Just coming back to the Road Haulage Association, it is interesting what has been said about misogyny in the sector. As a membership organisation, do you set standards for your members in terms of how they approach this problem? It is not unusual to see an HGV that might be depicting women on the outside or sometimes the inside in a way that is not always positive, is it? Is this something you expect? Do you expect any standard of behaviour from your members? Sorry to put you on the spot.

We have certainly been a very vocal organisation about ensuring that the industry is a welcoming space for females. We are part of the APPG for Freight and Logistics chaired by Rachel Taylor, which recently put out a report on improving diversity in the sector and the practical ways that that can happen.

Did that include some of those externally facing things? They are probably very small operators that are doing that, not bigger operators.

It includes both. The solutions lie in some actions that we have been talking about on facilities but also just ensuring that there is a more welcoming environment. Whether it is customers or anyone else, many women drivers just do not feel it is a welcoming place that they can be part of.

I am just trying to understand the health and wellbeing impact. Obviously it is very concerning that suicide rates among HGV drivers are 20% higher than the general population, and drivers are more likely to be affected by type 2 diabetes. We would just be really interested to know what impact the lack of rest facilities is actually having on drivers’ health and wellbeing. Adrian, do you want to start?

Thank you for raising this point; it is extremely important for our members and us. There is some really good work being done in this area, particularly through Loughborough University and the Structured Health Intervention For Truckers scheme, which Unite is a big supporter of. It is not just about understanding what the issues are but offering solutions for drivers. Some solutions are to have more exercise, which is great, but when you are in a motorway service area, where do you exercise? One example last year was a driver in his own depot where he was employed who used to walk the perimeter of the depot, which was half a mile; he would do it a couple of times so that was a mile walk, excellent. He was told, “No, you can’t do that; there’s not a dedicated walkway.” So he was prevented from doing that, rather than, “Okay, let’s look at having a dedicated walkway and encourage more people to do that.” You are absolutely right: it is lone working. Many drivers are out under a hell of a lot of pressure, constant monitoring and surveillance, with tight delivery and collection deadlines and sometimes unsympathetic road users. Being able to escape that environment to have a break that is away from the workplace is vitally important. That is another thing that we need to look at: what are the minimum standards for different types of parking areas, from very well-equipped MSAs and large truck stops to lay-bys and informal parking areas? Where do we create that standard and how do we enforce it? There are direct links with the nature of the work and the lack of parking facilities. Particularly for overnight drivers who are overnighting in informal parking areas; the quality of rest is not what it needs to be to ensure safety on our roads.

The statistic that you shared is one of the first things that I actually found when joining Logistics UK and I found it completely shocking. Randstad’s 2023 “Health and well-being in the workplace” reported that 27% of the logistics workers they surveyed had taken time off due to unmanageable stress and mental health issues. Joined with the statistics you shared, that just really illustrates the impact that mental health and wellbeing have on this industry. I have mentioned it previously but health and wellbeing should certainly be seen as a safety implication as much as anything. These people are running very large vehicles and need to be safe doing so. When sleep is impacted, there are no places to get healthy food and you have to park in a lay-by, those things are ultimately going to impact your mental health, wellbeing and everything in between. That is why we have set up Thrive, which is a platform to signpost drivers and others to support, as I mentioned earlier.

I very much agree with the points that have been made already, but I just want to illustrate them from our survey and the link between vehicle security, personal security and sleep. If you think the vehicle security is poor, you are very likely to think your own personal security is poor. Four in 10 people would then go on to say that they had a good night’s sleep, which is far too low in a safety-critical environment. The other thing is we are talking a lot about effectively getting the basics right, but actually if we are going to attract people into it, particularly younger HGV drivers—what is the average age now? Perhaps 52—we want to attract people like that. It is absolutely about getting the basics but it has to be about more than that as well. Thinking about the facilities in terms of exercise, that is what you would expect, wouldn’t you? It is effectively your home environment for that night. There are some initiatives; for example, Newark is looking at how you can connect with the local community. There is so much more that needs to be done, not just to get the basics right but to create an environment where people think, “Well, actually, I wouldn’t mind doing that and being there overnight.”

That is scary when you have a very large, heavy metal box being driven down busy roads by people who are more likely than most to drop off to sleep or have a critical health incident.

Sorry to come back in, but Adrian made the point. I am talking about a survey in actual sites. This is the good end of it. There will be experiences that are far worse than I have described.

We have touched on some issues around sleep deprivation and lack of exercise. What would you say are the main health and wellbeing issues that come across from drivers that you speak to?

There is certainly a range of health risks associated with HGV drivers. They are one and a half times more likely to be obese, and as you say there is a much higher rate of diabetes. Providing spaces at these facilities where they can get out of their cab, socialise and exercise is critically important. I also do not think we treat driver health seriously enough when it comes to road safety. Certainly as you say, having good quality sleep is essential for reducing accidents and fatigue and we are not thinking about driver health in that way.

Is there any particular good best practice across the sector where changes are being made that are positive? Nikki, you have obviously mentioned some work that you are doing but are there any other parts of the sector that are doing particularly good work to support health and wellbeing?

It probably will not surprise you that I am going to reference something that we are doing here. We absolutely recognise that the health and wellbeing but also the mental health of our drivers is absolutely critical because it is quite isolating being out on the road for that period of time. We partner with Mind and we launched something called Cabversation where we encourage drivers to sit down at a designated bench where they can talk to other HGV drivers or customers just to create that social bond. We have had some really positive feedback from that. We are also reviewing additional facilities that we might be able to install at some sites that have space such as driver lounges, gyms and all those things. It is interesting that you say four out of 10 drivers do not feel safe, because what that highlights is—as I mentioned—two-thirds of our sites have had one or fewer security incidents over the last 12 months, which we are really proud of. We need to make sure that we are communicating that level to all our drivers who park there because sometimes it can be about the perception rather than the actual incidents that happen. We have TAPA security accreditation at 47 of our locations so we are really confident that our sites are safe. We just need to make sure that we communicate that in the most effective way.

How many of your sites have gyms or places where drivers can exercise?

I would need to go away and find out the exact number, which I will get back to you on.

Just before we move on to the next question, the National Highways’ work to prevent suicide and reduce the number of suicides among all drivers has relevance here. If any witnesses wanted to submit evidence in writing about the National Highways’ role in reducing suicide rates, it would be interesting for the Committee to receive that. Returning to workforce recruitment and retention pressures, we are all conscious that the extreme pressures during the pandemic were symptomatic of underlying problems in the sector. You have all given us evidence on recruitment and retention strains, and Logistics UK said that the number of HGV drivers is actually falling. I appreciate that the reasons are multifaceted but we would be interested in hearing about what contribution you think that poor facilities play in people leaving the sector and new people not being recruited to the sector. Perhaps starting with Ms Solloway-Price and working our way down the panel.

As you say, retention and attraction to the industry are either stagnating or falling and we have an ageing workforce within logistics so it is an issue that we are all well aware of. In terms of attracting people to our industry as a whole, what we are very keen to see and are working on with organisations such as Generation Logistics, which you may have heard of, is to raise the profile of why this is a brilliant industry to be part of. One thing that we are always calling for is case studies from industry to show why this is a brilliant industry to be part of. While saying that, we can all have an adult, nuanced conversation that there are things that need to improve and a very key thing is the provision of driver facilities. It does not go without saying that ultimately, if you go to work and do not have access to the basics, you might not have longevity within that industry. We should not underestimate how important driver facilities are to the retention and attraction of people working in our industry.

I would just echo everything that has already been said. We are committed to improving the facilities for all the HGV drivers who arrive at our sites but we are very aware that even our sites with spaces are running at higher occupancy rates than we would like to see. I totally understand that an industry where you cannot get parked safely overnight is not going to be attractive to many drivers. We would be committed to increasing space, adding in more capacity and then improving the facilities, which is what we are doing.

Again, I agree with what has been said. Getting the facilities right is a necessary but not sufficient condition of attracting people into the workforce and it needs to be more than the bare minimum. At the time that the Trucking Lives survey mentioned earlier was done, half of current HGV drivers had considered quitting in the 12 months prior. We need to be getting new drivers in. If you are going to try to attract people in, when they actually get there and experience it or hear the experience of existing drivers it has to match the ambition that has been told to you in terms of coming in so it needs to be sorted out. If I can, I might just clarify something that I was saying earlier about the relationship between sleep and vehicle security. It is nine out of 10 drivers who rated vehicle security as good who also felt able to rest or sleep. By contrast, fewer than four in 10 felt they could rest when they perceived vehicle security as poor. It is that link between vehicle security and poor sleep. Obviously, when vehicle security is higher, the number is higher than four in 10.

Mr Robertson, just before we move on, do the surveys and other evidence that exist allow us to rank driver facilities relative to other factors to a satisfactory degree?

The surveys that we do allow you to look at the facilities against one another over a three-year period, so it is a third of the facilities each time. You can rank them and there was a very big disparity, particularly among the MSA provision and truck stops, which tend to be a lot better. It does not then rate—if this is what you are getting at—how much the experience of facilities affects their overall enjoyment of their work or whatever. I could check but I do not think we have something quite as direct as that. We have sat down and talked to people in qualitative work where people talk about it as potentially a factor in moving the industry.

I do not want to repeat what has been said but I want to just give a few things in relation to the driver shortage because this explains why this issue is so important. We have heard about the structural challenges that exist among the driver population: the ageing workforce, the lack of female drivers and the narrow demographics. Those structural challenges have not improved in recent years and have been the case for a long time, which makes the sector very vulnerable if there is an increase in freight volumes or fluctuations in growth. We have done some work that shows that there is a need for 40,000 new drivers to come into the sector each year over the next five years just to keep supply chains moving. We already have an issue with retention, which is not being helped by the standard and lack of facilities. This is the root of the reason we need to address this.

You have highlighted that there are a number of issues that play into the very long-term driver shortage. The driver shortage was not in 2021-22, nor is it now; the driver shortage has been ongoing for 30-plus years. That is driven mostly by low rates of pay, long hours, poor facilities and the fact that it is one of the most monitored jobs. I represent drivers and logistics workers and I cannot think of another profession anywhere that is monitored and surveilled as much as a professional driver is. When you put that with low rates of pay, long hours, nights out, poor places to park, lack of security and poor health, it is not a good advert for a job, is it? We need to deal with each element, but again I will say there is a holistic view that we need to take about an industry. We have to look at how we can improve facilities to reduce that impact and take that contributory factor away. Again there is broad agreement on what we need to do and how we need to do that but we need to see action and a Government-driven action plan to make real change. This is the third Transport Committee I have given evidence to and to a certain extent, I am saying the same things that I have in the two previous sessions. We are seeing the improvements that have already been highlighted but there is so much more to do.

I have one follow-up on something you said about surveillance. It certainly accords with my experience as a union officer that invasive and at times unscientific monitoring was a real problem in the sector. To your knowledge, are any operators collecting information data through surveillance during rest periods? Would it be the case that some operators might be holding information that would be relevant to our inquiry, such as the amount of time drivers are spending in lay-bys?

That information would be recorded through GPS tracking and tachograph data. As you will know, I deal with the better end of the sector, with the employers that work with Unite, and we ensure that the intrusive data collection is kept to a minimum. Can I say that that does not happen elsewhere? No, I cannot.

Just on the subject of lay-bys, when we did the inquiry four years ago, we went to a lay-by on an A road on the SRN in Kent, which had to be used because so many of the Kent MSAs are often full. We were told that if you do not get in by 5 pm, you cannot get into the MSAs when running to or from the Channel. I have to say that what we saw was disgusting and obviously dangerous for drivers and loads. Is the situation still as bad on lay-bys? What is the relationship with local authorities? They are in a difficult position. Should they close them? Should they encourage them and therefore fund the maintenance of them?

I am quite happy to come back. It is exactly the same situation, particularly down in Kent—as you said—with the freight coming in and going out of the country through Dover, but it is not just limited to that. If you go outside the Port of Liverpool, it is exactly the same: drivers parked up with absolutely no access to any facilities whatsoever. It is not just around ports; it is exactly the same situation up and down the country. Lay-bys play a very important part for professional drivers because again that is where a driver will look to pull in and take a 15, 30 or 45-minute break just to have that statutory tachograph break. They play a vital part but they are not the solution for longer-term and certainly overnight parking. We understand there is a safety element with slow-moving vehicles pulling into fast-moving traffic; the A34 in Oxfordshire is a prime example of this. Don’t get me started on smart motorways, but where we are seeing technology being used and you have slow-moving vehicles with signage being used to tell other road users that slow-moving vehicles are entering the carriageway, can’t we look at a different solution rather than closing lay-bys and just forcing drivers elsewhere? If I can also bring a comparison with what we see in mainland Europe, there are far more and much better roadside facilities. Not MSAs or big retail outlets, but areas where lorries and drivers can park relatively safely with basic facilities that are much more widely accessible than we have in this country. We can learn from international examples as well.

In France there is a low-key service area every 10 km with basic facilities, including exercise and outdoor gym facilities. We now move on to Scott with a bit more on the variations between different locations.

We have covered this to a certain extent but I just wanted to make sure nobody had anything to add about the variation between the different types of stopping locations.

Of the top 16 areas that we surveyed in our most recent report, all but one were truck stops, so they have dedicated facilities; maybe that is not too surprising. You get a lot of variation particularly in the MSAs and a bit of variation on the A roads. What does that tell you? It tells you there is inconsistency and that you can get it right. There is a very mixed picture and it is how we get onto the solutions.

Do we know what best practice is and is there a forum to share that?

Yes. We had a roundtable—was it 12 months ago? We brought people together who were sharing good practice and actually talking about a lot of the solutions that we are talking about now.

Who took the actions away from that then?

We had some actions for the Department for Transport, some for National Highways, some for logistic operators and others, and we are coming back together in September or October. I wanted to say at some point that it would be good to have members of the Committee there if you would like to come along and be part of that conversation too because it needs some political support as well as hearing what some challenges are. There are plenty of other forums outside that where good practice can be shared; I do not think there is a shortage of that.

Do you have any feeling for how it varies based on where you are in the country? I am guessing if you are on a motorway network, you are much more likely to come across a well-serviced station but I guess once you get further away from it, it gets trickier. Is that unfair?

As I say, there are many major freight corridors on arterial routes or A roads that do not have enough parking capacity. Going back to the point around lay-bys, we are just accepting lay-by usage as the norm. A primary function of lay-bys is for emergency use and they are just used frequently for overnight or long stays.

Could you point out a place in the country where there is a gap?

I could name many: the M1, the M6 in the Midlands, the M20 going to the south-east. I would say the vast majority of major arterial freight corridors do not have enough parking capacity. There are a number of examples that are well over capacity night after night, drivers cannot find any space, and they are full by about 3 pm. It is an unacceptable situation.

The last National Survey of Lorry Parking highlighted the geographical areas and the hot spots, and the new survey from this year will probably replicate the same kind of information. If we just look at the match funding scheme and where in the country those successful applications were, 14—the largest number—were in Lincolnshire, where the strategic road network is pretty much down to one or two roads. The issue of local government and the road network away from the SRN is something that is really important. Remember that lorries are up and down motorways all the time but they are delivering in every single square mile of the country and are using the roads there, which is why we need to consider where drivers can park at the point of delivery and collection. They now have a legal right to access facilities, which was granted relatively recently, but most employers do not appreciate that and it is just not enforced through local governments or the Health and Safety Executive. That would be one way—a very simple way in our opinion—of saying, “Look, if you are preventing drivers from accessing facilities when they are delivering or collecting, there is going to be a penalty for that,” even if it is naming and shaming. That will give drivers more confidence to say, “Actually, you do have to give me access to a toilet,” and for employers and companies out there to say, “Actually, I don’t want to be tagged with this kind of reputation.” It is a very simple thing we can do but we need better enforcement.

Just going back to the point you made to start with, are you saying that the funding is matching where there is an investment partner rather than where there is the greatest need, or were you saying the opposite there?

I am just trying to think off the top of my head about the last survey. Lincolnshire is key along the A14 corridor.

There is a need there, so it is good news.

Definitely, but I do not know what those schemes are. It may be increasing security in existing parking areas. Whether it is added capacity or not, I could not possibly say at this moment.

To answer your question, the funding has been directed to areas that can match the investment.

Rather than where there is the greatest need. I guess if you are a private operator, you are only going to invest in an area where there is need so you are hoping that there is some connection.

Unfortunately there is no incentive for truck stop businesses to make these investments because there is no competition in the market. The fact is that these spaces are full regardless of the standards. The grant scheme breathed new life into it and unlocked investment but there is no incentive to invest because of the market failure in the system.

You said the grant scheme is for existing facilities not new facilities, which is where some questions were facing.

One issue that has been raised through constituency casework is roadworks, limiting access to dedicated facilities and then blocking lay-by access. When that happens over multiple locations, I have had constituents who are drivers and they have said it has had a severe impact on their welfare. It is an issue we have looked at as a Committee more generally as to how these works can be better co-ordinated. I would just be interested if that accorded with any witnesses’ experience.

I can certainly take that. Obviously there have been extensive roadworks on the motorway network over the last 12 to 24 months, which have caused a huge amount of disruption. What we have found is that there has been evidence of a lack of co-ordination—that one finishes just as another one starts, the next junction along. We also find that we do not get enough advance notice of full motorway closures in some instances. They may only be happening overnight but we are given probably days or a week’s notice in some instances of works that must have been planned way in advance of that.

Just to be clear, are you talking about the motorway network, the National Highways?

The motorway network. I do not think these planned closures just happen overnight; they are planned months and months in advance. We do not always get enough notice of those, which puts additional pressure on the sites. If the motorway is closed, drivers and HGVs might be able to get on, but they cannot get off and there needs to be escorts to get them on and off. Without that proper planning between what National Highways is doing and the local operators that it impacts, it adds pressure to a system that is already operating at the limits.

We do a Logistics and Coach Survey as well; that is different from the Lorry Driver Facilities Survey. It would echo some of what has just been said; that need for early information and dialogue about what is going on, in terms of road diversions, closures and so on, is absolutely crucial, and not just communicating it but also thinking about the sequencing and the best way to do it. I am sure there is room for improvement there.

You just said that there was no incentive, in effect, to invest because everything is full already. If facilities are better, can you not charge more and therefore the investor might make a return?

I would disagree with the statement that there is no incentive to improve facilities because we want to make things better for HGV drivers. This is not just about us deciding to do it because we have been given some money; this is about us genuinely wanting to make things better. Yes, we are busy and full but we want to make things better and create an environment where people will actually choose to stop at our locations as opposed to anywhere else. In a world where there are suddenly an additional 5,000 spaces, we want people to choose to stop at a Moto. That is our investment. We want to make things better. We are working with Mind and HGV groups and we get all the analysis from Transport Focus. I do not agree with the statement that there is no incentive to make things better because that is absolutely what we are doing.

Can you put the price up when the facilities are better?

We do not put the price up.

Just on the cost, our members constantly talk about the cost of parking. Who pays for it? Many RHA members are very small operators and increasing the cost of overnight parking is a significant obstacle. If that is then put on the drivers themselves in an already relatively low-pay industry, where does that come from? That gets passed along. I understand the market forces that if you improve facilities, can you not put the price up, but where does that money come from?

The main things that have come out of this evidence today are problems with parking and the lack of suitable parking spaces, meaning that drivers are having to park on slip roads or—as Nikki said—in the wider car parks that are not secure. Why is it that there is a shortage of parking spaces for coaches and HGVs? Adrian, did you want to come in first?

It is historical. Like many things in the industry, it is a lack of investment. Historically, there has not been investment. As I mentioned earlier around developments of new logistics areas, there has not been the foresight to include parking areas within those developments. I am pleased to report we are seeing some change in that now but there is that not-in-my-backyard element. These are the planning obstacles that certainly companies such as Nikki’s face, which are so time-consuming and costly that it comes back to whether there is an incentive to actually develop new areas. That is where central Government and local government have to join in having a national infrastructure plan that includes HGV and coach parking.

I will come to Nikki on the planning in a bit. Maddi, did you have something to add?

Yes. Obviously planning is such a key issue. It can take a decade in some cases to get a planning application approved but we really see embedding driver facilities into infrastructure projects as a key part of this. For example, the Lower Thames Crossing does not include driver facilities within the application. It did but no longer does and we would say that seems a missed opportunity. When looking at those large-scale investment opportunities, there should be driver facilities included to make sure that provision is sufficient.

We would say that we have a broken planning system. Almost every time a truck stop is proposed, the application seems to be refused. There is a very high rate of refusals. If you look at Kent as an example, there were about 18 truck stop applications that were refused in the last 15 to 20 years. Some grounds for refusal are quite spurious. There is an element of freight blindness in planning policy. Freight and logistics do not have the profile that they need in the planning system. We have seen some recent improvements on that but we are very far off the place that we need to be. Part of the issue is that these are essential infrastructures and need to be considered as such in the planning system. They are left to local authorities as to whether the approval happens. Local authorities do not have the profile for the industry in their local plans or local transport plans. That is one reason why they are refusing to allow these sites to be built.

Does the refusal get upheld on appeal or do they just not bother appealing? What is the record on appeals?

I can talk about one specific example in Kent as well, so it is really timely. There have been movements in the planning policy. We have definitely seen identification at a central level that there needs to be more facilities for HGV in areas of high need. The challenge is that the need is not defined in any documents. We had a recent example where we had National Highways support our application for a dedicated truck stop; it was not even an MSA. This would be the first dedicated truck stop that we want to build.

Is this a new facility?

It is a brand-new facility in Kent where we want to build a dedicated truck stop. National Highways supported our application and agreed that there was a need for it but it got refused: the local planning authority did not agree that there was a need. We appealed, were successful and then it got taken to judicial review. That has just concluded and we have been successful. To Maddi’s point, that has taken years and years and hundreds of thousands of pounds just to get an approval that we can proceed. We absolutely see that there have been improvements made but there needs to be more done. We see the same level of challenge when we are talking about extending existing sites. Yes, there is a need but the local planning authority says no. On existing sites, we are also really up against the challenge of the biodiversity net gain challenges. It is very hard to find 10% additional biodiversity net gain when we need to put additional HGV spaces in. We always do but it means that in some instances we cannot extend to the level that we wanted to so it is still really challenging for us.

Many MSAs and parts of the SRN are going through or located in areas of outstanding natural beauty, which adds to the planning complications. Does anybody know how many of these refusals were appealed and were appealed successfully? Has anyone done that work? If not we can find out from MHCLG.

I was reflecting back on the roundtable that we had almost 12 months ago where, as I said, we were here along with colleagues from other organisations and we pulled out the things that need to be done differently. Actually, just thinking about this conversation, some things need to be done together. A key point that came out was match funding and grant allocations. Obviously we need to find out where that is going in the future and probably evaluate the success of the grants. Has it had the impact that we thought it would? What have we learned from that? We have talked about some of that. National Highways is doing a good job of mapping existing provision nationally and then regionally but we need to think about how that is used alongside other decisions. We have talked about planning guidance, which was a big theme of the roundtable 12 months ago. We have to put all that together in a way that makes sense so that you are targeting the provision where the need is and putting in place the right enabling blocks at a national level so that people can get on and do it locally. Something that came out was maximising existing space. Again, we have talked about examples of that but how do you move that from good constructive conversations to really impactful changes?

I just had one comment to add, which was that we have done some research on the local plans and local transport plans for metropolitan councils and combined authorities.

We are coming on to planning policy, so if you just want to pause that. Nikki, going back to our inquiry four years ago, your colleagues at Moto said that it is not just planning that you have issues with but also the leases that many MSAs are on and the difficulties with the DFT because as a collective group you lease a lot of the MSA land. There were then issues about renegotiating further leases in order to make investment worthwhile. Is that still an issue for MSAs?

I would need to take that offline and we would have to come back with some written evidence; I do not have that information to hand unfortunately.

No, that is useful. As I say it was four years ago.

Some site operators have trialled practices such as dynamic parking and making additional bays available overnight that are just ordinary car parking spaces during the day. Has that helped to improve the experience for drivers?

I can certainly take that. That is not actually something that we have been able to implement at the majority of our sites and the reason for that is safety concerns. All our sites are mixed-use sites, and we have reviewed and looked at them and we have our health and safety teams to look at them. The concern that you have is being able to securely change a coach bay—we have talked about coaches—to an HGV bay. We have not done that because we need safe and secure facilities for coaches when they arrive as they are full of passengers. In a number of our car parks, the movement of traffic just makes it almost impossible to guarantee safe passage for normal people in private cars when the car park is taken over by HGVs. We have reviewed it, but it has not been something that we have been able to implement.

Does anyone have any experience where it has been done? Has it worked or not?

Any increase to capacity is welcomed but we would agree with that for all the reasons that Nikki has said. Because MSAs are particularly mixed-use, if a driver is having a daily rest and you have coaches and cars pulling up left, right and centre, again, it is about that quality of rest. Any increased capacity is welcome but it has to be the right capacity in the right place.

We have gone out and talked to a lot of the operators and Extra has given us examples of using dynamic parking, which may be what you were referring to so it might be able to provide more to the Committee. Generally—this reflects a comment that was made earlier—the challenges are different in each site, are they not? We have had other operators say that they have commissioned independent, specialist expert advice to consider whether they could increase their capacity within their existing sites, and actually in one case said that they had looked at them and they could not. The challenges are different depending on the site.

Moving on to planning policy—I know we have touched on it a few times—what changes could Government make to planning policy to help to create more spaces?

Just to continue my previous comments, a lot of the issues are that there is national planning policy framework that needs to change and there needs to be a higher profile for freight and logistics within the NPPF document. There is also just not enough weight given to HGV planning policy nationally. As I mentioned, we have done some research that looks at local plans and local transport plans. Of all metropolitan authorities, only a quarter have a policy for lorry and coach parking in their authority, and of combined authorities only 50% have a policy for freight and logistics. The profile for the sector in local authorities is one reason we are not seeing enough capacity. I also want to bring the Committee’s attention to a Government taskforce that was formed.

Sorry, can we just go back to the question? What specific changes could Government make to planning policy rather than just saying they did not have a policy?

Along with industry—the RHA, Logistics UK, Moto and other operators—the Government taskforce recommended guidance that is issued to local authorities on HGV parking best practice and how that should be considered in local plan-making. That has not progressed to date. The taskforce was initiated by the previous Transport Secretary, Mark Harper. We would like to see that put in place; it would be a very strong move to try to make improvements in this area and it had consensus across the industry for that to happen.

I would just echo that point. One of the biggest challenges that we have is the lack of policies at local level that actually really define what their expectations are relating to HGV and freight. There is a big disconnect between the national policy and what the local planning authorities are implementing.

Are you saying national policy and the NPPF are okay; it is just the way they are interpreted locally?

It comes down to interpretation but also understanding. When talking to local authorities, it is not always clear that they fully understand the importance of logistics when creating local plans. On one hand, they do not necessarily want HGVs parking in lay-bys or parking inappropriately. Equally when it comes to approving planning applications that would solve that issue, there is not the political will to do so, which comes down to understanding. Something that Logistics UK is doing is trying to raise the profile of what logistics is when talking to local authorities so that when they are creating their local plans, they actually give the correct weight to the need for driving facilities.

Just before I bring Alex in, the NPPF—as written at the moment—says, “Decisions should recognise the importance of providing adequate overnight lorry parking facilities.” Do you think that is adequate?

We would say it needs to be strengthened, because although the change made in 2024 was very welcome, there needs to be increased references to freight and logistics throughout the framework so it is seen as an integral part of plan-making.

Just super quickly, there was a consensus that “DfT Circular 01/2022” needs to be updated.

Finally, from a driver’s perspective, if there is an obstacle in the planning system, let us remove the obstacle. We need to see real progress and change because any obstacle that prevents an increase in capacity and good quality facilities is something that drivers want to see changed. From our perspective—I have referenced this a couple of times already—it is not just about overnight parking; it is about HGV parking. It can be the same, it can be different; but that is where we would need to see it. From a driver’s perspective, we want to see change and increased capacity so there could be planning reform that fast-tracks applications for new capacity. Why not? Let us have a look at that. It is a crucial part of our country’s infrastructure and plays a massive part in creating wealth for the economy so let us look at something progressive.

For those of us who have chaired local planning committees, the local perspective and priorities and the national perspective and priorities are often in contradiction with each other. Would you say that there is something specific in national and regional guidelines such as a service area or a truck stop every x kilometres on new roadways? I am really shocked to hear about the fact that the truck stop has been removed from the Lower Thames Crossing. Should there be a specific condition on renewals and new road facilities or something specific as opposed to have regard to?

The “DfT Circular 01/2022” has details on that. As others have said, it does not carry enough weight within current planning policy.

Is it about the level of weight it holds? Planning decisions are always playing off different priorities.

Exactly. As I say, we think the Government need to play a much clearer role in directing local authorities on how important this is.

Obviously if the direction nationally and regionally is of a higher level of material consideration, then it is more difficult for a local authority to refuse or win on appeal. Did you have something you still wanted to come in on, Alex?

It was very largely the same point, in the sense that I cannot see what is in it for a local authority. I understand what is in it for the driver and the national economy. Perhaps you can see what is in it for the local authority, but if you cannot, perhaps it needs to be taken away from the local authority.

That is intrinsically part of the problem: local authorities do not see this as a priority for them. It is the nimbyism. We know exactly which local authorities have the highest need for lorry parking but they are not doing enough to actually address it in their planning policies and it is a real issue.

In planning terms, the stronger the higher-level guidance, the more difficult it is for a local authority to get away with refusal rather than taking the decisions away from them.

Maybe they could be incentivised.

Probably the most obvious is the end to inappropriate parking. All your casework inboxes will be full of issues around inappropriate parking. If there were provision in place for appropriate parking, that would obviously end that. That is obviously an incentive to local government. What I would say is that logistics is so integral to local economies, and where there is a strong logistics economy locally then you have a strong local economy in general. It is that overall lack of understanding as to what logistics can bring regionally and to local governments that we ourselves are working on. Until that issue is resolved, you are quite right that they do not necessarily see it as a priority.

Maddi, I want to go back to a point that Adrian raised earlier about the supermarket chain that gave a different welcome to its own drivers than the goods coming in until Unite intervened. Given that logistics sites are by definition secure, is there an opportunity for logistics sites to serve not just the drivers who are actually serving that site on that day, or even if they are, about using facilities and maybe even staying overnight?

In that instance it is incredibly disappointing to hear that that driver had that reaction. However there will be sites where it is not appropriate just by the general nature of logistics; there are dangerous goods and other reasons why not, and operating licences would obviously come into it. There will be instances where sharing of facilities works. What we have seen is that we have members that have offered that to other members in terms of a wider network of access. Perhaps we all on the panel could have a conversation about how we could implement something like that, but at the moment that does not exist on a wide scale.

The Department has already announced it is going to do another National Lorry Parking Survey sometime later this year. What impact do you think the previous survey had and how would you like to see the new one used?

We do not need another survey. The issues are very well documented. We know exactly which local authorities are facing the biggest capacity issues and which routes and arterial freight corridors have no parking capacity. We need action to actually address those issues on those routes, and that is what is missing at the moment from the range of government policies.

That was quite clear.

Yes, that was very clear and I agree with that. When the survey is done, we will find a lot of the same problems occurring; that must be right. Instead of putting yourself in the Government’s shoes and wanting to take action and a more strategic approach, you might think, “I want an up-to-date survey that tells me where the gaps are now.” We are approaching a moment where you have the survey, the ending of the current funding and potential changes to the planning and we could actually get something together, look at it strategically and move forward on some issues you have talked about now in a way that we have not before.

As one of my colleagues has said, DFT loves its surveys.

I guess the result of the survey could be a review.

Don’t encourage them, Scott.

And a consultation.

Oh yeah.

We need action. You are right.

Anything to avoid doing something.

I hear Declan’s cynicism about the survey, but you sound a bit more optimistic that it might actually show something new. Declan was suggesting it might be a waste of time.

It is how it is used, isn’t it? If it is just used to illustrate the scale of the problem, then we are going to find it is a really big one and not that different to four years ago. If it is used as part of a concerted effort to target provision in the right area, think about the planning framework and funding, work with the sector to work through solutions and it is a milestone to move forward from, fantastic. Let’s not have a survey and review and be chatting in two years’ time, having identical conversations and re-describing the problem with more animated examples.

So far this morning, every time we have mentioned security, we have talked about fences. Are fences a gold standard when it comes to security for drivers? I am being slightly flippant in saying that.

I have talked about fences; we have 12 km of them. We have seen that the fences have deterred a lot of criminal activity. It makes it harder for perpetrators to get in and out of the sites. Because we are a motorway service area we cannot have fully secure compounds; we have to be able to offer parking to all HGV drivers that arrive, so we just have fencing but you can still get in and out. Probably the biggest improvement that we have seen has been with the CCTV cameras. We have 500 CCTV cameras that are remotely monitored off-site by AI and operatives and when they see something that is suspicious, they will trigger the local police. We also have security at sites where we think it is an issue. We have TAPA accreditation; I cannot remember if somebody else mentioned the importance of getting that level of accreditation. Security is critical. It is one of our key priorities to make sure that drivers feel safe when they stop at our sites, as we have already talked about. It is absolutely essential to be able to get a good night’s sleep. It is not just fencing; it is dedicated, on-the-ground security where you need it, CCTV, access to the police force and the police responding. We have seen some really positive responses from the police: when there are incidents and they get triggered, the police have responded really quickly. It is a combination of everything, not one thing in isolation.

Does that include security staff walking around?

We have security at 15 sites.

Do you record the registrations of vehicles going in and out of the site as well?

Yes.

What security measures are the users asking for? You have given them fences and cameras. Are there other things they are asking for? I am looking at Nikki but I do not know if others have an answer.

On our sites, no. The feedback we are getting is that actually that is what they were looking for: CCTV, fencing and dedicated security guards on the sites where there were particular challenges.

Freight crime is a very serious problem but it is not being taken seriously. There are countless drivers who have their livelihoods—

Who is not taking it seriously?

We need a better police response to it and more secure sites in place. It is seen as more serious and more organised and is being perpetrated by organised criminals who are targeting vehicles, quite often when they are parked at truck stops and motorway service areas. They know exactly where these vehicles are moving and what is inside them, and quite often they have insider knowledge. To your question about what security measures are needed, of course it is not just fencing; it is a whole range of things. There is a well-documented list of things, which would not surprise you, including CCTV, better lighting, fencing and patrolling. These are important security measures that really need to be put in place, but less than 4% of truck stops have a security accreditation so there are not enough secure sites.

I do not want to indulge in victim blaming but are the companies doing enough to make sure their vehicles are secure and their drivers are well-trained?

The issue is not vehicle security; it is actually the security of the sites.

Surely the more secure the vehicle is, the better it is for everyone.

There are standard measures on all vehicles, which improves security but the root issue is the security of the site.

Nikki, back to you for a very quick one. Have you faced any barriers when it comes to upgrading the sites? Do you need planning for your fences and so on? Are there barriers? Do you have funding to help you?

We have not come across any barriers to putting the fencing up other than there are a handful of sites where it is just not physically possible because of the layout of the land; it is up against a bank or something like that.

What about barriers more generally?

For security?

Yes.

Not really. There are no systemic issues or barriers to providing security. As I said, 47 of our sites are accredited. I am shocked to hear that only 4% of truck stops are. It is something that we have been really focused on.

That is 47 out of how many?

That is out of 50.

So more than 4% of your sites.

Way more than 4% of our sites are accredited. I have not done the maths.

It is 94%.

As a former researcher, I feel obliged to place an enthusiastic defence of a good body of surveys on record. On that point, I have a question directed to Alex. In June 2025, Transport Focus convened a roundtable of attendees across the sector to focus on this issue and an action plan was published in November of that year. What progress has been made since and are you satisfied with the rate of progress?

That is a good question. Thank you for raising that. We are shortly going to publish an update on all the actions. We have identified seven areas and have pretty much talked about them all today. I guess we were slightly filling a gap at a national level by bringing people together and publishing something that said this is what needs to be done. You will see it when it comes out. There is definitely movement on all the areas but the big question is whether it is enough. It is hard to see that when we stand back from it and get people back together in the autumn, we will think, “Right, all we need to do is carry on doing more of the stuff that we’ve done in the last 12 months.” We will identify that there is quite a lot more that needs to be done. There are examples of good practice and National Highways doing its mapping and there is a bit of movement on the planning framework. We need to see more detail about the assessment of the funding that has come through and a whole load of stuff. It needs to be brought together, thought about holistically and acted on at a strategic national level.

In respect of those seven recommendations, are there particular recommendations that you have seen particularly strong or weak progress on?

The most important ones—certainly at a national level—are the ones about the funding and mapping existing provision and planning guidance and pulling those together. We have touched on all those. It is an interesting conversation about the sharing of facilities and how you might move beyond goodwill and the odd example into something much more fundamental. Probably sitting here at this point, we do not know how far that could go, but it is clearly a very powerful example. It is not good enough at the moment, but beyond talking about it more to the right people, what would really catalyse that into something else? There will be an opportunity for us to come together, stand back, look at it and get into problem-solving. The danger is that we keep redescribing the problem every so often. We need to get around a table with DFT and others and think about what things would really make a difference now.

In terms of the challenge of improving facilities at stopping locations, how are the various industry groups and site operators—including yourselves— working together to advance that? What would you say the issues are?

There are some brilliant organisations and companies. I do not know if anyone has heard of the My Truck Stop app, which is run by a lady called Sue Alty. It is basically like Tripadvisor for truck stops and is free to use. Drivers can go and rate a truck stop, and say whether it is good or bad. What is wonderful is that she calls out the operators that are doing brilliant work as well, raising the profile of what is good. Equally you have Motorway Buddy, which is exactly the same principle but for freight crime so that drivers can have more commercial awareness around where is good to park and where is not. Organisations such as NAVSYS are doing huge amounts of work with ourselves and the RHA on issues such as freight crime and trying to push for a specific crime code. We are all doing a lot together. What is clearly missing and is coming out of this conversation is a more joined-up approach across our organisations as to where we can pick up together and fill in those gaps. There are people doing very important things and trying to improve things across the system.

Is there anything to add from the rest of the panel?

I would just echo what Maddi has already said. We work with NAVSYS and all those facilities and were rated last night on the My Truck Stop app. We work really closely with the guys at Transport Focus just in terms of understanding—directly from their members or from the surveys—what the feedback is showing. I would echo what Maddi said: there is probably more that we could do cross-functionally just from the people on this panel.

A lot of work has actually already been done by the industry with us all on the panel. I mentioned our government taskforce earlier, which was initiated by the previous Government. That had very clear recommendations that the industry signed up to including planning reforms and certainly measures to address freight crime as well as extension of the grant scheme. That has not been progressed by the Government and there is a whole set of recommendations—both on capacity and standards—that we think need to be progressed properly.

That actually brings me on to my next question and by all means come in if you want to say something about that. The last Transport Committee described parking capacity as, “A national issue,” because of its importance for the supply chain. Do you feel that the Government are treating drivers’ facilities as an issue of national importance? It does not sound like it from your last answer, Mr Pang.

I do not believe it is being treated with the importance that it needs. It is not seen as national infrastructure, which it needs to be. We have not seen enough political focus on it from Ministers despite raising it repeatedly. We would like to see much greater political priority placed on this because that is the only way we will get some changes that we need brought about.

I would broadly agree with that, but there is also a certain element of us all knowing what the problem is, but it being someone else’s job to sort it out. From the evidence that has been given today, there are good things that are being done but it is far too little and far too slow. From a driver’s perspective, there is more that the logistics and road haulage sector can do. We would want to see a much broader, cross-sector discussion involving retailers, manufacturers, ports and construction so we can talk about what the issues are because we are almost talking among ourselves here rather than talking about what the issues are more broadly. There is good work being done but we need to have a much broader and wider discussion so we can talk about the small wins that we can achieve while still working for the big changes that we have all been so clear on today.

The question is whether Government are taking sufficient ownership of the issue, and you are basically all saying no. I have a question at the end that will pick that up as well. Laurence, you have a question on standards.

Long-term observers of the industry might feel a certain sense of déjà vu because the predecessor Transport Committee published a report in 2022 that covered much of the ground we have been talking about today. One recommendation of that report was that the Government should set out a statutory code of conduct containing minimum standards covering security, availability of amenities, food and provision for separate women driver facilities. It is a question for anyone who wants to come in. Did you agree with that recommendation? Do you agree with it now? Do you think that is something that this Committee should be taking forward?

I can take that from Moto’s perspective. We would welcome more clarity around what those standards are and what those minimum standards would be. The one caveat that we need to be constantly aware of within the MSA sector, which we have already talked about, is that we service a number of mixed user groups. Any minimum standards that would apply to a dedicated truck stop may not be able to be implemented in full in an MSA that has mixed use for coach drivers, families, passengers and commuters. We just need to be really cautious that there is nothing that would restrict our ability to service the needs of all our user groups.

I would say that Unite absolutely supports this and it is something that we have been campaigning on for a very long time. It is worth remembering that minimum standards are minimum standards, not gold standards. From a driver’s perspective, that is somewhere to park with a decent surface where I do not need to dodge potholes and things—Nikki has already said that Moto has invested in that kind of thing—access to toilets and a certain level of security. The minimum standard expectations from a driver’s perspective are really quite minimal, not that gold standard. Yes, we would love somewhere to exercise, a gym, a spa and everything else, of course we would, but there also has to be a recognition that there would need to be different minimum standards for different facilities. For us the key is that it is all right having minimum standards and using a Tripadvisor-type app to rate, but ultimately what is the purpose of having minimum standards? How do we measure them? How do we reward going above and beyond minimum standards? Clearly that should be access to further funding for further investment. If you meet a certain standard, you could then access further funding to further improve your facilities. Drivers are very passionate about the industry. The passion for the job and the sector is something I love about working in the sector. To be treated in the way that they are and not have nationally recognised minimum standards is an insult to the profession in our opinion. We would very strongly support developing minimum standards but also how do we inspect, enforce and reward?

We also support minimum standards—particularly minimum security standards—because there is a lack of competition in the market. You cannot reliably obtain permission for these sites so there is not enough competition to ensure that these standards are what is required. As Adrian said, these are very basic things that we all take for granted in our jobs and it is the basic dignity that drivers deserve that needs to be put in place.

If I have understood correctly, are you saying that if minimum standards were in place, it would actually help with some planning issues and refusals?

I do not think it would help with planning but it would help improve current sites.

At the roundtable we had a year ago, minimum standards came up. It did not quite make it onto the list of things that should happen in the next 12 months, actually because of some issues we have talked about in terms of who would enforce them, who would set them and what they would cover. It is symptomatic of the challenge we have generally. It is a bit of national infrastructure that is not owned at a national level by any single organisation. Were you to start going down the route of standards, you would probably have some prior questions about who is responsible for monitoring them and taking that strategic view of rest stops as a whole, and then therefore be in a position to set and monitor the standards.

My only addition would be that any standard needs to be developed alongside industry to make sure that drivers have their voice within any development of the standard.

The final question is from me. Four years ago, drivers told us that conditions were a lot better for drivers in other European countries. I assume that is still the case. I am particularly concerned to pick up this issue about the role of Government. Do we think that Government are more involved in those countries where the situation is better? I have referred to many other people’s experiences of driving on the French motorways. I cannot speak for the equivalent of the SRN in France but you can quite clearly see there is a national standard for aires every 10 km and full-service staffed MSAs every 50 km. Do any of the witnesses have any understanding of the role of Government in providing adequate facilities for drivers in other countries?

France, Spain and Italy, for example, run services under Government concession contracts and there are many examples on the continent where other countries are doing this much better. Frequently drivers will tell us that the UK has the worst facilities in Europe.

In the whole of Europe?

That is a frequent comment that I receive. It is very acute if you make the comparison with our European neighbours.

Anything to add from logistics?

Just that we hear that one of the biggest differences is that drivers on the continent feel more respected than drivers here. I do not know whether that is a cultural view of the profession of driving or where that comes from but that is certainly what our members tell us.

Do any colleagues have any further questions they want to pick up?

Do lorry drivers ever pre-book their spaces or is it all turn up and pay and display?

Certainly at the MSA network and Moto, they do not book, because we have to open full access to be able to offer spaces, so we do not offer booking.

There are facilities that offer pre-booking, but again it is not standard.

We are all going to load up My Truck Stop on our phones and have a look and see where the lay-by that we saw four years ago fits on the scale, if it even features at all. Thank you very much to our witnesses. That concludes today’s session but feel free to write to us with anything you feel you have not been able to cover in your answers this morning.