Select committee: Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation 6

2nd Report - Condition and maintenance of Local Roads in England Published 17 Jan 2025 Addressed to HM Treasury
Recommendation (the committee's words)
The Department has not provided enough support and guidance to local authorities to deal with current and future challenges in maintaining local roads. The Department is responsible for providing local authorities with guidance on the management and maintenance of local roads. However, it has not updated its guidance for several years, including on best practice, that could have helped local authorities in completing their work more effectively. The Department is looking to update its Code of 6 Practice for managing highway infrastructure for local authorities, but we are not clear whether this will be comprehensive in its consideration of road usage. For example, there are issues around safety, such as accessibility and visibility of walkways and cycle paths, which as technological and environmental requirements have developed may not have been considered. Future challenges also exist which the Department will have to consider, including how local roads will be fit for the introduction of autonomous vehicles and heavier electric heavy goods vehicles. recommendation a. As part of revising its Code of Practice, the Department should look to set out updated practices local authorities are expected to adopt and consider if following this best practice should be attached to funding. This should include guidance around supporting safety and accessibility for all road users, consideration of technology advances such as autonomous vehicles and consideration of the effect of maintenance on roads and bridges of heavier electric heavy goods vehicles, particularly if the 44 Gross Vehicle Weight were to be increased. b. The Department should regularly revise the Code of Practice as the road environment and the demands placed upon it continue to change. The Department should set out how it plans to do this in its response to the Committee’s report. 7 1 The Department for Transport’s oversight Introduction

From: Public Accounts Committee, 2nd Report - Condition and maintenance of Local Roads in England (HC 349), 17 January 2025

Government response

Latest Treasury Minutes progress report to the Committee of Public Accounts on the Second Report of Session 2024-26

The government responded to the whole report on 4 June 2026.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Treasury minutes: Government response to the Committee of Public Accounts on the Second report from Session 2024-25

Published 6 May 2025.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government agrees with most of the Committee's recommendations, disagrees with the recommendation to revise the funding allocation method (while agreeing to review the funding formula), and gives target implementation dates for each agreed item.

  • On funding allocation, the government disagrees with the recommendation but "agrees to review the funding formula"; it "cannot commit to any changes" until options are assessed for feasibility and deliverability, and the earliest any change could take effect is the start of financial year 2026-27.
  • On funding certainty, the government agrees and "intends to move to multi-year funding settlements in future", and the department "intends to consolidate" local highways maintenance funding streams so authorities receive one funding line only.
  • On data and responsibilities, the government agrees; the department will publish a short Gov.UK document summarising legal responsibilities (target April 2026), and has begun engagement on making reporting against PAS 2161 "a mandatory requirement in England".
  • On the Code of Practice, the government agrees it should be refreshed (target September 2026) and will "consider further whether, and if so how" authorities might be required to follow best practice to qualify for funding; it says linking this to the incentive element directly is not "feasible".

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error