Labour considers imposing 5mph roads in Wales
Labour is considering cutting speed limits to 5mph, prompting fresh accusations of a 'war on motorists'.
Jane Hutt, Welsh Labour's chief whip, said that lowering speed restrictions to the unprecedentedly low level could 'in some circumstances' be 'appropriate'.
Ms Hutt was asked in the Senedd, the devolved parliament in Wales, whether the ruling Labour party would rule out cutting speed limits to 10mph, a suggestion made by a taxpayer-backed charity.
In reply, Ms Hutt said: 'Well, clearly, road safety is about road safety, and it is interesting that that association did come forward with proposals, based on evidence, that in some circumstances, 10mph – let alone 10mph, 5mph – is appropriate in terms of road speeds.
'I think all the evidence has shown that the roll-out of the 20mph speed limit in Wales, as appropriately instigated by local authorities, has not only saved lives, cut insurance bills, but actually has now been welcomed by the people of Wales,' she added.
The blanket reduction of most Welsh speed limits to 20mph, down from 30mph, is the single most unpopular policy in the 26-year history of Welsh devolution.
A petition against it on the Welsh Government's website gained nearly half a million signatures – the largest ever recorded there – and forced the devolved minister behind the policy to step down from his frontbench post.
'A disaster for Wales'
Sam Rowlands MS, the Welsh Conservatives' shadow transport and infrastructure secretary, said: 'Labour's 20mph speed limit has been a disaster for Wales and any consideration of lowering it further is ludicrous.
'The Labour-run Welsh Government is leading a war on motorists and slowing Wales down.
'The Welsh Conservatives are the only party in the Senedd committed to scrapping Labour's 20mph speed limit.'
The 10mph proposal originated with the Road Safety Foundation (RSF), a taxpayer-sponsored charity.
In a report titled 'Determining Safe Speeds', the charity claimed last week that 'the evidence-based maximum operating speeds on British roads if most deaths and life-changing injuries are to be avoided' should be set at 10mph around schools, hospitals and 'in the vicinity of major sports or social/cultural events'.
Wales' devolved Labour Government pledged in 2022 to make the country's roads 'free from death and serious injury', a point the charity acknowledged in its report.
Yet in a statement on Wednesday, RSF claimed its recommendations to politicians had been distorted, saying earlier media reports of its latest research 'damage… the understanding of the public'.
Accounts filed with the Charity Commission show that an average of 69 per cent of RSF's total income over the five years to the end of 2023 came from government grants and contracts.
Last year the charity received £712,530 from the taxpayer, making up 86.1 per cent of its total income for the year of £827,750.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
8 minutes ago
- BBC News
Lack of Devon and Cornwall transport funding criticised
The government has been accused of leaving Devon and Cornwall behind in terms of transport Rachel Reeves announced £15.6bn of funding for transport projects across parts of England including Greater Manchester, the Midlands, West England and Yorkshire on and business leaders based in Devon and Cornwall have criticised the government for overlooking the region after no money was earmarked for projects in either Department for Transport (DfT) said it was committed to delivering infrastructure that would boost the whole country. 'Underfunded services' Leigh Frost, leader of Cornwall Council, said the county's roadwork of more than 4,500 miles (7,242km) would have to be maintained with limited Liberal Democrat councillor said: "Our residents deserve a reliable, affordable, and integrated public transport system."Instead, we're left to struggle with making the Cornish pound stretch further to support our underfunded services, while other areas receive the lion's share of investment."Ben Maguire, Lib Dem MP for North Cornwall, said the county had "yet again been overlooked" by the government and the area deserved much better."We've had promises of 'levelling up', but this £15bn plan doesn't offer a single penny for our region," Mr Maguire added. Lib Dem MP for St Ives Andrew George accused the government of targeting "handpicked mayoral zones" with its £15.6bn of George added: "So we're expected to believe this is a politically neutral decision based on need?"Cornwall's Chamber of Commerce said transport consistently ranked as the top priority for businesses in the county, but said there was still not enough support from the Brown, the chamber's chief executive, said Cornwall was being left behind."Our businesses struggle daily with connectivity issues that limit growth potential," he said. "While metro mayors across England receive billions for trams and mass transit, Cornwall's economy continues to be hampered by inadequate bus services and rail connections that fail to meet business needs." 'Languishing behind' The funding announcement also received criticism in Smith, Conservative MP for South West Devon, said she was "deeply disappointed" that no money had been given to Devon or Cornwall."Anyone living in our corner of the UK will know that our transport infrastructure languishes behind the rest of the nation," Ms Smith said."I have warned before that the South West risks becoming Labour's forgotten region. It seems this remains true." 'Pushing our government' Jayne Kirkham, Labour MP for Truro and Falmouth, defended the government, saying the funding was focused on city said she and Perran Moon, Labour MP for Camborne and Redruth, had been told more help was expected in Spending Review due to be set out by the chancellor on 11 June."We will be pushing and pushing and pushing our government to make sure we get as much as we can for Cornwall, because we know how much we need it here," Ms Kirkham DfT said Wednesday's announcement would help more than a quarter of England's population get better transport infrastructure.A spokesperson added decisions on future transport spending would be announced as part of the Spending Review."We are committed to delivering transport infrastructure that will boost growth and opportunity across the whole country, as part of our 'Plan for Change'," the spokesperson said."This includes investing in Cornwall – where this year alone we are already providing £10m towards better bus services, up to £48m for highways and local transport maintenance and £1.1m to enable better walking, wheeling and cycling opportunities."
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Terrorism the only issue Starmer handling well, poll finds
Terrorism is the only issue that British people think Sir Keir Starmer is handling well, new polling suggests. In a damning audit of Labour's first year in office, voters gave the Government bad marks on 14 out of 15 key policy areas, from taxation to immigration. The YouGov survey, conducted over the past month, makes grim reading for the Prime Minister, who has struggled with plummeting approval ratings since entering No 10. It indicates the scale of the challenge he faces to win back the public's trust amid the rise of Reform UK, with Labour still reeling from disastrous results at last month's local elections. Asked how the Government was faring in 15 key policy areas, voters indicated that terrorism was the only one they thought Sir Keir was handling well, with a net score of +3. The 14 other issues all received net negative ratings, with immigration the lowest at -60, followed closely by taxation on -58 and welfare on -53. Sir Keir also got bad marks on the economy, with a net score of -52, as well as housing, the NHS, crime, inflation, unemployment, Brexit, the environment, education, transport and defence. The survey, published on Thursday, was conducted between May 3 and June 2, using a representative sample of 8,538 British people. It will come as a blow to the Prime Minister before the spending review next week, at which the Chancellor is expected to unveil cuts to day-to-day spending to keep within her self-imposed fiscal rules. The positive feedback on Labour's handling of terrorism will be encouraging for the Government, suggesting Sir Keir is broadly trusted to keep the country safe. But the lack of confidence in the Prime Minister's ability to tackle the small boats crisis will concern No 10 as Reform storms ahead in the opinion polls. A similarly dire score on welfare suggests Sir Keir has work to do to win back Labour's traditional supporters on the Left, many of whom were dismayed by his sweeping cuts to benefits earlier this year. No 11 will also be disappointed by the lack of faith in Labour's ability to handle the economy, despite Rachel Reeves's attempt to put fiscal responsibility front and centre of her plans. Sir Keir declared Reform his main opposition last month, setting him up for a battle with Nigel Farage on highly charged issues such as migration and net zero. Meanwhile, the Reform leader parked his tanks on Labour's lawn by promising to reverse the cut to winter fuel payments for pensioners in full and lift the two-child benefit cap. The YouGov poll found that nearly three-quarters of voters thought Sir Keir was doing 'very badly' or 'fairly badly' on immigration, compared to just 13 per cent who thought he was doing well. Labour has been accused of losing control of Britain's borders after close to 1,200 small boat migrants crossed the Channel in a single day.
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
We still have time to avoid this looming dystopia
Rayner College, Oxford, June 2044 ' The characteristic blindness of the 20th century … concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or H G Wells and Karl Barth.' (CS Lewis, 1944) Those of us who came relatively unscathed through the Great Catastrophe of the early years of this decade can now – unlike so many of our countrymen – look back and ask ourselves what went so badly wrong. Some of it is obvious. Mass immigration transformed our major cities and gradually suffocated our public services. Our casual, unfunded, ill-thought-through defence commitments led to the destruction of most of our Armed Forces and kit in Ukraine a decade ago. Our failure to enforce the criminal law properly meant the fractious social environment of the 2020s degenerated into flight from the cities, no-go zones, and violence not seen since Northern Ireland in the 1970s. But these are symptoms. The real cause was our gradually accelerating economic decline and the social tensions that followed, turbo-driven by the psychological Bantustans created by the Equality Act. The middle classes in the private sector saw a future of struggle and genteel poverty, while public 'servants' behaved like pre-Revolutionary French aristocrats defending their privileges. The rich got out, and so did the young – if they could. The productive part of the economy was overwhelmed by the hangers-on. Conflict became inevitable when those with something to lose said to themselves 'we need a strong man: crack a few heads if you have to, I don't care anymore', and when those who didn't decided to try overthrowing the system as a whole. What went wrong? Why did we condemn ourselves to economic decline and worse? It's not that we lacked lessons. The Americans avoided it. The Argentines dug themselves out of it. The Eastern Europeans were doing well enough until the 2033-4 war. Of course we can see the answer clearly now. The economy didn't grow because we didn't want it to grow. On that, our leaders were united. If I had said, in the days when classical music was still a thing, that I wanted to be a concert pianist, but didn't learn to read music and didn't practice, eventually people would have concluded I might say it, but I didn't really want it. Similarly both Left and Right said they wanted growth. In practice they put other objectives first. Left and Right may have had different objectives, but they still had one big thing in common: they thought they knew best. No one would trust the market or trust the people. Our characteristic blindness, as C S Lewis put it, was to statism. And if the 20th century should have taught us anything, it was that statism led to economic decline and war. The big problem areas were obvious. In 2025 Britain was about three to four million houses short. A massive building programme was needed. The Left's solution was new towns and social housing. The Right wanted building in cities and mansion blocks. No one wanted the one thing that might have made a difference: scrap the 1947 Planning Act, protect national parks, and let the market work. That's why young London professionals now live two to a room in south east Esher – and why so many have left for South East Asia. Similarly, Left and Right blamed different things for the NHS's failure, but no one would let the market in to solve them. They had slightly varying views of the ideal tax burden, but both believed in regulating business. They had slightly different views about how quickly we should decarbonise but neither disputed the goal. That's why – until the government banned them – we all had a private generator in the 2030s. Both Left and Right wanted growth. Just not as much as other things: electoral success, political convenience, avoiding reality. To be charitable, maybe most of them didn't really understand what was needed. Certainly very few in the 2020s, let alone later, spoke of the power of the market, the prosperity created by free individuals, the new ideas that came from government getting out of the way. All the talk was of regulation and of social engineering. No one spoke of incentives and of profit. We can see now that this meant Britain couldn't benefit from the skills and enterprise of all its citizens, only from the dubious skills of its policymakers. AI, which might genuinely have helped every person change their life, in fact only reinforced our leaders' belief that ever more cleverly worked-out policy could solve our problems. That is, after all, why Baroness Rayner founded the college where I now sit, as she said at the time, 'to use my experience to inspire very ordinary people to believe they can run the country'. How strange it all seems now. If there is one silver lining to these past horrific few months, it is that we can now face reality. Like Adenauer's Germany in the 1950s, we don't have the luxury of deceiving ourselves. Scrap the controls, free up the markets, get people rebuilding: that has to be the way out of our problems. We have had no end of a lesson. And now we must turn it to use.
