Ruth Cadbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank the Minister for making this statement, and NESO for this damning report. Heathrow Airport Ltd’s power set-up internally virtually guarantees hours of disruption in a scenario like this. On 21 March, that meant over a quarter of a million passengers were affected; airlines lost significant revenue, for which they will not be compensated; and countless time-critical freight loads were also affected. Yet in Spain and Portugal, airports did not close when those countries had full power outages. By any definition, surely Heathrow airport counts as critical national infrastructure as it undeniably requires operational continuity. I note that the Minister confirmed the airport’s responsibility for its own power resilience, but does the Government have a role in ensuring that end-to-end power supply to critical national infrastructure is robust and that risks like power outages are managed adequately?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  A new report from the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking warns of the growing public safety risk posed by the widespread use of unsafe, illegally modified bikes, and the fire risk caused by their cheap but powerful batteries bought from online marketplaces. What assessment has the Minister—along with his colleagues in other Departments—made of the risks posed by those fake e-bikes?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend anticipates what I will say about road safety later, but I agree about listening to communities on the devolution of funding. There are also the adjustments to the Green Book, which may have cost us a little bit in London compared with the funding we have had in recent years, but communities across the country will benefit from the overall national perspective on devolution and considering the country as a whole.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I will do what I omitted to do at the start of the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for awarding us the opportunity for this debate. I also thank all hon. Members who contributed to it. I was thinking about the themes of the debate, and the most common issue, mentioned by hon. Members from across the country, was the need for a new station, or even stations, in their constituency. All gave really coherent and rational reasons why those stations are needed. When I was growing up in Edgbaston in south Birmingham, we did not have a Five Ways station or a University station. Those stations were installed about 30 or 40 years ago, but it is unbelievable to think that they were not there, because the amount that they are used is incredible. There is a really fast service to New Street station, as the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) probably knows, although she represents the other side of Greater Birmingham. I also want to mention the new mid-Cornwall metro that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) spoke about. He made a powerful case for the needs of communities that are, in many places, quite deprived. Many people go on holiday to Cornwall, but we must remember that there are economically deprived, left-out places, and they need new lines, whether full rail lines or light rail. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an important point that we picked up in our buses inquiry about the need for decision-makers to remember outer areas, which are as important as core city areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) not only made a passionate plea for a new station, but thanked the Government for at last funding a tramline and bus station. That is a really good example of what the Government are already achieving, and it shows how long the community has been fighting for those services. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who is on the Transport Committee, gave a strong speech about the issues facing very rural constituencies, for which public transport solutions are not easy. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) mentioned the downsides of high rates of car dependency. In a very rural area, there is literally no way to get about unless one can drive a car, and that often decimates the population of rural villages and hamlets. In the London hinterland, high rates of car dependency have implications for congestion. I do not often drive outside London—or in London—but I recognise the issues well. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath also raised an important point about the inadequate alternatives to car travel for those living in new developments. The Government’s new planning policies seek to address that gap in policy; if that does not happen, we will just build car dependency into new developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) made an important point about the implications for the local economy and local people when a major piece of infrastructure is closed. I hope that the M48 bridge is opened before too long. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), another member of the Committee, made, as ever, many expert points about rail. If anybody has any questions about rail, they can just ask him. He was possibly the only Member here today—or almost—who mentioned freight. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) mentioned the importance of accessibility. I urge those who have not read the Transport Committee’s first report of this Session to pick it up, though the work was done in the previous Parliament. It is called “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”, and it is about the experiences of people with disabilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford mentioned a subject that comes up for us again and again: potholes. Our second inquiry is on street works, the damage that potholes cause to vehicles, and the disruption caused when utility services do not repair potholes properly and repairs are outstanding for a very long time. My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of the Elizabeth line extension. Despite criticisms over the years about the cost of Crossrail and the delays to it, now we can only look at the massive success of the Elizabeth line. It has so many huge benefits for growth; it enables new developments; and it takes pressure off underground lines, such as the Heathrow branch of the Piccadilly line in my area. That set of benefits comes from extending lines or bringing in new ones. The Elizabeth line being in London and the south-east is an example of how cheques from the Treasury are not necessarily needed to fund such projects. That is a good example of how land value capture could fund these projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about the value of buses and the bus fare policy. She also made an innovative suggestion around the charging for the driving test, which should be noted by the Minister. I hope, as I say, that the Government look at fees and charges, and that is a new suggestion. Turning to the Front Benches, there was nothing wrong in any of the individual projects in themselves mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), but as often happens with Liberal Democrat ideas, it would be financially unachievable as a programme. The Labour party is in power already delivering strategies and specific changes, but it is doing so within the financial constraints that this Government inherited. The shadow Transport Secretary omitted to mention his Government’s lack of coherent transport policies while also trying to criticise our Government’s policies. He omitted to mention that the criteria for funding local schemes under their Government was decided more on the basis of the marginality of their Members’ seats than the rationality of those transport proposals. He also omitted to mention that cutting then stopping HS2 cost billions and billions of pounds. Finally, the Minister reminded us cogently of the importance of transport to the Government’s missions, and that we cannot make unfunded promises. Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  Whether they are walking or cycling, riding on buses, trams or trains, or planes, transport plays a huge role in the daily lives of our constituents, and for the businesses and public services on which we all depend. I welcome the fact that the Government are investing properly in transport, particularly local transport. I also welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of £15.6 billion to connect our cities and towns, as well as the fourfold increase in local transport grants by the end of this Parliament. This Government’s ambition on transport is way ahead of the last Government’s. The Transport Committee is tasked with holding the Department to account on its programme, in respect of both delivery and the use of resources, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to discuss the estimated departmental spend for the coming financial year. It is inevitable that Members will also want to consider the wider transport issues that affect their constituencies, but I will try to keep my remarks mainly to the estimates. As our scrutiny role means seeking assurance that the departmental estimates link to the Department’s strategic objectives, this debate is important. Following the publication of the supplementary estimates for 2024-25, I wrote to the Department in March seeking clarity on how the spending aligned with the Department’s strategic objectives. The Transport Secretary replied saying that officials would “work with the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit and HM Treasury to consider any changes to the presentation of the Department’s Estimates.” I have not received more detail directly, and the Department’s main estimate memorandum provides no additional information to explain how spending is aligned with the Department’s strategic objectives. That memorandum and correspondence is linked to on the Order Paper. Furthermore, the Department’s main estimate memorandum was not received on time, making it harder for my Committee and others to undertake effective and timely scrutiny. The Department for Transport was one of only three Departments, along with the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, whose memorandums were not provided alongside the publication of the main estimate. Under the previous Government, outcome delivery plans were produced that listed the outcomes that Departments hoped to achieve through their spending, alongside specific metrics by which progress could be measured. The Department for Transport’s most recent outcome delivery plan was published in 2021. In the 2025-26 main estimates memorandum, the Department said: “DfT’s Outcome Delivery Plan for 2025-26 outlines the ambition to build a modern, efficient, and sustainable transport network that raises living standards for communities. It details how resources are allocated between DfT’s three Priority Outcomes”, which are given as growth; greener, safer and healthier transport, and improving transport for people. The memorandum later states that the “DfT’s ODP includes delivery strategies, delivery plans and a suite of core metrics to articulate progress against each Priority Outcome.” But the outcome delivery plan for 2025-26 has not been published, and the estimates memorandum does not explain how spending in the estimates relates to core metrics and so on. The Cabinet Secretary recently promised to share the next set of ODPs with the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, subject to ministerial approval. Without the ODPs, how can our Committee, and therefore the House, be assured that the Department’s policy objectives are clear, and that its spending aligns with those objectives and with the Government’s really important and very welcome missions? I accept that the Minister may want to write to me after the debate to answer some of my questions. Will the Department for Transport follow the Cabinet Office in planning to publish its outcome delivery plan for 2025-26? To move on to devolution and accountability, there have been increases in funding in the main estimates, with £100 million allocated to the mayoral combined authorities. Subsequently, at the spending review, there were increases to devolved institutions in England, with just over £15 billion for city region sustainable transport settlements and local transport grants.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  Efficiently and correctly, but also transparently, and I hope all local authorities do fully, properly and accessibly account for their spending to their residents.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know the detail of the proposals of which the hon. Member speaks, but I am well aware that there are bottlenecks on our road systems. This has to be looked at carefully. I learned a lesson about increasing road capacity many years ago when I was a planning student, and of course I remember the widening and further widening of the M25. I once had a boss who said, “You can throw seeds to the pigeons but you will get more pigeons coming to get the seeds.” People will remember the old days when we were able to feed seeds to the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, but that was stopped. We have to do the right stuff in the right way, because otherwise we could end up making the problem worse, but I take her point about the sense of frustration for her constituents. I want to touch on road safety. Given that our serious road casualty and road injury statistics have flatlined in the UK in recent years, I am concerned that the funding for road safety research has been cut, despite the backdrop of the Government’s plans for road safety. I know that we are due to see the road safety strategy towards the end of the year, so why has that research funding been cut? To move on to maritime, the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions, otherwise known as UK SHORE, has a research and development programme that was set up to develop innovation to reduce maritime emissions and create skilled jobs across the country. Funding for UK SHORE is coming to an end this year. We are still waiting for the final evaluation report. Meanwhile, the advanced manufacturing sector plan, published this week, said that there would be “a further £30 million towards the development of clean maritime solutions through the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions (UK SHORE) from 2025 to 2026”. My question is, will that £30 million be sufficient for the Government’s long-term plans for UK SHORE, given that, as I am hearing, the UK appears to be lagging behind competitor countries on decarbonising maritime? On walking and cycling, I welcome the sizeable increase for day-to-day and capital spending for Active Travel England after the cut made by the previous Government, and the fact that this is an increase for the next year. However, these figures for growth appear inconsistent with the spending review announcement of a four-year figure, which, when divided by four, looks like a reduction. I wonder whether the Minister could respond to that. The last mode I will mention is rail. Rail reform will no doubt significantly affect the size and shape of the Department’s spending on rail. The Department is right to be planning for savings and efficiencies as a result of the creation of Great British Railways removing duplication, in particular, while also delivering a better rail service for passengers. My Committee will pay close attention to the Department’s rail reform plans—not just the new structures it establishes, but how effectively those new structures are able to achieve the Government’s aims. Does the Department have a costed, achievable plan for reducing the cost base by £200 million, as stated, and for growing passenger revenue, as shown in the estimates memorandum? What level of subsidy will continue to be required? I look forward to responses to my specific questions on the estimates, but I would like to address a couple of other issues on revenue and investment funding. Fines, fees and charges are mentioned only once in the main estimates for transport, namely in the increase in the charge for the existing Dartford crossing. In a report published last week, the National Audit Office has said that “The government is missing opportunities to deliver efficiencies and share good practice.” and that “it is unlikely that the current arrangements for fees and charges will deliver value for money for customers, businesses and taxpayers.” I will provide two examples. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency spends £175 million a year on the costs of licences, but only £135 million comes in through fees. Is that sustainable? The fee for the driving test has been unchanged for years. In effect, learner drivers are incentivised to take their tests too early, as it is cheaper to have a go at the test than to have another lesson. Should the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency not be empowered to respond to that? Are the Government addressing this policy vacuum on fines, fees and charges? We need a coherent strategy where each is set at a level that addresses a particular objective—this might be to incentivise or disincentivise, to cover costs, to track the retail prices index, or whatever. It is important to evaluate how capital investment is spent, given past challenges with managing large infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2. I welcome the announcement regarding its reset; the Committee is planning to hear from Mark Wild, chief executive of HS2, on 9 July. Finally, I will repeat the point I have made before in this Chamber about the need to develop more, and more innovative, forms of funding transport infrastructure —land value capture, risk sharing, private finance initiatives and more. Putting all that together, we can ensure that all parts of the country can benefit from badly needed transport infrastructure investment in the future.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and fellow Transport Committee member is absolutely right. The changes that this Government are making will be felt across the country and in all types of cities and regions. To return to the specifics of the £15 billion for city region sustainable transport settlements and local transport grants, which I mentioned, they are deliberately not ringfenced, which is good for local democracy, but does create challenges for the Department in achieving national priorities. I heard from one colleague who is concerned that the politics of their authority is very based on cars, and although we want to encourage people to use public transport and active travel, what can the national Government do if the local authority uses that funding for cars?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend was in the debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, but there will be more opportunities to make those points. As she says very well, it is one thing to look at the structures through the Bill, but for many areas, unless the funding is in place, the buses are not there. It is interesting that she mentions the 65: I also have a local battle about the 65 bus. However, that battle is within the context of Transport for London, a regulated transport network, so we have a level of accountability, expectation and information about our buses that was stripped out in the 1980s by the Thatcher Government, when buses outside London were deregulated. We must ensure that there are strategic objectives underlying the Government’s buses policy, funding and fares approach. We welcome the retention of the £3 bus cap until at least March 2027, as it gives bus companies and local authorities an element of certainty that they did not have. I note that fare subsidy from Government has been cut as the cap was raised from £2 to £3, and I would like to understand from the Minister how the funding links with Government objectives. What is the Government’s bus fare strategy? Are they aiming to achieve economic growth, particularly in those towns centres that are failing because the people just cannot get to them to spend their money? Or is this about increased connectivity? Is the bus fare cap policy being used to tackle the cost of living, to increase ridership or to achieve modal shift? We are still waiting for some sense of what the Government are trying to achieve in their bus fare strategy. I am now going to move on to roads. We are still waiting for the list of road investment projects in the third road investment strategy—RIS3. No scheme was published at the spending review. The more recent UK infrastructure 10-year strategy stated: “A full list of projects will be set out as part of the development of the third Road Investment Strategy.” When will that strategy and that list be published?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member asks a good question and the answer is that it is a mixture. It is the philosophy of devolution that is important because mayoral combined authorities in particular can deliver in ways that will be different according to their specific priorities and needs. There has been a potential challenge to the Department in achieving national priorities. It is also worth noting that the main estimate for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provides additional funding for the West Midlands and Great Manchester combined authorities, so there are other pots of money from other Departments that mayors can pool together to put to best use for their authorities. Will the Minister set out what happens if a devolved institution diverges from departmental priorities, for example by opting not to fund active travel despite the Department’s objective to increase active travel? The future introduction of place-based business cases, as set out in the spending review, has the potential to transform how Government think about the value and benefit of transport interventions and outcomes. When business cases are reformed along those lines, we look forward to seeing a difference in how the Government draw and think about those connections.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. As a London MP, I know that stability in transport provision in London will be of huge benefit to my constituents, Londoners, visitors and commuters to London. We did not get everything we wanted in the spending review—in our case, the west London orbital—but we certainly got a lot more than we got from the previous Government, and for that we are very grateful.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point. One reason that the initial emphasis has been on mayoral combined authorities and urban areas is because work is already being done on such transport strategies, so they are often further ahead. Our buses inquiry deliberately focused on buses connecting communities away from the large urban areas. My hon. Friend is right that as local authorities have been stripped out over the past 15 years, much of that expertise among members and particularly among officers, just is not there, so there are often not the people needed to do that strategic work. I hope that will change and that when our buses inquiry report is published that element of the debate will be included. I will move on to specific transport modes, starting with buses. Evidence to our Committee inquiry on buses connecting communities emphasised the value of bus services, and the need for measures to promote their use, especially in rural and suburban areas.

• 18 Jun 2025 · HS2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  I also thank the Secretary of State for the decisive action she has taken to address the causes of HS2’s cost overruns. We look forward to having Mark Wild and the Rail Minister at our Committee very shortly. I actually want to celebrate something that HS2’s leadership should be proud of: the work they have done on skills and workforce innovation. They have provided best-practice work that the construction industry and transport projects can learn from, and in fact are learning from. However, I urge the Secretary of State to get her Department to learn from countries such as France and Spain, which have managed to deliver extensive high-speed rail projects to time and at a fraction of the cost of HS2 here in the UK.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  Many thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and others who secured the debate. The speakers we have heard already have spoken so powerfully about why this simple change in the law needs to happen. The hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) talked about what must have been a cost to friends and relatives to have to go to Scotland to have both parts of the event in one place. As the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) just said, the logistics of having to organise two functions are not great. She said she would have liked to have both parts—the formal legal part and the celebratory part—as one. I must declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, although I am actually a Quaker. As far as I can see—I think I am right in this—marriage in this country is, at its minimum, when completely stripped down, the public signing of a legal document between two people, with witnesses. It is just a legal document. But most of us end up adding to it the faith element, the friends and family element and the celebration. There is an inequality in England and Wales. For many, traditionally, the faith component is important. Most weddings in this country can happen in the place of faith in one and the same event. In England and Wales, civil and religious marriages are permitted, but it is not possible to have a humanist marriage, or one conducted according to any non-religious system or belief. They have to be in two parts. Quakers, for historical reasons, have had the right to hold formally agreed marriages anywhere, including outdoors—as can Jews—according to our rites and ceremonies, with a registered member of the congregation officiating. Actually, thanks to the wording of a Quaker wedding, the couple can in effect marry each other, because we do not officially have any people who are closer to God than anyone else; we are all equal in the sight of God. The wording is: “Friends, I take this, my friend Laura, to be my spouse, promising, through divine assistance, to be unto her a loving and faithful spouse, so long as we both on earth shall live.” [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) and I are both married to other people—

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  Anyway, I fully support the Humanist Society’s position to allow a couple to be married by a celebrant who shares the couple’s values and beliefs, one that works in Scotland, Northern Ireland and many other jurisdictions across the world. I would have some concerns if the law was opened up to any non-religious belief organisations. There needs to be solemnity and dignity in the process. I would also have some concern about the potential for celebrants to sell their services as a commercial transaction, so there are some aspects of the Law Commission proposals that concern me. However, one part of the Law Commission’s recommendations that I support is for marriage to be based on the officiant rather than the building. As I have said, for Quakers, there is no such thing as a consecrated building or space in our faith, so as long as the local Quaker who is trained and formally registered is present, the marriage is legal. It can be done out of doors. I know that many humanists value nature and choose to celebrate their weddings out of doors but do not want to have a two-pronged celebration and the official bit as is currently the case. I therefore support a change in the law.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the significant transport investment that the Chancellor has announced in the north and in the city regions. That is helped through her changes to the Green Book, but when will the place-based business cases be reviewed so that those areas can start planning for the local transport initiatives that they have waited so long for?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking the Secretary of State for Transport for her speech. I also thank her and the Aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for coming to speak to the Transport Committee earlier this year about aviation and, of course, wider matters. I welcome the introduction of the Bill, and I was pleased to hear the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). The Bill will play an important role in our work to decarbonise our aviation sector. Some 7% of domestic greenhouse gas emissions come from domestic and international flights, and it is estimated that this figure will increase to 11% by 2030 and 16% by 2035. We all know the huge challenges involved in decarbonising aviation, and this Bill is a much-needed step towards addressing them. I am glad that the Government are taking action, and I know that many in the industry want to ensure that the Bill is operational as soon as possible. As I am sure the Transport Secretary will appreciate, I have a few questions about the Bill, which I am sure will also be raised at later stages of its progress. However, I start by saying that it is rare to find a Bill on which there is so much agreement; every major airline I have met has mentioned its support for SAF, and there is widespread agreement that we need a price certainty mechanism. That is a sign that the Government have been pragmatic, working with business and—in the case of SAF—working to ensure that we have domestic capacity here in the UK. I am glad that the Bill will start to move us away from our dependency on imported fossil fuels, particularly for aviation. This House may forget that our reliance on foreign fossil fuels meant that in 2022, we had to spend more than £35 billion bailing out our energy market. That reliance leaves us reliant on the whims of autocratic regimes across the world. We need to move away from that costly model and, in turn, bring investment into our regions, growth to our economy and much-needed tax revenue to our Treasury. I am glad that the UK Government are working to make sure that we continue to lead on decarbonisation and to reduce our carbon emissions in line with the Paris agreement. I want to touch on the nature of the SAF we will be using. First and second generation SAFs are made from waste—the first from used cooking oils predominantly, and the second from waste such as household black bin bag waste. Where do the Government see that waste coming from in the future? How does that tie in with our efforts to reduce our residual waste, particularly black bin bag waste, and wider efforts to reduce the non-recyclable waste that we produce? Is a large part of our household waste not already going to waste-to-energy plants, providing electricity that we depend on? There is a lot of support for SAF in America and, as with ethanol, it offers a huge chance for large-scale agricultural businesses to profit from the sale of their waste and their oil. Ethanol is often produced in the same plants as SAF. In seeking to secure UK domestic production of SAF, what could the challenges of the US-UK trade agreement mean for our biofuel industry and its ability to transition to producing SAF? Has the Department modelled the economic and environmental impact of providing resources for second generation SAF? What is the timescale to bring on third generation SAF? One issue that has been raised with me is whether companies looking at producing SAF will be able to enter negotiations with the Government before the Bill reaches the statute book. I understand that that has been the case for the mechanism for renewable energy projects, where negotiations began early to ensure that the investment is locked in. We need to see changes in aviation to meet our ambitious climate goals. Now that aviation and shipping are included in our carbon budget, those changes are even more important, and I hope that the Government will also look beyond SAF when thinking about decarbonising aviation. SAF is not and will not be the silver bullet solution to the sector’s responsibility to this country’s decarbonisation strategy.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right, and I know that the plane and engine manufacturers are continuing to work—as they have done for decades, to be fair—on quieter and less polluting aircraft. Sometimes there is a tension between those two. Airspace modernisation will not make a lot of difference to my constituency in terms of landing aircraft, but overall airspace modernisation will play a part in reducing emissions and flight times for passengers. As I have said, SAF is not and will not be the silver-bullet solution to the problem of aviation’s responsibility for decarbonisation. The Climate Change Committee warned Parliament in 2023 that relying on SAF alone was “high risk”. For example, Heathrow airport is already the single greatest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and the current plans for expansion would add an extra 8 to 9 megatonnes of carbon dioxide a year. If the Government do expand Heathrow, other airports across the UK will have to make cuts to ensure that aviation does not breach its carbon targets. Furthermore, continuing increases in aviation emissions will have to be offset against significant cuts in emissions in other sectors. I should like to hear from the Transport Secretary what the Government are doing to address that particular challenge. When the Transport Committee considered SAF during the last Parliament, we found that it had “significant potential”, and I know that there is support throughout the House for us to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. As Chair of the Committee, I also know how widespread support across the sector is for decarbonisation, and that many private companies are already way ahead in preparing for the future. This country needs to stay ahead of the game internationally, and I am glad that by introducing the Bill the Government are showing their commitment, investing in UK industry, and showing that the UK can be a leader on sustainability.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  As Chair of the Transport Committee, I hugely welcome this announcement. These rail and mass transit schemes will link communities, generate growth and cut pollution and carbon emissions. In the context of finishing the job, which was mentioned earlier, can we hope that before too long there will be a similar announcement about linking northern cities with the south-east through the currently stalled HS2 project?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  A lack of transparency is a theme that comes up again and again, particularly for the people who are effectively the victims. I will press on because I want to get to the end of my speech if I can. The complex state of leasehold means that many different parties have realised that they can fatten the goose with ease, and often without scrutiny and enforcement as the hon. Member has said. First, that was often done through ground rent. Properties would often charge a ground rent of between £250 and £1,000 a year in London. I would call it money for old rope, but that would insult old rope. That tactic was later replaced as more buyers and solicitors became aware of it, particularly around the sale of flats, so we then saw service charges being used as the new cash cow. A typical building in my constituency, which is often a flat built since 2000, has a service charge of £6,000, but some have charges as high as £7,000 or £8,000 without anything like that value of service being delivered. For too long, it has been possible to raise service charges without limit—often vastly above inflation and with no clear breakdown. Leaseholders will buy a property and think that the service charge is paying for services such as—to take examples from my constituency—the post room, receptionist, home cinema, car park and security. In fact, they find that the post room and the home cinema are closed, the receptionist is not full time, the car park gets flooded and the security is non-existent. If a person bought such a product on the open market, trading standards would have a field day—but leasehold is not a fair market. If we invented this market system now with its wide cast of cowboys and profit strippers, it would appear like something out of a Victorian novel. Ted Heath called it the “unacceptable face of capitalism”, but that is how we have got here. I will not regale the House with the efforts to tame and reform leasehold over the past decade. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, I know that many hon. Members have been working on it. The previous Government’s changes were welcome, and MPs from both sides of the House have stood up, spoken and acted, particularly thanks to the support of the APPG and the work of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign. I know that the Minister gets this issue and knows it inside out too. I want to talk about my constituents’ experiences. For many people in west London, the high cost of property means that buying a house is out of reach, but people on good salaries can, just about, afford a flat for upwards of £500,000.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered leasehold reform. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. This is a well-subscribed debate, but as it is only half an hour I have said that just a couple of hon. Members can intervene, and hon. Members understand that we are not accepting any speeches apart from mine and the Minister’s. It is a pleasure to lead this debate on leasehold reform in England and Wales, one of many that I have already spoken in during this Parliament. I want to start by thanking the dozens of constituents who have written to me in the last week to let me know about the problems they have faced: high service charges, rising building insurance, safety problems, unclear management contracts and a wall of silence from their management companies and freeholders. Most of those issues have been raised with me by leaseholders in my constituency since I was first elected to this place 10 years ago. The common theme, as hon. Members know, is a lack of control. Many leaseholders assume, when they sign their contracts, that they are moving into a home. They have to pay a service charge, but they expect that to mean that communal problems will be fixed and they will be able to get on with their lives. Sadly, that is not the case. Many leaseholders are trapped in a complex, legalistic maze. I want to cover three things today: the situation for my constituents, how we got here, and how the Government are working to fix it.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the right hon. Member. There are so many issues that the Government have been looking at, and are going to have to look at, particularly to ensure against unintended consequences. With prices of upwards of half a million, even with the help of the bank of mum and dad, many of my constituents have no choice but to buy a leasehold flat, even when they have a good income and perhaps help with the deposit. That means that a whole generation in London risks getting trapped as leaseholders. The key problem is that at first the terms can seem straightforward. A person pays their mortgage and then they pay their service charge and ground rent, and for the first year, it might be okay. They might notice some problems in the communal area, but the real kicker comes when they get the first increase in their service charge. I have seen constituents whose service charge has increased by 50% or even 100%.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the Minister is noting these points and will address how we can ensure transparency and a minimum quality of standards in the billing of service charges and the other activities of management companies. I now want to get to the end of my speech. Given the popularity—sadly—of this debate, I hope that there will be many more debates on it in this place where everybody will be able to make a strong speech about these issues that are so important to many of our constituents. I will give some examples from constituents. In one case, a constituent was rightly concerned about the costs they faced and asked for a breakdown of them, but was refused. They issued the necessary legal action to get the breakdown, but six months later they are still waiting for it. There is also the specific problem that many constituents are frankly outgunned when they get into legal disputes. Another constituent faces a legal bill in the thousands because they have to represent themselves. One Hounslow resident who lives in a badly converted office block summarises the issue well: “Our building’s service charges and insurance costs average just over £2,000 per flat annually”— which sounds all right— “yet the quality of service is alarmingly poor. We have regular incidents of theft, with leaseholders having to rely on personal security measures”. They say that is because the management company are not interested. They continue: “The service charges increase each year with little transparency, covering inflated management fees, audit fees, and security charges, with no consultation with leaseholders on providers or costs. This imbalance of control leaves us vulnerable to arbitrary charges without accountability.” On top of ever-rising service charges, many people have also faced sky-high building insurance costs since the Grenfell tragedy. In one case, council leaseholders saw an increase in their costs of more than 500%. People who get the right to manage by setting up resident management organisations have the right to hire and fire managing agents, and to get rid of companies such as FirstPort, but that has not always been plain sailing. I hope that the Minister will address the issue of minimum standards for managing agents when he responds to this debate. When my constituents try to sell their flats, they often find out the major problems with leasehold: either the asking price has decreased due to the ground rent or service charges or—even worse—banks will not lend on their flats. When one of my constituents inherited a property, they found out that there was only 40 years left on the lease. They can extend the lease, but they have been told that doing so would cost a six-figure sum. They told me that “the only future I can see is that of a bleak one.” Another constituent wrote to tell me how, despite paying a record-high service charge, their lift is constantly broken down. At one point, excrement fell from a broken pipe through the lift shaft for a rather long time. I will leave Members to picture that scene. Another problem was raised by the resident of the converted office block who I quoted earlier. They said that “we have faced significant distress from ongoing attempts by our building’s freeholder to add two additional floors to our development. While Hounslow Council initially rejected the application due to objections raised by the leaseholders,” the decision was overturned on appeal. That was on the basis that the project was “aligning with wider housing targets, but disregarding the wellbeing and concerns of existing leaseholders. This decision now leaves us anticipating extensive disruption, with no realistic recourse or meaningful consultation. Put a little more colloquially, imagine if some UK millionaire had the right to build two additional storeys above your home!” Many local residents are trapped and unable to sell their homes because of the web that leasehold has left them in. I hope the Minister can address that, as I know that the Government are working on it. Whether it is capping ground rent, reforming service charges or making lease extensions easier and cheaper, we need to fix the blockage for those trying to sell. There are also problems for those who bought via Help to Buy. I have heard that the single provider that runs the service is still very slow in responding about valuations and about the other hoops that those who used Help to Buy have to go through when selling their property. Finally, I will move on to the Government reforms. I am proud that it is a Labour Government who have promised to end leasehold. However, I know that it cannot be done overnight. How is the Minister’s Department ensuring that fire safety reforms and leasehold issues go hand in hand? Constituents tell me that fire safety remediation work at developers’ cost via the developers’ building safety pledge is being done only to the mortgage lenders’ B1 standard, rather than the A standards delivered when using the Government’s building safety fund. The former not only pay high higher insurance charges but, if selling, do so at a massive discount, thus creating one of the two-tier splits in leasehold housing. That touches on another two-tier system that many leaseholders are worried about. The Government rightly plan to end new leasehold ownership, but what will happen to the 5 million existing leaseholders when that change happens? Will they get any retrospective benefit? In London, the gap between house and flat prices is already increasing rapidly, and I fear that we risk leaving many of my constituents with an asset that they cannot sell. The Government rightly have an ambitious housing target, and I want us to build more affordable homes. I am, however, worried that in London we will see more homes being built that are purely shared ownership, where the tenant-leaseholder part rents and part owns the flat but is liable for 100% of the costs. I am extremely sceptical of that business model as I have seen example after example where shared ownership looks attractive, but the service charge rockets, the rents surge and, when people try to staircase up or even sell, they face many problems. Shared ownership has a role, although I suggest that the name is a tad misleading. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that the new homes being built do not simply create a new generation of trapped leaseholders? In conclusion, our leasehold system is an antique relic. It has left 5 million people trapped and now they are unsure of their future.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again and again, bills for service charges come in that are not properly itemised. There are items that do not actually exist, such as landscaping maintenance, and there is a refusal to open up. Some leaseholders are even getting charged by solicitors for what should be a right.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member, because I was going to come on to that and to the insidious links between those selling the flats, particularly the developers, and the solicitors who they recommend to the buyers—often first-time buyers who are unaware of the challenges. On how we got here, the answer, to be blunt, is greed. Hedge funds, investors, solicitors and developers—many based overseas—started meeting up at conferences about 15 or so years ago to learn how to use the weaknesses in English freehold law to fatten the golden goose. Members can see my rant on this subject on the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership website. Leasehold blocks of flats, often in urban areas, were valuable properties that guaranteed an extremely high return. In one current case a freeholder called Oakdene, which is refusing to pay to fix fire safety faults, sent me a letter from a solicitor at a rather high-priced legal firm—the letter alone probably cost hundreds.