, Jo Shiner. I welcome the right hon. Member’s other comments, and we look forward to reading the official Opposition’s comments in response to our consultations.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Road Safety Strategy

    Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Road Safety Strategy

    The statement made by Lilian Greenwood, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2026.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our new national road safety strategy.

    It is a sad truth that, by the time I finish speaking and we hear the Opposition’s response, it is likely someone will have died or been seriously injured on our roads. It is an even sadder truth that that would likely have been entirely preventable. Even though we have some of the safest roads in the world, more than 1,600 people died on our roads last year, and nearly 28,000 were seriously injured.

    Over the course of my lifetime, road safety has improved immeasurably—in no small part thanks to a titan of my party, Barbara Castle—but it is safe to say the last 10 years represent a lost decade. Death and serious injury numbers have plateaued despite improvements in vehicle safety. The UK has slipped from third to fourth in Europe’s road safety rankings, and the human cost of too little action and too much complacency is clear: lives taken too soon, lives altered beyond recognition, and lives grieved by the families left behind.

    If that was not enough, a decade without a comprehensive road safety strategy has meant that the country lost out on nearly £7 billion in economic output last year. That should not just give us pause; it should spur us to action. We would not tolerate that on our railways or in our airspace, and I am determined to ensure that we no longer tolerate it on our roads. That is why I am standing here today: to say quite simply that enough is enough.

    The targets that we are setting match the full measure of our ambition. We want to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035, and by 70% for children under 16. Our vision is clear: any road user—however they choose to travel—should be able to move safely on our roads. There are four main ways in which we will deliver that vision through the strategy.

    First, we will put all road users at the heart of the strategy. When it comes to protecting vulnerable road users, we will be guided by the evidence. We know, for example, that young drivers between 17 and 24 are at a higher risk of death or serious injury on our roads. They account for 6% of driving licences yet are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions. That is why we will consult not just on a minimum learning period for learner drivers, but on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers. I would also recognise the important debate on young driver safety that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) secured last January.

    Another key area is the safety of older drivers. In 2024, about 24% of all car drivers killed were aged 70 or older. While driving is rightly seen as a vital form of independence in older age, it cannot come at the expense of safety, so we will consult on mandatory eyesight tests for drivers over 70 and explore options for cognitive testing, recognising the risks of driving with conditions such as dementia.

    We also will not ignore the fact that motorcyclists are 40 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on our roads compared with car drivers, so we will reform the motorcycle training, testing and licensing regime. That starts today with a consultation, including on removing the ability to ride on L-plates indefinitely.

    Let me move to advances in technology and data. We will consult on mandating 18 new vehicle safety technologies under the GB type approval scheme—a change that could prevent more than 14,000 deaths and serious injuries over 15 years. That includes autonomous emergency braking, a proven safety technology that Meera Naran has tirelessly campaigned for as Dev’s law, after the tragic loss of her son. I am delighted to see her in the Public Gallery; she has been an incredible campaigner on this issue.

    To learn from collisions and prevent future harm, we will establish a data-led road safety investigation branch covering the whole of Great Britain. It will draw on data to carry out thematic investigations and make recommendations. To give those involved in collisions the best chance of survival, we will ensure that police-recorded collision data and healthcare data are shared more effectively.

    The third theme is about infrastructure. Safer roads and effective speed management are essential pillars of the “safe system” approach that guides the strategy. That starts with investment. The Government are providing £24 billion between 2026 and 2030 to improve motorways and local roads, building on record funding for pothole repairs. We will also publish updated guidance on setting local speed limits and the use of speed and red light cameras, supporting local authorities to make evidence-based decisions.

    Because rural roads remain among the most dangerous, with motorcyclists often navigating sharp bends, we will build on the success of Project PRIME—perceptual rider information for maximisation of enjoyment and expertise—in Scotland, which saw real safety improvements thanks to new road markings.

    Finally, let me talk about enforcement. We know that most drivers are safe, and we do not want to get in their way. However, they need to feel confident that the Government have their back, so my message to the minority of drivers who are unsafe and reckless is simple: if you drive dangerously, if you drive illegally or if you make our roads less safe, you will face the consequences.

    Take drink and drug-driving. We know that it was a contributory factor in 18% of road fatalities in 2023, so we will consult on lowering the drink-drive limit, which has not been changed in England and Wales since 1967. We will review penalties for drink and drug-driving offences and explore the use of alcohol interlock devices. New powers will be considered to suspend licences for those suspected of the most serious offences.

    We also propose tougher penalties for those who drive without insurance—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) for his persistent advocacy on this issue. We will also look at penalty points for failing to wear a seatbelt and failing to ensure that child passengers are wearing theirs, too.

    Thanks to the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), we are tackling illegal number plates. We will increase penalties for using illegal plates and ensure that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is empowered to carry out more robust checks on number plate suppliers.

    These rightly bold ambitions cannot be met by Government working alone. We call on the support of Members from all parts of the House and extend our hand in partnership to the devolved Governments, mayors, local authorities, the police and other stakeholders. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her support on behalf of the Transport Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety for his advocacy on this important issue.

    I have sat with families torn apart by deaths and serious injuries on our roads—it is one of the hardest parts of my job. Even through intolerable pain, they campaign, fight and demand change so that others can be spared their sense of loss. This strategy is for those brave families. I truly believe that this is a turning point for road safety in this country, when we finally put victims at the heart of policymaking, see road safety as a shared responsibility and understand that, while driver or rider error is inevitable, fatalities and serious injury are not. A multilayered system, from safer speeds and vehicles to safer roads and robust enforcement, is how we protect every road user. That is how we ensure that people walk away from collisions rather than being carried and how we deliver safer roads for everyone who relies on them. I have laid copies of the documents in the Libraries of both Houses, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Parking on Pavements

    Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Parking on Pavements

    The statement made by Lilian Greenwood, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2026.

    This statement provides the House with an update on steps the government is taking to tackle pavement parking. In short, we are giving local authorities the powers they need to address pavement parking more effectively, while ensuring consistency, clarity and fairness for all road users.

    I am today announcing the publication of the government’s response to the 2020 public consultation Pavement parking: options for change. The response demonstrates our commitment to improve transport users’ experience, ensuring that our roads and pavements are safe, reliable and inclusive.

    The government is taking forward a new, devolved approach to pavement parking, reflecting our commitment to decisions being made closer to the communities they affect. Local leaders know their communities best, so they are in the strongest position to meet local needs effectively. Our overarching objective to make pavements accessible and safe remains unchanged, but rather than introducing a ‘one size fits all’ national prohibition, which was one of the consultation options, we will instead enable local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking across their areas at the next legislative opportunity. 

    In strategic authority (SA) areas outside London, the power will be vested in the SA as the local transport authority (LTA). In non-SA areas the power will be vested in the LTA, which is either the unitary authority or county council. This will support more responsive and inclusive transport planning in the interests of local communities.

    In the meantime, secondary legislation will be introduced in 2026 to enable local authorities to enforce against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement. This provides a practical and proportionate interim solution, allowing councils to act where pavement parking is observed by uniformed civil enforcement officers. This power will sit alongside existing traffic regulation order making powers, enabling councils to enforce pavement parking restrictions both where TROs are in place and in other areas where obstruction occurs. The department will issue statutory guidance to support local authorities in using this power.

    Taken together, these steps will give local authorities the powers they need to address pavement parking effectively and fairly in their areas, and I commend the government’s response to the House.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Comments on the Government’s Road Strategy

    Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Comments on the Government’s Road Strategy

    The comments made by Lilian Greenwood, the Local Transport Minister, on 6 January 2026.

    Our vision with this ambitious road safety strategy is clear: to ensure that people can travel safely on our roads however they choose.

    One of the hardest parts of my job is speaking to families who have lost loved ones on our roads and this is something we as a government are taking action to prevent. No family should have to endure that loss, and this strategy sets out how we will work to ensure fewer do.

    Experts and campaigners have long called for a comprehensive strategy that treats road safety as a shared responsibility – from car manufacturers and town planners to drivers and legislators.

    This strategy, the first in over a decade, shows a government that is not just listening, but leading and together, we can build a safer future for all road users.

  • Tony Vaughan – 2026 Speech on Free Bus Travel for Over-60s

    Tony Vaughan – 2026 Speech on Free Bus Travel for Over-60s

    The speech made by Tony Vaughan, the Labour MP for Folkestone and Hythe, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered e-petition 702845 relating to free bus travel for people over 60.

    Happy new year, Mr Mundell. It is, as always, a privilege to serve under your chairship.

    I start by thanking the petition’s creator, Mrs Karen Hickman, and the 101,000 people who signed the petition—including 211 of my constituents in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh—for securing this debate on extending free bus travel to all over-60s across England. I also thank Transport for London, Age UK London, Independent Age and the Local Government Association, which were incredibly helpful in my preparation for this debate, which I am leading for the Petitions Committee.

    There are many areas of our country where there is free bus travel for the over-60s: London, Liverpool, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Bus services are a critical form of public transport. They are a public good: they get people to work and allow them to visit friends and family, travel to health appointments and participate in social activities. Bus services support active lifestyles, reduce social isolation, and reduce car use, lower air pollution and make our environment cleaner and safer. It was a pleasure to meet Mrs Hickman. She was particularly frustrated by the regional differences that we have in this country when it comes to bus services, and she would like to see greater investment in rural bus services in her area of Lincolnshire.

    In our country, there is a growing misperception that if someone is over 60, they are somehow financially blessed, with a house on which the mortgage has been paid off, and they have plenty of assets and capital washing around. Many people think that the over-60s do not need free bus travel. I challenge that narrative, as does Mrs Hickman. Based on households below average income data, 875,000 people aged 60 to 64 are living in poverty. A new report from Standard Life identifies a substantial rise in financial insecurity among people in their early 60s, after the increases in the state pension age since 2010, and highlights that there are a quarter of a million more people aged 60 to 64 in relative income poverty than there were in 2010.

    In the UK, carer prevalence is greatest among adults in their 50s and early 60s, with people in that age group twice as likely as those in a younger adult group to be carers. Due to the rising pension age, many people in their 60s are seeking work. The high level of redundancy in this age group during the pandemic is one factor that has led to increased unemployment among 60 to 64-year-olds. Many people in this group are key workers: health and social care—a sector that is growing in my constituency—and retail are among the sectors with the highest proportion of older workers. In addition, over-60s with a disability or long-term health condition are more likely to face financial hardship.

    There is already free bus travel for the over-60s in several parts of the UK, so this policy can work. The 60+ London Oyster photocard, operated and funded by TfL, is available to London residents over 60. There are 383,000 active users of that photocard, which I know makes a positive difference to the lives of the 24% of Londoners in that age group who live in poverty.

    Residents of the Liverpool city region are eligible from age 60 for free travel on buses, trains and ferries. That is funded by the transport levy that the Merseyside local authorities pay. Looking for a moment at a younger age group in Liverpool, I commend the Liverpool city region combined authority for its recent introduction of the care leavers travel pass, giving free local travel on buses, trains and ferries to young adults leaving the care system. That is a commercially funded offer.

    What most or all of these schemes have in common is that they were implemented as a result of local powers being used by local people for the benefit of local people. Is that not how our local communities should be run? In my view, it is. Local people know what the local needs are. I understand Mrs Hickman’s frustration at the regional differences that can occur when some local areas have powers that others do not, but thanks to the Bus Services Act 2025, passed by this Labour Government, all English local transport authorities now have the power to set routes and fares. In my view, it is right that each local authority now grasps the nettle and gets on with delivering the high standards of bus services that the public are entitled to.

    Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)

    The issue that we face in Torbay is a significant shrinkage in the number of available commercial routes, whether for bus pass users or other bus users. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we need sustained investment in bus services to drive a better service for all our communities?

    Tony Vaughan

    I completely agree with the hon. Member. Central Government have to support local government in properly funding bus services. As I will come on to say, that is exactly what this Government have been doing, but the critical question will be whether those local authorities spend the money in a way that benefits passengers.

    Mrs Hickman’s view is that this policy should be centrally administered and nationwide. According to the Local Government Association, making the policy nationwide would cost central Government roughly an additional £250 million to £400 million a year. Without that money, evening and weekend services would likely collapse. Losing more bus routes would be damaging for over-60s who rely on buses to get to work.

    As the LGA suggests, many councils argue that £1 fares for apprentices and students offer a higher economic multiplier than free travel for the over-60s. That is especially important when we are desperately trying to raise our economy’s growth rate and reduce unemployment. There is also a strong argument for focusing more on getting apprentices and students to use buses, because that cohort of young people will develop the habit of getting on a bus, which will help to secure a more stable long-term revenue stream for bus operators.

    As I just said, what we need is ample central Government funding for local authorities so that they can decide how best to run the bus network. The Government are backing our bus network with a £3 billion multi-year bus funding settlement for 2025 to 2029, helping to create more certainty, stability and predictability for our bus system. The aim of the funding settlement is to deliver lower fares and more frequent and reliable bus services, and the national single bus fare cap was extended to run until March ’27. The Government’s Bus Services Act empowers local authorities to take greater control of bus services, and makes them more reliable, accessible and affordable by enabling franchises, lifting bans on municipal bus companies and mandating zero emission buses.

    In this debate we are rightly talking about the 60s, but it was the ’80s when it all started to go wrong for our bus network, with its reckless privatisation under the Transport Act 1985. The Bus Services Act takes a completely different approach by allowing local government to create locally and publicly operated and owned bus services.

    Local authorities across the country have received significant funding boosts to improve local bus services. For example, the petitioner’s council, Reform-run Lincolnshire county council, received a boost of £11.8 million to support better bus services. In my area, Reform-run Kent county council this year received a boost of £42 million to spend on better bus services. The Government are not being partisan with funding decisions; Reform-run councils are receiving cash boosts to improve bus services from now until 2029, and the public should expect Reform to deliver in places such as Kent and Lincolnshire. We must hold them to account in ensuring that they spend the money not on political advisers, or mad adventures such as the Elon Musk-inspired DOGE 2.0 cuts programme, but on making bus services work more accessibly, reliably and affordably.

    In December, I ran a bus survey to hear from my constituents how they would like the £42 million of extra bus funding to be spent. Many told me that bus services are not frequent enough and are often unreliable, with too many late and even cancelled services. Many highlighted the issue of affordability. They want Reform-run Kent county council to spend that £42 million of extra funding on protecting existing routes from private sector cuts, more frequent bus services, cheaper fares, improved evening and Sunday services, and better bus links to schools, colleges and hospitals.

    One constituent suggested extending free bus travel to the over-60s, but many of my constituents talked about wanting routes that had been cut under the failed experiment of privatisation to be reinstated. They asked for changes such as frequent, direct bus services from Folkestone to the William Harvey hospital, more evening and weekend bus services across Kent, and the reinstatement of routes such as the 73, 77, 78 and 111 services in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh.

    Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)

    Before I was elected, I ran mental health services, including for older adults, so I understand the importance of older people being able to access services in a way that means they do not lose their appointment. We have 47,226 over-60s in Bournemouth, and many decisions about bus routes have not been taken with their views in mind, particularly in Throop, where I am trying to reinstate a bus service, but also across Southbourne and Tuckton. It sounds like my hon. and learned Friend might agree, but does he also agree that we should be using our new bus legislation to make sure that those communities that have been disenfranchised, left behind and left out are considered by local councils when they are deciding on routes?

    Tony Vaughan

    The situation my hon. Friend describes is symptomatic of what I call the begging bowl approach of trying to reinstate routes, where a private company decides how it will run the service, it cuts the routes that are more difficult to make money on but which people really need, and we all go with our begging bowl, banging on the door and asking the company to sort it out for our constituents. The way that all local councils should be using the Government’s legislation, now they have the money, is by actually listening to what local people want and providing services that allow our communities to be joined up. What he describes is exactly what I have experienced in my constituency and why these changes are desperately needed.

    Rachael Maskell

    I am grateful for the speech that my hon. and learned Friend is making and I thank the 237 people in my constituency who signed the petition. At the root of this debate is the issue of inequality. There are many forms of inequality around bus use. The petition draws attention to the geographical inequality, but we also see socioeconomic inequality, particularly when we look at putting resources into enabling older people to access bus services so that, instead of paying £6 for a return journey, they can access things such as health appointments on time. Is it not worth looking at people living in deprivation and putting money into supporting people from those communities to use buses?

    Tony Vaughan

    I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is exactly why the Government introduced the Bus Services Act: to allow local authorities to be held to account for the decisions they make about how to fund bus services. I completely agree that bus services are a fundamental public good and a public service. In my constituency, they are essential to allow people living in rural areas, often in rural poverty, to reach GP surgeries or hospital appointments many miles away. It is not as if they can walk or rely on somebody to give them a lift; often, that is not available. A reliable and affordable bus service is often the difference between someone being able to access the town, with its shops and chemists and all the things that are needed to make life work, and sitting for days in pain, entirely cut off. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

    One survey response that stood out for a negative reason was this one:

    “Doubt Reform will take much notice frankly”.

    I totally understand that hard cynicism about Reform, given its bewildering incompetence in Kent. I implore Reform to spend the money wisely. I will take my bus survey responses and put them directly to the council, because we must see accountability and competence in the way our public services are delivered in Kent.

    While I am sympathetic to the arguments for extending free bus travel to all over-60s across England, I believe that our policy focus should be on encouraging and supporting more local authorities to set up municipal bus companies so that we can reverse bus privatisation, which has, like in the rail and water sectors, been a failure and meant that, all too often, the interests of the private company and the shareholder have been put above those of the passenger.

    Before closing, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What action beyond what I have talked about are the Government taking to make bus travel more accessible and affordable for the over-60s? What are the Government doing to make rural bus services more accessible and reliable, especially for that age group? What measures will the Government put in place to hold to account councils such as Reform-run Kent county council and Lincolnshire county council to ensure that they spend their additional bus funding prudently and purposefully? How do the Government plan to use investment in our bus network to help to increase economic growth and lower unemployment? Finally, can the Minister explain how empowering local government can lead to improved bus services?

    The answers to all those questions would be gratefully received, because my constituents constantly press me on this issue. We are a long, coastal constituency, so it is very difficult to get around unless there is reliable public transport. That is what we have to achieve over the coming years with the funding and the new powers that Kent county council has.