1. May 2022 Queen’s Speech: Transport bill

As part of the May 2022 Queen’s Speech, the government said it would introduce a transport bill in the 2022–23 session.[1] This bill, which was not introduced, would have:

  • given powers to a new organisation called Great British Railways (GBR) to enable it to act as a “single national leader of the railways”
  • transferred contracting powers for passenger services to GBR
  • introduced new laws that would “safely enable self-driving and remotely operated vehicles and vessels”
  • supported the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points [Further information on this is available in the Lords Library briefing ‘King’s Speech 2023: Energy security and net zero’ (1 November 2023)]
  • enabled the licensing and regulation of London pedicabs

In response to a written question in July 2022, the government said this bill would also contain measures to introduce a new category of “low speed zero-emission vehicle” and allow the government to regulate such vehicles.[2] This could include e-scooters. However, the government said no decisions had been made about the regulation of e-scooters and it would consult interested parties before introducing a regulatory regime.

In December 2022 the transport secretary, Mark Harper, told the House of Commons Transport Committee that the government would not introduce a transport bill that session.[3] He said this was due to a lack of parliamentary time. Therefore, some of these measures may be included in the 2023 King’s Speech.

2. Great British Railways

The government has expressed its intention to introduce legislation to change the structure and operation of the railways in Britain.[4] This would involve setting up a new body, GBR, to control and manage all aspects of the railways.

While government ministers have spoken of the plans as concerning Britain, Scottish ministers have highlighted that most rail powers are devolved in Scotland.[5] On 15 March 2022, Bill Reeve, head of rail at Transport Scotland, told members of the Scottish Parliament that it was not clear how GBR would operate while also respecting devolution.

2.1 Background

Since the privatisation of the railways in the 1990s, both public and private sector bodies have played a part in running the railways.[6] The railways in Great Britain have the following key elements:

  • The government acts as a procurement authority, network funder, and sponsor of major rail projects and rail bodies. The government is also the sole shareholder of Network Rail, the body that owns and operates most of the national rail infrastructure.
  • Passenger train services on the rail network are provided by different franchised operators. Most of these are specified by the UK government, with the others specified by different devolved governments or authorities. The boundaries between most of these operators are broadly geographic, with relatively little overlap. In addition, ‘open access’ operators not contracted by the government operate a small number of services on the national network, sometimes competing directly with franchised operators on the same journeys.
  • The physical infrastructure of the railway is owned and managed separately from the train operators. Network Rail runs the majority of the infrastructure of the railway as an arm’s length body of the UK government. Network Rail also leads the process with train operators to develop the national rail timetable and allocate access to the rail network.
  • The industry is overseen by an independent safety and economic regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). It sets targets and regularly reports on the performance of Network Rail, as well as overseeing competition and consumer rights. It can use its enforcement powers if Network Rail or operators fail to comply with their licence obligations.
  • The Rail Safety and Standards Board, a not-for-profit company owned by major industry stakeholders, works with the ORR to improve safety, performance and value for money across the industry.

At the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, in March 2020, the government introduced changes to franchise agreements to ensure the railways continued to operate.[7] All revenue and cost risks were transferred to the government. Operators continued to run services for a pre-determined fee, set at a maximum of two percent of the cost base of the franchise before the pandemic began. These arrangements are now being replaced with modified contracts between the Department for Transport and train operators, lasting for up to six years.[8] These contracts are intended to be part of a transition to a system run by GBR.

2.2 Williams-Shapps plan for rail

In May 2021 the government published ‘Great British Railways: The Williams-Shapps plan for rail’. The government initially commissioned the review to investigate the structure of railway operations and proposals for reform after what the report described as “chaotic” timetable changes in 2018 and the failure of the East Coast franchise. In March 2020 the review was extended to take into account challenges arising from the Covid-19 pandemic.

The report set out plans for the establishment and role of GBR, which would own the infrastructure, receive the fare revenue, run and plan the network and set most fares and timetables. GBR would absorb Network Rail, which currently owns the railway infrastructure. The review did not include, however, plans for GBR to operate the trains directly. The Williams-Shapps plan says that “in most cases, Great British Railways will contract with private companies to operate trains to the timetable and fares it specifies”.[9] These would be known as passenger service contracts.

The government argued that the proposals would create a simpler structure and make the running of the railways more efficient:

Under single national leadership, our railways will be more agile: able to react quicker, spot opportunities, make common-sense choices, and use the kind of operational flexibilities normal in most organisations, but difficult or impossible in the current contractual spider’s web.[10]

2.3 Legislation

The government has said it plans to introduce legislation to create GBR as a legal entity.[11] The legislation would enable franchising powers to be transferred from the Department for Transport to GBR.

In evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee in March 2022, Wendy Morton, then a transport minister, said the government hoped the legislation would be in place by “early 2024”.[12] In response to questions concerning the extent of government control over GBR, Ms Morton said ministers would have statutory powers to issue binding directions and guidance, and would “still have a strong role to play”.[13] The secretary of state for transport would have the power to dismiss the chief executive of GBR.

The government said that the legislation would also include reforms to the ORR and the watchdog for transport users, Transport Focus.[14] The government said it would run a consultation before introducing the legislation.

In December 2022 the transport secretary said he was “taking some time” to listen to alternative views on how to implement the changes to the railways but that it was his aim “to achieve the intention” behind the GBR plan.[15] He stated that processes to align business planning for rail tracks and trains had already started, and that there was more work on the plan that could be done ahead of any legislation.

At the same evidence session, Permanent Secretary and Accounting Officer at the Department for Transport Dame Bernadette Kelly stated that legislation would be needed to change the formal franchising authority, as well as to take some other measures, but that legislation “would be relatively short”.[16] She said that much of the rail reform in the Williams-Shapps plan could be taken forward without legislation.

3. Connected and autonomous vehicles

The government defines connected and automated mobility (CAM) as a “broad set of vehicle technologies that can be used in wheeled (non-rail), ground-based vehicles”. Self-driving and remotely operated vehicles are applications of CAM.[17]

3.1 Self-driving cars

Introducing legislation to regulate self-driving vehicles was stated as a government ambition in the May 2022 Queen’s Speech.[18]

An August 2022 government consultation paper, ‘Connected and automated mobility 2025: Realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles in the UK’, said CAM “could play an important role in how government improves and levels up access to transport across the nation”, as well as bringing economic benefits to the country.[19] In the paper, the government stated its ambition to see self-driving vehicles in use in the UK by 2025:

By 2025, the UK will begin to see deployments of self-driving vehicles, improving ways in which people and goods are moved around the nation and creating an early commercial market for the technologies.[20]

The consultation paper also constituted the government’s response to the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission’s January 2022 ‘Automated vehicles: Joint report’. This report included 75 recommendations to the government.

In the paper, the government committed to introducing a “new legislative framework for safe self-driving road vehicles”, based on the Law Commission’s recommendations.[21]To achieve this, the government said it would first set out a “self-driving safety ambition”. New primary legislation would then create powers to make secondary legislation and would define high-level responsibilities and processes. Secondary legislation and guidance would provide detailed requirements and processes and would be updated over time.

Legislation would include measures in the following areas:

  • clarity of responsibility
  • safety and enabling regulation
  • in-use regulation
  • safe use

The key elements of the proposed primary legislation would include new legal actors. These would be:

  • an authorised self-driving entity (an organisation responsible for the behaviour of the self-driving vehicle)
  • a user-in-charge (a human driver not responsible for the behaviour of a vehicle fitted with standard controls when it is driving itself)
  • a no user-in-charge operator (a human operator for a vehicle without standard driving controls responsible for overseeing the “wider operation of the vehicle” and ensuring the vehicle is roadworthy and has appropriate insurance)

The legislation would also include a new regulatory framework on deployment of self-driving vehicles, including an assurance process, a monitoring and enforcement process, incident investigation and a new regime for passenger-only services.

No primary legislation concerning self-driving vehicles was introduced in the 2022–23 session. Addressing this in evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee in April 2023, the secretary of state for transport, Mark Harper, said that it was likely there would not be enough parliamentary time and other sectors’ needs would be prioritised.[22]

The Transport Committee’s report into self-driving vehicles, published in September 2023, argued that legislation was urgently needed if the UK was not to miss out on opportunities presented by the technology. It said it had heard from witnesses that “progress was urgently needed lest the UK miss its 2025 target, fall behind its international competitors and risk innovative firms moving elsewhere”.[23]

The government said on 11 September 2023 that it would introduce primary legislation to support self-driving cars “as soon as parliamentary time allows”.[24]

3.2 Remote driving

In the August 2022 consultation paper, the government said that in addition to investigating self-driving cars it would also be looking at remotely operated vehicles. This refers to driving where the driver does not have a direct line of sight to the vehicle. This technology has been trialled in warehouses and on farms. It said that while the law does not explicitly require the driver to be in the vehicle, there are numerous responsibilities placed on a driver, such as not leaving a vehicle unattended, that would “most likely fall” to the remote operator.[25] The government highlighted that these have not been tested in court and “could be difficult to achieve in practice if done remotely”.

The government said that it currently had mechanisms at its disposal to grant exemptions. However, it asked the Law Commission to investigate the matter further in order to provide “a firm legal footing going forward”.

In February 2023 the Law Commission published advice on remotely operated vehicles.[26] The Law Commission highlighted that remote driving technology was already being used in controlled environments such as warehouses and farms. It advised that both short-term changes to the law to respond to emerging safety concerns as well as a new regulatory regime to govern remote driving on roads in the longer term would be needed. It summarised its advice as follows:

  • Short term measures to address gaps in the law. Current laws do not expressly prohibit the use of remote driving technology where the driver is beyond line of sight—clarity in the law is urgently required. A new prohibition measure could be brought in immediately.
  • Safety requirements for remote driving. Under these short-term measures, companies wanting to use remote driving beyond line-of-sight on roads without an in-vehicle safety driver could submit a safety case to the Vehicle Certification Agency and apply for a vehicle special order.
  • A new regulatory system to govern remote driving over the long term. These short-term measures would provide some clarity, but penalties and enforcement powers are limited. A new comprehensive regulatory regime for remote driving would require an act of Parliament.
  • Licences for remote driving operations. Subject to satisfying a safety standard, organisations intending to use remote driving would be able to obtain a licence.
  • Safety concerns justify a ban on remote driving from overseas. Given the lack of enforcement powers, remotely driving a vehicle from overseas should be prohibited.
  • Criminal and civil liability. While remote drivers should be prosecuted for the same crimes as in-vehicle drivers, they should not be liable for any problems beyond their control, such as those due to connectivity issues or faulty remote driving equipment. Remote driving companies should instead be subject to regulatory sanctions and in serious cases, prosecution. Victims of road incidents caused by remote driving should receive no-fault compensation.[27]

4. London pedicabs

At present, local authorities outside London can regulate pedicabs, also known as cycle rickshaws, as hackney carriages. Transport for London (TfL) does not have these powers and the industry remains unregulated in London.[28] The government has acknowledged this has led to “an inconsistent position with licensed tax and private hire vehicles, who have to meet certain standards and requirements”. In addition, there are concerns about lack of safety requirements and contravention of traffic rules such as one-way streets, parking restrictions and impeding traffic.

On 4 July 2022 the government said a forthcoming transport bill would include measures that would enable TfL to regulate pedicabs in London.[29] It would then be for TfL to decide how to use those powers.

5. High speed 2

5.1 Cancellation of phase 2

On 4 October 2023, the prime minister announced that the government would not build the remaining phases of the ‘High speed rail 2’ project (HS2).[30] This includes phase 2a, which would have gone from Birmingham to Crewe, phase 2b from Crewe to Manchester, and the line from Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway station. Plans to extend the high speed line to Leeds were cancelled in 2021.[31]

The prime minister said the reason it would no longer pursue the remaining sections of HS2 was because costs had increased significantly and the project had suffered delays and would not be completed for “almost two decades”.[32] He also said changes to business travel following the pandemic had weakened the business case for building the line. Previously, in July 2023, the government said it was committed to building HS2 between London and Manchester.[33] It said that HS2 was a “key part of the government’s levelling-up agenda” and would “form the foundations for northern powerhouse rail”.

Mr Sunak also announced that the section of HS2 from Oak Old Common station in west London to Euston station would be financed from private investment rather than publicly funded.[34] He said this would deliver £6.5bn of savings.

In 2010 HS2 Ltd, the company set up by the then Labour government to consider the case for further high speed rail, estimated a high speed rail network linking London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds would cost £30bn in 2010 prices.[35] The most recent estimate of the project, after the cancellation of the line to Leeds, was between £53bn and £72bn in 2019 prices. The Financial Times has estimated that this would be £67bn to £91bn in current prices.[36]

5.2 Legislation

The High Speed Rail (Crewe–Manchester) Bill, which would have provided for phase 2b of the project, was introduced in the House of Commons in the 2021–22 session and carried over to the 2022–23 session.

The High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Act 2021 provides for the high speed line from Birmingham to Crewe.

An assessment issued by Dame Bernadette Kelly stated that “the decision to cancel parts of the HS2 programme will require primary legislation”.[37]

5.3 Impact on ‘Northern powerhouse rail’

In 2015, the region’s sub-national transport body, Transport for the North, and the coalition government set out their vision for ‘Northern powerhouse rail’ (NPR). This was part of a wider project for increasing productivity and prosperity in the north of England.[38] On trains, the plan said the project would “transform city to city rail connectivity” through HS2 and a new TransNorth system, ensure sufficient capacity for increased demand for rail commuter services, and deliver the full HS2 ‘Y’ network” (including connections to Leeds).[39]

The Conservative Party’s 2019 election manifesto committed to building NPR between Leeds and Manchester. The government said it would then focus on Liverpool, Tees Valley, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle.[40]

In November 2021, the government said it would proceed with a “core” NPR network between Liverpool and York as part of its ‘Integrated rail plan for the North and the Midlands’. This network would consist of a new high speed line between Warrington, Manchester and Yorkshire, ending near Marsden, and upgrades to existing rail lines and some stations for the remainder of the route. In the integrated rail plan, the government outlined that the work would be delivered in phases and estimated that it would cost £17.2bn (in 2019 prices).

In the 2022 autumn statement the government recommitted to NPR as outlined in the integrated rail plan:

The autumn statement recommits to the government’s transformative growth plans for our railways. These include east west rail, core northern powerhouse rail, and high speed 2 to Manchester. These will provide fast, more reliable services and connect people to new job opportunities.[41]

Some commentators have considered what impact the cancellation of phase 2 of HS2 will have on the NPR project. Tom Arnold, a research associate at the University of Liverpool, argued that the cancellation of HS2 phase 2 means that elements of NPR will not be able to go ahead.[42] He said NPR relied on the extension of Manchester Piccadilly station that was part of HS2. The Federation of Small Businesses said the HS2 phase 2 cancellation raised questions about NPR, as it was closely “interwoven” with HS2 infrastructure.[43]

A government announcement released following the prime minister’s conference speech stated a “further £12bn” would be spent to better connect Manchester to Liverpool.[44] It said this would allow the delivery of NPR as previously planned, including high speed lines. It also said, however, that the government would “work with local leaders to agree whether they wish to suggest other ways to achieve the objectives within the cost envelope”.

5.4 Redistribution of funding: Network north

During his conference speech, Rishi Sunak said that all the money that would have been spent on HS2 phase 2 would instead be spent on other transport projects. Mr Sunak said the government would redirect £36bn from HS2 to a new transport plan entitled ‘Network north’, in addition to the £12bn for improved connections between Manchester and Liverpool.[45] He said this programme of transport work would “join up our great towns and cities in the North and the Midlands”. He said that under the plans “every region outside of London will receive the same or more government investment than they would have done under HS2 with quicker results”.

The ‘Network north’ plan stated there would be £19.8bn invested in transport in the North, £9.6bn in the Midlands and £6.5bn for transport initiatives in the rest of the country. The initiatives included:[46]

  • £2bn for a new station at Bradford and a new connection to Manchester; £2.5bn to deliver a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire; £3bn for upgraded and electrified lines between Manchester and Sheffield, Sheffield and Leeds, Sheffield and Hull, and Hull-Leeds; and £12bn to better connect Manchester to Liverpool
  • nearly £4bn more funding for local transport in the North’s six city regions and a new £2.5bn fund for local transport across all areas in the North outside the six city regions
  • investments in roads, reopened train lines and new stations
  • funding the Midlands Rail Hub in full with £1.75bn; over £1.5bn guaranteed local transport funding for the new East Midlands mayor; over £1bn extra local transport funding for the West Midlands city region; and a new £2.2bn fund for local transport across all areas in the West and East Midlands outside the city regions
  • keeping the £2 bus fare until the end of December 2024
  • greater connectivity for both Scotland and Wales with improvements to the A75 between Gretna and Stranraer, and £1bn to fund the electrification of the North Wales Main Line

Some commentators have argued the new plans include previously announced or delivered schemes and do not all concern the north of England, despite being part of the ‘Network north’ programme.[47] For example, one of the announced schemes is that the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham would be made into a dual carriageway. In 2014 David Cameron announced £290mn for this project.[48] The plan also said increased funding “could pay for schemes such as extending the Manchester Metrolink to Heywood, Bolton Wigan and Manchester Airport […]”.[49] The Manchester Metrolink already serves Manchester Airport’s terminal 1, and the government later corrected this to extending the metrolink to the airport’s terminal 2.[50]

6. Other measures

6.1 Pavement parking

In September 2019, the House of Commons Transport Committee published a report into pavement parking. It stated that while it is not a criminal offence to park on the pavement, it is a criminal offence to drive onto the pavement whether there is an intention to park or not.[51] It asserted that people with mobility difficulties or visual impairments and people who care for others were particularly adversely affected by pavement parking. It also acknowledged, however, that drivers often need to park near their homes or places of work and that sometimes the only way to do this and maintain access for emergency vehicles, buses and refuse lorries is to park partly or wholly on the pavement.[52]

At present, whether or not pavement parking constitutes a civil or criminal offence and whether the local authority or police has the authority to enforce it depends on the extent to which the pavement is blocked, the type of vehicle, and whether the street is subject to other parking restrictions.[53]

The committee argued that although the government had been working on the issue since 2015 its actions had not made a difference to the public’s experience of pavement parking. It recommended the government produce good practice guidance for local authorities and police forces on enforcement.[54] It also said that in the long term the government should put in place a ban on pavement parking outside London (which has prohibited pavement parking since 1974), with an exemptions regime that is less complicated than the current process.

A government consultation on pavement parking closed in November 2020.[55] It said the government recognised that pavement parking can cause problems for pedestrians, particularly wheelchair users, people with visual impartments and those with prams or buggies. The options presented were:

  • relying on improvements to the current system of powers that local authorities have under traffic regulation orders, which could require primary and/or secondary legislation
  • allowing local authorities with civil parking enforcement powers to enforce against vehicles found to be causing an “unnecessary obstruction of the pavement”, currently only enforceable by the police; this would require secondary legislation
  • extending the London-wide pavement parking prohibition, which would require primary legislation

6.2 E-scooters

At present, e-scooters fall within the legal definition of a motor vehicle.[56] This means it is normally illegal to use them on public roads unless they comply with the legal requirements to do so. E‑scooters do not meet these requirements. It is also illegal to use them in spaces set aside for pedestrians, cyclists or horse-riders.

The exception to the prohibition of e-scooters on public roads is when they are rented as part of an official trial.[57] There are over 30 areas across the UK involved in the trials, including Bournemouth and Poole, Derby, Liverpool, Newcastle, and certain London boroughs. In these trial areas it is legal for rental e-scooters to be used on roads (excluding motorways) and in cycle lanes, but not on pavements. There are several requirements for riders, including holding a driving licence. Government guidance states that safety equipment such as helmets should be worn but this is not a legal requirement.

E-scooters available through government trials must have automatic lights and their speed is limited to 15 miles per hour.

In December 2022 the government published an evaluation of e-scooter trials.[58] This looked at the usage, availability and user demographic of e-scooters during the trials, amongst other things.

The government drew the following conclusions from the report:[59]

  • there had been an increased use of rental e-scooters for purposeful journeys, such as commuting
  • there had been a progressive increase in mode shift away from private vehicles as trials matured
  • rental e-scooters had provided access to new travel options for some groups, with people from ethnic minority groups and on low incomes more likely to use e-scooters regularly
  • the majority of residents in trial areas saw the introduction of e-scooters in their area as positive

The government said it would “learn lessons” from the evaluation and would “release information on the future policy around e-scooters and similar light electric vehicles”.[60]

Previously, in June 2022, the government had said it would look to create a new category of low-speed zero emission vehicle in the transport bill announced in the May 2022 Queen’s Speech.[61] This would have allowed it to regulate e-scooters.

In response to a question from the House of Commons Transport Committee in May 2023, Jesse Norman, minister at the Department for Transport, stated the government was considering the fact that since they were initially introduced, trials had shown that e-scooters primarily displaced active travel rather than travel in private vehicles.[62] He also stated there were safety concerns around the use of e-scooters. He said that the government planned to lay regulations relating to e-scooters under existing rules rather than pass primary legislation. He said the government would also consider legislation on “light electric vehicles”.[63]

In July 2023 the government said it intended to introduce legislation on micromobility vehicles, which would encompass e-scooters, “when parliamentary time allows”.[64]

6.3 Protections for airline passengers and Civil Aviation Authority legislative reforms

In January 2022 the government launched a consultation on plans to improve the compensation process for delayed flights and strengthen protections for disabled passengers.[65]

The consultation sought views on measures in the following areas:

  • being able to claim compensation based on the length of the flight delay and linked to cost of travel, rather than having to meet a three-hour threshold
  • mandating all airlines to be part of the aviation alternative dispute resolution (ADR), to give consumers a route for escalating certain complaints that currently cannot be settled between the consumer and airline without needing to go to court
  • mandating airlines to provide wheelchair users and people with reduced mobility the full amount of compensation for damage caused to their wheelchair or mobility scooter during a domestic UK flight
  • strengthening the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to enforce consumer protection law and giving it powers to fine airlines directly for breaches

The government responded to the consultation on 27 June 2023. It said it would introduce legislation in the following areas:[66]

We will legislate when parliamentary time allows to enhance the enforcement powers of the CAA by providing additional administrative tools, such as issuing financial penalties. This will enable the CAA to step in more promptly and flexibly where appropriate. We will work closely with the CAA on the design of those powers to make sure they are effective and proportionate.

We will take steps to improve the coverage of ADR, with a view to legislating when parliamentary time allows to make ADR membership mandatory for airlines operating to, from and within the UK. Most UK airlines are already members of an ADR body. For the minority that are not currently ADR members, this will ensure consumers have a full suite of options available to resolve disputes no matter who they travel with.

6.4 Road Safety Investigation Branch

On 29 June 2022, the government announced it would set up a Road Safety Investigation Branch to look at “how and why incidents [such as traffic accidents] happen and to provide real insight into how new technologies—such as self-driving and electric vehicles—can be rolled out on our roads”.[67] This followed a consultation on improving understanding of traffic accidents, which the government responded to in June 2022.[68]

The government said it expected to include measures for the creation of the branch in the transport bill which it announced in the 2022 Queen’s Speech.[69]

Cover image by Rudy and Peter Skitterians on Pixabay.


  1. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘Queen’s Speech 2022: Background briefing notes’, 10 May 2022. Return to text
  2. House of Commons, ‘Written question: Electric scooters: Regulation (36834)’, 20 July 2022. Return to text
  3. House of Commons Transport Committee, ‘Oral evidence: Work of the secretary of state for transport’, 7 December 2022, HC 163 of session 2022–23, Q430. Return to text
  4. House of Commons Transport Committee, ‘Oral evidence: Great British Railways’, 30 March 2022, HC 1076 of session 2021–22. Return to text
  5. Alistair Dalton, ‘Six Scottish contenders for Great British Railways HQ despite role in Scotland unclear’, Scotsman, 18 March 2022. Return to text
  6. Williams Rail Review, ‘The role of the railway in Great Britain’, February 2019. Return to text
  7. House of Commons, ‘Written statement: Rail update (HCWS175)’, 23 March 2020. Return to text
  8. House of Commons Transport Committee, ‘Oral evidence: Great British Railways’, 30 March 2022, HC 1076 of session 2021–22. Return to text
  9. Department for Transport, ‘Great British Railways: The Williams-Shapps plan for rail’, May 2021, CP 423, p 7. Return to text
  10. As above, p 8. Return to text
  11. House of Commons Transport Committee, ‘Oral evidence: Great British Railways’, 30 March 2022, HC 1076 of session 2021–22. Return to text
  12. As above, Q2. Return to text
  13. As above, Q28. Return to text
  14. As above, Q50. Return to text
  15. House of Commons Transport Committee, ‘Oral evidence: Work of the secretary of state for transport’, 7 December 2022, HC 163 of session 2022–23, Q439–40. Return to text
  16. As above, Q442. Return to text
  17. Department for Transport, ‘Connected and automated mobility 2025: Realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles in the UK’, August 2022, CP 719, p 21. Return to text
  18. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘Queen’s Speech 2022: Background briefing notes’, 10 May 2022. Return to text
  19. As above, p 9. Return to text
  20. As above, p 11. Return to text
  21. Department for Transport, ‘Connected and automated mobility 2025: Realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles in the UK’, August 2022, CP 719, p 7. Return to text
  22. House of Commons Transport Committee, ‘Self-driving vehicles’, 15 September 2023, HC 519 of session 2022–23, p 33. Return to text
  23. As above, p 34. Return to text
  24. House of Commons, ‘Written question: Driverless vehicles: Standards (195939)’, 11 September 2023. Return to text
  25. Department for Transport, ‘Connected and automated mobility 2025: Realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles in the UK’, August 2022, CP 719, p 51. Return to text
  26. Law Commission, ‘Remote driving: Advice to government’, February 2023. Return to text
  27. Law Commission, ‘Remote driving review: Robust regulation needed before technology is on UK roads’, 20 February 2023. Return to text
  28. Department for Transport, ‘Bill enabling the regulation of pedicabs in London: Impact assessment’, 14 August 2019. Return to text
  29. House of Commons, ‘Written question: Pedicabs (30152)’, 7 July 2022. Return to text
  30. Conservative Party, ‘Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wrapped up Conservative Party conference 2023’, 4 October 2023. Return to text
  31. Department for Transport, ‘Continuing investment in HS2 phase 1: Accounting officer assessment’, updated 5 October 2023. Return to text
  32. Conservative Party, ‘Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wrapped up Conservative Party conference 2023’, 4 October 2023. Return to text
  33. House of Commons, ‘Rail update (HCWS904)’, 3 July 2023. Return to text
  34. Conservative Party, ‘Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wrapped up Conservative Party conference 2023’, 4 October 2023. Return to text
  35. Department for Transport, ‘High speed rail’, March 2010, Cm 7827, p 9. Return to text
  36. Gill Plimmer et al, ‘HS2 costs set to jump as inflation undermines rail project’s future’, Financial Times (£), 20 September 2023. Return to text
  37. Department for Transport, ‘Continuing investment in HS2 phase 1: Accounting officer assessment (October 2023)’, updated 5 October 2023. Return to text
  38. HM Government and Transport for the North, ‘The northern powerhouse: One agenda, one economy, one north’, March 2015. Return to text
  39. As above, pp 5–17. Return to text
  40. Conservative Party, ‘Conservative Party manifesto 2019’, November 2019, p 27. Return to text
  41. HM Treasury, ‘Autumn statement 2022’, November 2022, CP 751, p 33. Return to text
  42. Conversation, ‘What Rishi Sunak scrapping HS2—and promising a new ‘Network north’—means for the north of England’, 4 October 2023. Return to text
  43. Federation of Small Businesses, ‘FSB GM responds to cancellation of HS2’ 4 October 2023. Return to text
  44. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘PM redirects HS2 funding to revolutionise transport across the North and Midlands’, 4 October 2023. Return to text
  45. Conservative Party, ‘Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wrapped up Conservative Party conference 2023’, 4 October 2023. Return to text
  46. Department for Transport, ‘PM redirects HS2 funding to revolutionise transport across the North and Midlands’, 4 October 2023. Return to text
  47. Helen Pidd, ‘Ten problems with Rishi Sunak’s Network north announcement’, 5 October 2023. Return to text
  48. BBC News, ‘A1 upgrade ‘vital’ to the North East, says Cameron’, 1 December 2014. Return to text
  49. Department for Transport, ‘Network north: Transforming British transport’, October 2023, p 29. Return to text
  50. Department for Transport, ‘Network north: Transforming British transport’, October 2023, p 29. Return to text
  51. House of Commons Transport Committee, ‘Pavement parking’, 9 September 2019, HC 1982 of session 2017–19, p 3. Return to text
  52. As above, p 5. Return to text
  53. As above, pp 5–6. Return to text
  54. As above, p 4. Return to text
  55. Department for Transport, ‘Pavement parking: Options for change’, 29 June 2023. Return to text
  56. Department for Transport and Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, ‘Powered transporters’, 13 July 2020. Return to text
  57. Department for Transport, ‘E-scooter trials: Guidance for users’, updated 17 July 2023. Return to text
  58. Department for Transport, ‘National evaluation of e-scooter trails: Findings report’, December 2022. Return to text
  59. Department for Transport, ‘Government response to the e-scooter trials evaluation report’, 15 December 2022. Return to text
  60. As above. Return to text
  61. House of Commons, ‘Written question: Bicycles and electric scooters: Regulation (18975), 22 June 2022. Return to text
  62. House of Commons Transport Committee, ‘Oral evidence: E-scooters follow up’, 17 May 2023, HC 1077 of session 2022–23, Q130. Return to text
  63. As above, Q153. Return to text
  64. House of Commons, ‘Written question: Active travel (193779)’, 20 July 2023. Return to text
  65. Department for Transport, ‘Government takes action to strengthen airline passenger rights’, 31 January 2022. Return to text
  66. Department for Transport, ‘Response to the aviation consumer policy reform consultation’, 27 June 2023. Return to text
  67. Department for Transport, ‘Government launches country’s first ever investigation branch focused on road safety’, 29 June 2022. Return to text
  68. Department for Transport, ‘Deepening our understanding of road traffic collisions and how best to address them: Government response’, June 2022. Return to text
  69. As above. Return to text