A new GB regulatory regime for self-driving vehicles built on the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, comprising authorisation of vehicles against a self-driving test, licensing of authorised self-driving entities and no-user-in-charge operators, a statutory Statement of Safety Principles, an Automated Passenger Services (APS) permitting scheme, marketing-term restrictions and a reworked criminal liability framework.
The framework determines when and how driverless cars, shuttles, taxis and bus-like services can operate commercially on British roads from 2026, allocating safety, liability and enforcement responsibilities between manufacturers, operators, users and the state; it underpins ministerial commitments to enable commercial pilots without safety drivers from spring 2026.
Part 5 of the AV Act (APS permits) and s.93 (traffic-regulation information) commenced on 15 May 2026 by SI 2026/437; SI 2026/439 sets the permit procedure; the December 2025 – March 2026 call for evidence on the wider framework (Statement of Safety Principles, authorisation, operator licensing) has closed and government is preparing further secondary legislation and guidance.
Primary legislation establishing the GB regulatory regime: authorisation of automated vehicles (Part 1), criminal liability and user-in-charge (Part 2), policing/investigation (Part 3), marketing restrictions (Part 4), APS permits (Part 5).
Statutory call for evidence on the principles against which the Secretary of State must judge self-driving safety; foundational for authorisation decisions.
Implements Part 4 by restricting terms like 'self-driving' to authorised AVs; closed September 2025.
Wide-ranging call for evidence covering Statement of Safety Principles, vehicle authorisation, operator licensing for no-user-in-charge use, information gathering and incident investigation.
Government's pre-enactment scoping of how delegated powers in the AV Bill would be exercised through secondary legislation.
2022 strategy paper setting the policy frame and ambition for the legislative regime that became the 2024 Act.
Sets maximum 5-year permit validity, renewal windows (6–2 months before expiry), grounds for variation/suspension/withdrawal, urgent-suspension procedure, internal review, and information-disclosure gateways for APS operators.
Commences Part 5 (excluding s.84 civil sanctions and s.89(8)(b)/(10)) and s.93 on 15 May 2026, completing the legal underpinning for APS permit issue from that date.
First commencement order: brought ss.55, 56, partial 78, 88, 89 into force on 1 January 2026, principally to enable regulation-making powers.
DfT/CCAV programme document setting out phased implementation of the Act, including sequencing of safety principles, authorisation framework, operator licensing and APS permits.
Government response to the APS consultation, confirming the SI design and independent safety assessment/monitoring/enforcement approach.
Operational guidance setting out application process, safety, operational and reporting requirements for pilot deployments from spring 2026.
Companion guidance for police, fire and ambulance services on dealing with vehicles operating in the pilot.
Explains how licensing authorities (taxi/PHV) and relevant franchising bodies engage with the consent procedure under ss.85–86 of the Act.
Regulatory Policy Committee scrutiny of DfT's options assessment underpinning SI 2026/439.
Parliamentary briefing summarising AV technology, risks and policy issues for legislators.
Library briefing prepared for the 28 October 2025 Westminster Hall debate led by Sarah Coombes MP.
PAC scrutiny noting that AV technology will need to operate on existing highway infrastructure, with no immediate change in road-maintenance practice expected.
Comparative regulatory-sanctions study commissioned to inform DfT's design of civil sanctions under the AV Act (Schedule 1 and s.84).
75 recommendations on safety assurance, civil and criminal liability and the regulatory framework that underpin the 2024 Act.
Directly designed SI 2026/439.
Final form of the APS permit procedure.
Statutory hook for authorisation decisions; foundational to authorisation regime.
Operationalises the protected-terms regime.
Sweeps across the remaining secondary-legislation pipeline including authorisation, operator licensing and information powers.
Self-driving vehicles could be on British roads by 2026, after the government's world-leading Automated Vehicles (AV) Act became law today.
Why linked: Royal Assent press release setting the 2026 commercial deployment commitment.
Today I can announce that the Government will accelerate the introduction of automated passenger services regulations, subject to the outcome of a consultation later this summer.
Why linked: Greenwood WMS (HCWS692) committed Labour to bringing APS regulations forward.
From Spring 2026, commercial firms would be able to pilot self-driving vehicles on England's roads without a safety driver, for the first time.
Why linked: June 2025 announcement reported in Commons Library briefing.
Earlier instruments and documents in the same policy lineage — superseded by something on this thread, surfaced for context.
Direction: to_committee
Why linked: Sets the operational permitting scheme that delivers Section 6 of the Act.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps she is taking to increase road safety.
Why linked: The Bill itself — foundation of the AV regulatory regime.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of delivery robots on wheelchair users and visually-impaired people.
Why linked: Written question pressing the Department on AV implementation timeline.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of delivery robots operating on pavements on public safety.
Why linked: Impact assessment cited in the Bill explanatory notes.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the criminal liability framework applicable in cases where (a) autonomous and (b) connected vehicles cause (i) death and (ii) serious injury.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the increasing use of AI-driven personalised marketing by large retailers; and what steps they are taking to ensure that regulatory frameworks relating to consumer protection, data use and
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of requiring independent safety assessments before AI systems with dangerous offensive capabilities are developed.
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the timetable for full implementation of the Public Service Vehicle (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023.
Why linked: Same domain (transport) but no direct lineage to the AV Act.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether she is considering mandating an assessment of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems as part of the MOT test.
Direction: to_committee
Direction: to_committee
Direction: to_committee
Why linked: Lords PQ HL on regulating self-driving delivery robots on pavements — surfaces the wider self-driving regulatory perimeter at issue in Glover's Commons PQs.
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans the Regulatory Innovation Office has for regulating self-driving delivery robots that operate primarily on pavements, alongside regulation of airborne drones.
Why linked: Lords PQ asking which DfT unit is responsible for policy on self-driving pavement delivery robots — directly tied to ongoing AV accessibility scrutiny on this thread.
To ask His Majesty's Government which unit or team in the Department for Transport is responsible for policy relating to self-driving delivery robots that operate primarily on pavements.
Why linked: Lords PQ on whether local authorities will have a right to withhold consent for APS operators under the AV Act 2024 — direct framework question.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in implementing the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, they plan to give local authorities the right to withhold consent for an automated passenger services operator permit to be granted; and if so, which tier of …
Why linked: Lords PQ specifically asking which body will hold responsibility for issuing APS permits under the AV Act 2024 — direct scrutiny of Part 5 implementation.
To ask His Majesty's Government what body will hold responsibility for the issuing of permits for operators of automated passenger services under the Automated Vehicles Act 2024.
Why linked: Lords PQ asking about AI-powered self-driving cars and safety measures — directly thread-relevant.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of artificial intelligence powered self-driving cars; and what plans they have to introduce safety measures for self-driving cars.
Why linked: Written evidence on DfT's approach to AV technology and existing highway infrastructure, directly relevant to the authorisation and safety framework under the AV Act.
However, the Department also set out that autonomous vehicle technology would need to be capable of safely operating using existing highway infrastructure and so does not expect to make any immediate changes to road maintenance practices. The Department told us …
Why linked: Letter from the DfT Permanent Secretary on autonomous vehicles follow-up to the local roads inquiry — committee correspondence on the AV regime.
Direction: to_committee
Why linked: Lords PQ on post-legislative review of AEVA 2018 — directly relevant to AV Act 2024 predecessor framework.
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to undertake post-legislative review of (1) the Automated and Electrical Vehicles Act 2018, (2) the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, (3) the Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Act 2018, and (4) …
Direction: unknown
Why linked: Transport Committee position on driver-skill atrophy and growing UIC demands — engages s.7 transition demands.
Greater automation will reduce time spent driving. Over time drivers may become less practised and therefore less skilled. Conversely, the demands on drivers will grow as they will be called upon to retake control of vehicles in challenging circumstances with …
Why linked: Transport Committee finding on AV potential and use cases — relevant context for APS permitting scope.
There is a broad range of possible uses for self-driving vehicles, and we believe they have the potential to improve transport connectivity with significant safety, productivity, and mobility benefits. However, over the last decade, progress in this technology has failed …
Why linked: Transport Committee position that AV safety advantages are not given — directly informs authorisation threshold.
While it is widely assumed that self-driving vehicles will prove safer than human drivers, this is not a given. Optimistic predictions are often based on widespread self- driving vehicle usage that is decades away, or assertions about human error that …
Why linked: Transport Committee realism on AV technology limits — frames the s.2 Statement of Safety Principles debate.
Hopefully expectations of self-driving vehicle technology have become more realistic. Self-driving vehicles that can go anywhere at any time remain purely hypothetical, but in more circumscribed forms they can become reality. Nobody is likely to be taking a self-driving vehicle …
Why linked: Transport Committee finding that AVs should not impose new responsibilities on other road users — engages Part 2 user-in-charge / Highway Code interface.
The introduction of self-driving vehicles to the UK’s roads will affect all road users. We believe that this should not impose new responsibilities on other road users and pedestrians, limit their access to, or use of, public infrastructure or, crucially, …
Why linked: Transport Committee position on connected-vehicle data access and safety-led culture — directly engages the regime's information-sharing architecture.
Connected vehicles pose new dangers, which the law must evolve to meet. A safety- led culture will require wide access to data, and this must be a higher priority than commercial confidentiality. Ensuring self-driving vehicles are roadworthy will be more …
Why linked: Transport Committee point on AV infrastructure dependencies — relevant to s.93 traffic-regulation information regime.
Self-driving vehicles will need well-maintained roads and signage, nationwide connectivity, and up-to-date digital information about the road network. While some steps have been taken towards this by the Government and public bodies, these preparations are too siloed and divorced from …
Why linked: Transport Committee finding on unresolved policy issues including data access and roadworthiness — maps to ss.14–23 information powers.
The Government has put good structures in place, but it is not enough just to participate in or facilitate conversations about unresolved policy issues, including access to data, verifying roadworthiness, legal liability and insurance implications. If self-driving vehicles are to …
Why linked: Transport Committee recommendation that government adopt a cautious, gradual approach — directly informs the regime's safety architecture.
In principle we welcome the introduction of self-driving vehicles, but the Government must take a cautious, gradual approach with the technology introduced only in well- defined and appropriate contexts. As such, we broadly welcome the strategy the Government has set …
Why linked: Transport Committee report finding on the UK self-driving sector — directly relevant to the regime's commercial framing.
The self-driving vehicle sector is a British success story. We were impressed, unfailingly so, by the energy, creativity, and expertise of all those we met, whether from industry, academia, Government or somewhere in between. We have a competitive advantage, and …
Why linked: Transport Committee 'Self-driving vehicles' report conclusion praising Law Commissions and Government on the new regime — substantive on-thread scrutiny content.
The current laws for self-driving vehicles are archaic and limiting, especially concerning testing and legal liability. We commend the work of the Law Commissions and the Government in devising a new legal framework. That framework has broad support, albeit with …
Why linked: PQ on planned spend of £34m for commercial deployment of CAV — CCAV programme detail directly tied to the AV regime.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if his Department will provide a breakdown of planned spend for the £34 million allocated to support commercial deployment of connected and self-driving technologies.
Why linked: PQ on R&D spend for connected and self-driving deployment — sits within thread perimeter.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the £100 million of new R&D funding to support commercial deployment of connected and self-driving technologies and the creation of a safety assurance framework, announced in Connected & Autom
Loading new-since list…
Loading External Lens…
The Automated Vehicles Act 2024 1 established the GB framework for self-driving vehicles, implementing the Law Commissions' 2022 joint report 2. The regime turned operational on 15 May 2026 when SI 2026/437 3 commenced Part 5 (Automated Passenger Services permits), supported by the procedural rules in SI 2026/439 4. The Department for Transport's April 2026 government response 5 confirmed independent safety assessment, monitoring and enforcement, and an RPC opinion 6 scrutinised the underlying options assessment. A wider call for evidence on authorisation, operator licensing and the Statement of Safety Principles closed on 5 March 2026 7 and will drive the next round of secondary legislation. The government signed a partnership with Wayve in May 2026 8 to accelerate deployment, and pilot-scheme guidance for applicants 9 and first responders 10 is now in force.
The regime is in active implementation. The 2024 Act provides the framework architecture across seven parts — vehicle authorisation (Part 1), criminal liability and user-in-charge (Part 2), investigation (Part 3), marketing restrictions (Part 4), APS permits (Part 5), and adaptation of type-approval and traffic-regulation regimes (Part 6) 1. Two commencement orders are in force: SI 2025/1339 2 commenced regulation-making powers from 1 January 2026, and SI 2026/437 3 commenced the substantive APS regime and s.93 from 15 May 2026. SI 2026/439 4 sets the operational detail of the APS permit procedure: maximum 5-year validity, a renewal window of six to two months before expiry, defined grounds for variation/suspension/withdrawal (including traffic infractions, safety concerns and unroadworthiness), an urgent-suspension procedure, a 28-day internal-review right, and statutory information-disclosure gateways to police, ambulance, fire and rescue, courts and complaints bodies. Outside Part 5, the Statement of Safety Principles call for evidence 5, the protected marketing terms consultation 6 and the wide framework call for evidence 7 have all closed but their resulting instruments and the final s.2 Statement are not yet published. The DfT/CCAV implementation programme 8 coordinates the work, and statutory pilot-scheme guidance 910 now sets the application and first-responder regime for pre-authorisation deployments.
April–May 2026 was the regime's transition from paper to operational reality. On 21 April 2026, SI 2026/437 1 was made, fixing 15 May 2026 as the commencement date for Part 5 (excluding s.84 civil sanctions and s.89(8)(b)/(10)) and s.93. Two days later, on 23 April, SI 2026/439 2 was made, and ministerial statements (HCWS1537 3, HLWS1545 4), the government response to the APS consultation 5 and the RPC opinion on the options assessment 6 were published in coordinated fashion. On 31 March 2026, DfT published three pieces of operational guidance: information for pilot applicants 7, for first responders 8 and on local authority and transport-body roles in APS permits 9. The wider AV regulatory framework call for evidence closed on 5 March 2026 10 after launching on 4 December 2025 1112. On 12 May 2026 the government and Wayve announced a partnership to accelerate UK deployment 13, the most prominent industrial pairing under the new regime.
Three pipelines dominate the next twelve months. The first is the Statement of Safety Principles under s.2 1: until it is finalised the substantive standard against which authorisation decisions will be taken is policy rather than statute, and authorisation regulations under s.11 cannot sensibly be made without it. The second is the Government Response to the December 2025 – March 2026 wider framework call for evidence 2, expected in Q3 2026 or later, which will determine the shape of authorisation procedures, the operator-licensing regime under ss.12–13, and the use of information powers in Chapter 3 of Part 1. The third is the commencement of s.84 civil sanctions for APS permit infringements: the deliberate exclusion in SI 2026/437 3 of s.84 and Schedule 6 means the regime currently has front-loaded gateway machinery but back-loaded penalty machinery, and an analyst should expect a third commencement order to close that gap. Operationally, the first commercial pilots without safety drivers will test the regulatory architecture in real time — the Wayve partnership 4 is the proof-point. Westminster scrutiny is likely to continue through Olly Glover's pavement-robot line 56 and Scott Arthur's ADAS/MOT line 7, both of which interrogate the regime's edges rather than its core. Watch also the PAC's continuing interest in highway-infrastructure readiness given its scepticism about deployment optimism running ahead of road-condition reality.
The principal regulatory risk is sequencing: the regime is being commenced in the order Parliament wrote it (Part 5 first, authorisation later) rather than in the order doctrinal logic would suggest (safety principles → authorisation → operators → services), which means the first APS permits will be issued without a finalised s.2 Statement of Safety Principles 1. The deliberate exclusion of s.84 civil sanctions from SI 2026/437 2 leaves the APS regime with permit-level enforcement (variation, suspension, withdrawal under SI 2026/439 reg 5 3) but no monetary-penalty backstop until Schedule 6 commences. The corpus does not yet identify which regulator will operate authorisation and operator licensing — DVSA is plausible but unconfirmed 4. Inferred from corpus gap: there is no NAO study of the regime yet, so independent value-for-money scrutiny of CCAV spend (the £150m to 2030 programme 5) lies ahead. Pavement and delivery robots are pointedly outside the AV Act framework 6, leaving a visible legislative gap.
This briefing covers the AV Act 2024 framework, the APS permitting scheme, the Statement of Safety Principles, the protected marketing terms regime, and the wider authorisation/operator-licensing pipeline. It does NOT cover pavement-based delivery robots and other micromobility, which government has confirmed sit outside the AV Act and await a separate legislative vehicle. It treats general road-traffic law (RTA 1988, RTOA 1988) and the insurer-pays civil-liability regime in AEVA 2018 only where the 2024 Act amends or interacts with them.
Bills and Acts this regime substantively depends on. Links go to the bill's own thread on this site (where available) and to bills.parliament.uk.
Primary framework Act creating the authorisation, liability, marketing-restriction and APS permit regimes operationalised by SI 2025/1339, SI 2026/437 and SI 2026/439.
Earlier statute establishing insurer-pays civil liability for AV-caused accidents (Part 1); retained and amended by Schedule 2 of the 2024 Act, which builds the criminal/administrative regime on top.
The regime is a three-axis architecture: a vehicle axis (Part 1 authorisation), a person/entity axis (ASDE plus NUIC operator licensing under Part 1 Chapter 2), and a service axis (Part 5 APS permits). Each axis has its own gateway, but they are bound together by the statutory Statement of Safety Principles under s.2: authorisation decisions, operator-licence conditions and APS permit conditions all derive their substantive safety yardstick from a single document the Secretary of State must produce. Until that statement is finalised, every gateway is operating on transitional/scoping logic, which is why the call-for-evidence cycle in 2025–26 was sequenced before substantive authorisation decisions.
The liability layer in Part 2 is the regime's doctrinal innovation. Section 47 confers immunity on the user-in-charge for the manner of driving while a self-driving feature is engaged; s.48 carves the immunity back for residual driver-like duties (e.g. insurance, drink-driving, condition of the vehicle on hand-over). Criminal liability for in-drive conduct is reallocated to the ASDE through Chapter 3 information offences (ss.24–25) and aggravated variants where death or serious injury occurs; senior-manager liability (s.27) and nominated-individual liability (s.26) impose personal exposure on corporate officers.
The enforcement architecture is dual-track. The vehicle/entity track uses civil sanctions in Chapter 5 (compliance, redress and monetary penalties) plus authorisation-level variation/suspension/withdrawal under Schedule 1. The road-policing track sits in Part 3, with statutory inspectors empowered to investigate incidents — a deliberate move away from a purely criminal-investigation model towards an air-accident-investigation-style approach recommended by the Law Commissions.
Part 5 is layered onto, not integrated with, existing passenger-transport licensing. SI 2026/439 confirms via reg 1(3) that the regime applies to anything that would otherwise be a public service vehicle in GB and to any other APS in England. Section 83 disapplies the taxi, PHV and bus statutes where an APS permit is in force, but ss.85–86 give local licensing authorities (taxi/PHV-like) and relevant franchising bodies (bus-like) a consent right with a six-week deemed-consent backstop (SI 2026/439 reg 6). The reserved spaces (s.84 civil sanctions and the public service-equivalent civil-sanctions architecture) remain uncommenced, signalling that government has front-loaded gateway and procedure and back-loaded penalty.
The marketing-restriction regime in Part 4 sits outside the gateway architecture but feeds it: by criminalising premature use of the term 'self-driving' for non-authorised vehicles, it operationalises the integrity of the authorisation register that consumers, insurers and police rely on. Enforcement is via Schedule 5 consumer-protection routes rather than transport regulators, expanding the regime's accountability surface to bodies like Trading Standards.
Statutory test (Part 1, s.1) that a vehicle is capable of safely and legally travelling autonomously.
Body designated under s.6 as responsible for an authorised automation feature.
Person in the driving seat of a vehicle operating under a UIC self-driving feature (ss.46–52).
Licensed operator (Part 1 Chapter 2, ss.12–13) of a vehicle authorised to operate without a UIC.
Permit under s.82 enabling carriage of passengers in self-driving vehicles outside the taxi/PHV/bus regimes (s.83 disapplication).
Restriction on the use of terms such as 'self-driving' and 'autonomous' to authorised AVs.
APS permit regime takes legal effect; first applications can be lodged with the Secretary of State under SI 2026/439.
Government response to the 'Developing the AV regulatory framework' call for evidence (closed 5 March 2026), expected to inform secondary legislation on authorisation, operator licensing and information powers.
Publication of the final statutory Statement of Safety Principles under s.2 of the AV Act following the 2025 call for evidence.
Commencement of s.84 (civil sanctions for APS permit infringements) and Schedule 6, deliberately held back by SI 2026/437.
First substantive authorisation procedure regulations under s.11 and operator-licensing regulations under ss.12–13.
Commercial firms beginning pilot operation without safety drivers under the spring-2026 commitment, including Wayve-led deployments following the May 2026 partnership.
DfT's settled position is to operationalise the AV Act in stages, prioritising APS permits and pilot guidance for spring 2026, with authorisation and operator licensing following after the safety-principles and wider-framework consultations conclude. The April 2026 government response confirms safety will be 'independently assessed, monitored and enforced'.Apr 2026Jun 2025Feb 2025
CCAV's published research programme (public understanding of automation terms, situational-awareness study, inclusivity and emergency-response studies) signals an evidence-led implementation posture, emphasising human-factors risk and accessibility alongside commercial deployment.Mar 2026Jan 2025Jun 2025Jun 2025
On the APS permitting scheme: the RPC issued formal opinions on both the AV Bill IA (green-rated, 2024) and the SI 2026/439 options assessment (April 2026), providing external regulatory-scrutiny endorsement to the IA process.Apr 2026Jan 2024
The Joint Report (Law Com No 404) recommends a unified authorisation regime, ASDE liability, user-in-charge immunity and a statutory incident-investigation function — substantially the regime adopted by Parliament in the 2024 Act.Jan 2022
Co-author of the joint report; the regime adopts Great Britain (not UK) extent for road-traffic dimensions and SI 2026/439 applies to APS in Scotland for PSV-equivalent services, reflecting the SLC's recommendations on reserved/devolved interaction.Jan 2022Jan 2022Apr 2026
Its 7th Report (2022–23) urged a cautious, gradual approach with safety prioritised over commercial speed, and emphasised that AV deployment must not impose new burdens on other road users or limit pedestrian access — themes carried into the Act's safety architecture.Sep 2023Nov 2023
On local roads and AV interaction: the PAC has pressed DfT on the realism of AV operation over existing highway infrastructure without immediate maintenance change, signalling concern about deployment optimism outrunning road-condition reality.Jan 2025Dec 2024
Has positioned itself as the UK's flagship AI self-driving developer, signing a partnership with HMG in May 2026 to accelerate UK deployment and pursuing commercial scaling under the new framework.May 2026
On pavement and delivery robots: pressed government in April 2026 PQs on safety risks to pedestrians, wheelchair users and visually-impaired people, signalling Liberal Democrat scrutiny of where the AV framework's edges sit relative to micromobility.Apr 2026Apr 2026
On the AV/conventional-vehicle interface: pressed DfT on whether Advanced Driver Assistance Systems should be tested in the MOT, suggesting AV-adjacent assurance gaps in the existing test regime.Apr 2026
Opened the October 2025 Westminster Hall debate on connected and automated vehicles, framing AV deployment as a near-term reality requiring legislative attention.Oct 2025
As then Transport Secretary, owned the July 2025 ministerial statement launching the APS consultation and committing the government to delivering the permitting scheme as part of the Plan for Change growth agenda.Jul 2025
As then Lords Transport Minister, repeatedly carried the AV implementation message in Lords WMSs, including the April 2026 announcement of APS permitting taking effect.Apr 2026Dec 2025Jun 2025
As then PUS at DfT, signed the December 2025 framework call-for-evidence WMS, the April 2026 APS permitting WMS and SI 2026/439 / SI 2026/437, carrying day-to-day delivery of the implementation programme.Dec 2025Apr 2026Apr 2026
As then Future of Roads Minister, signed the June 2025 implementation WMS announcing acceleration of APS regulations and launched the July 2025 consultation that produced SI 2026/439.Jun 2025Jun 2025Jul 2025
Conservative Lords sponsor of the AV Act 2024; carried the Bill through Lords stages under the previous government.May 2024
Then Conservative Transport Secretary; Commons sponsor of the AV Act 2024 under the previous government.May 2024