Ruth Cadbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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

  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?

• 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.

• 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

  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.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the first Commons debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which I welcome. The new Transport Committee decided that its first inquiry would be on “Buses connecting communities” to address the rural and non-city services across England outside London. We have completed our evidence gathering and our report will be published before too long. The oral and written evidence we received is tagged to today’s Order Paper and is available via a link on the Committee website. Poor bus services affect the constituents of almost every constituency in England outside London, judging by the interest in the issue during the election of the Chair of the Committee last September and in the attendance today. Whether Members’ constituencies are rural, mid-sized cities, suburban or in the London commuter belt, the interest in this issue is significant. In England outside London, there has been an overall decline in bus use of 63% since 2002. Car travel is now not only the main form of travel, but in many places it is the only way to get around, particularly early, late and at weekends. For those who are unable to drive or access a car, the lack of decent, or indeed any, bus services means that they are stuck at home or at the mercy of family, neighbours or expensive taxis.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Disabled People’s Access to Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that the formation of Great British Railways provides an opportunity to bring together all the players in passenger rail, many of which have different standards, different policies and different training regimes. With a single commanding body, I think we have a real chance of bringing those processes together. However, that does not stop rail operators carrying out their responsibilities day to day. It is not just about policies, but about how it works every day.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Disabled People’s Access to Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I was happy to be a co-sponsor of my hon. Friend’s Bill on aviation accessibility. I fear that one of our findings was that the CAA puts too much emphasis on what it calls “reputational enforcement”, rather than proper enforcement. The relevant Minister in the previous Parliament said that the CAA needs additional powers, and I hope this Government will support those words.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Disabled People’s Access to Transport · Hansard source

  More

  The report has 29 recommendations, but the last one is the most important: an overarching body with responsibility for standards enforcement across transport modes, which would replace the hotchpotch of laws, policies and processes that disabled people must navigate with a more effective approach to asserting the rights of disabled travellers.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Disabled People’s Access to Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make a statement to the House to mark the publication of the Transport Committee’s first report of this Parliament. Our report is called “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”. It brings to a conclusion work done by our predecessor Committee, on which I sat for a while in the previous Parliament, and for which we thank it. The report first sets out the evidence we receive from disabled people about their experiences of using transport networks in this country. Their experiences will come as no surprise to most hon. Members, whose constituents tell us about rail stations that remain stubbornly inaccessible, taxi services that have refused carriage because of assistance dogs, and being left high and dry at airports or on trains when they have booked passenger assistance that just does not arrive on time. No mode of transport is free from problems, despite most notionally having accessible facilities and policies. Those failures affect people with all kinds of disabilities and access needs. The needs of wheelchair users and people with sight loss might seem obvious, but the Committee also heard from people with health conditions who need easy access to toilets and from those with autism, who describe how overcrowded or unpredictable transport affects them. Perhaps most shocking of all, 60% of disabled people who responded to our survey said that almost every journey was beset with problems. More than a third said that more than once a week they decided not to make a journey because they knew it would be too complicated, too unsafe or that things were likely to go wrong. That is simply an unacceptable infringement of people’s human rights to go to work, to access education, health care and family, to participate in society and just to have fun. Transport is not an end in itself. It is supposed to be an enabler. But far too often it is disabling people. Around one in seven in the UK population have a disability. One respondent to our survey told us: “There’s an assumption that disabled people’s time is less valuable—that it’s okay to make us wait for a rail worker to turn up with a ramp. I’ve been late to important meetings because of this, and it makes me feel like a second class citizen…I barely go to see my mum or friends at home because the transport is so bad for wheelchair users I don’t know how I’d do it. It’s affected my friendships, relationships and working life, and it's embarrassing. I just want to be able to use public transport like everyone else.” In theory, we have laws to promote accessibility and equality, but they are clearly not working. There is a raft of equality legislation and specific regulations about transport that, if implemented consistently, ought to guarantee access and freedom from discrimination. From the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty to the minutiae of vehicle regulations, we have the framework. On policy, in 2018 the Government adopted an inclusive transport strategy that aimed to achieve: “equal access for disabled people using the transport system, with assistance if physical infrastructure remains a barrier, by 2030”. Ministers in the previous Government told the Committee they thought progress towards that goal was on track. The reality seems to be completely at odds with the rights and with policy aspirations. Our report aims to set out why that is and what should be done about it. We set out examples of accessibility being deprioritised, often because it is seen as too impractical or costly to achieve it. Plans for implementing step-free access on the rail network, for example, have been beset by halting progress, and many of us are still awaiting an update on the Access for All step-free projects at our local stations. We argue that a certain level of failure seems to be deemed acceptable by transport providers, such as when providing Passenger Assist services. We describe how accessibility is not taken into account early enough in the process of policy development, such as when proposals to close railway ticket offices wholesale made it to consultation. The public said no, but they should not have had to. We discuss the vital role of sufficient staff who are well trained in how to support travel needs of people with different needs. A change of mindset throughout the system, from the top down, is needed urgently. Failures should be vanishingly rare, not commonplace. Access to transport must be recognised as a human right, not as a matter of customer service. Concrete plans and real resources need to be put behind a new inclusive transport strategy, one that sets out a realistic pathway to achieving that goal of equal access. The routine, everyday nature of access failures stood out in our inquiry, but it is punishingly hard to hold anyone to account for failures. Seeking redress, or even just reporting them to the responsible body, is a huge, exhausting and often thankless burden. In theory, individuals can take legal action under the Equality Act, but it is costly, risky and time-consuming, so few cases are brought. Even when cases are successful, lasting systemic change does not happen. More of the heavy lifting needs to be done by regulators and enforcement bodies. They currently often have neither the mandate nor the resources to involve themselves at a low enough threshold. Only long-standing, organisation-wide failures tend to be pursued, and only then when informal measures have been exhausted. As a result, while individual disabled people often lose count of the number of occasions on which they have been failed, regulators can generally count on the fingers of one or two hands the number of formal enforcement actions that have been taken. We must bring that into balance. There have to be consequences for failure. That is why our report asks Ministers to move towards a more robust active enforcement regime. We invite Government to consider whether a single body, with expertise in and responsibility for accessibility across transport modes, would be a more effective model. We recommend a unified service to receive and triage accessibility complaints, to ensure they reach the relevant operator or authority, to follow them up if not resolved and ensure that systemic issues are identified. We also ask for a review of the legal framework to replace the patchwork that has grown up ad hoc over time. Users find it difficult to know what they are entitled to, operators find it difficult to know what they have to provide, and changes in technology and travel trends leave gaps in the law. In our report we invite the Government to consider whether a framework based on more explicit standards would be more effective, and that the framework’s design and outcome must include disabled people at every stage. To conclude, I thank not only our predecessor Committee for taking the evidence on which this report is based, and the Committee staff who worked so hard on the inquiry and the report, but, more important, those who gave evidence, especially about their own experiences of travelling as a disabled person and their expert analysis of what is going wrong. I particularly thank Claire Lindsey, and Alan Benson, a champion for disabled people’s rights on transport who sadly passed away last year. Alan and Claire took me through London at the start of the inquiry and opened my eyes to the issues that affect people with autism, and those with restricted mobility, when travelling. The words of disabled people, quoted throughout our report, are a call to action that we expect the Government to heed. Our Committee will hold the Government to account for doing so, and for bringing reality in line with rights. I commend our report to the House, and we look forward to receiving a considered response from the Government in due course.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We were all aware and deeply conscious of how many Scottish voters were disadvantaged in the July 2024 election. As Scottish summer holidays start some weeks earlier than in England, many Scottish voters were disenfranchised. The Bill in itself will not change that, but like a broken record, I go back to the point that the easier we make applying for postal and proxy votes, the more people will do it, not when an election is imminent but at some point well before that. Then they will not be disenfranchised. The Bill will make life a lot easier for electoral registration officers in Wales and Scotland, who have a terrible time dealing with two different sets of elections. Scottish and Welsh voters are able to apply for general election votes in the same way as English voters, but for some reason—I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong—a different application form is needed for the different levels of election, such as the Scottish Parliament election versus the UK general election.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the RNIB has campaigned for many years to improve accessibility to elections for people with sight loss. I do not know whether this Bill will actually make the change that my hon. Friend desires, because it brings the Scottish and Welsh systems up to the standard that we have in England, and I know that the RNIB is not yet satisfied with the process. If people have chosen not to have a postal vote, a lot depends on whether the polling clerks at the election centre feel confident enough to help those with sight loss to vote if they do not want to do so with a family member, neighbour or friend. I have stood as a candidate in 11 elections, and I have won every one of them. I have also campaigned in many more general elections, council elections, by-elections and London Assembly elections, and I have helped colleagues in by-elections across the country. When I first started, there was no such thing as online voter registration—in fact, there was no online anything. I attended statistics classes at university, and computing then involved stacks and stacks of cards—I do not know how many Members remember that. It took another 15 years, roughly, for most of us to understand what the internet was. It has only been since 2023, I think, that one can register online for a postal or proxy vote. We cannot underestimate the importance of being able to register for a postal or proxy vote with ease.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Many neurodiverse people find the process of voting difficult, and that is one example of why postal voting is so valuable to so many people. Up until 2001, one needed approval from either a doctor or an employer to be able to get a postal vote. People could not just say that they would prefer, or would find it easier, to vote at home; they had to justify that, which was easier said than done. There were huge discrepancies in whether doctors could sign off such a request, and in whether employers were prepared to say that an employee would be away and unable to vote in person on election day. We have seen a huge improvement. Only 2% of voters had postal votes before the change, but the figure had grown to almost 20% by the time of the 2010 general election. We have, over the years, made postal voting easier. The variation is quite high: 50% of voters in Sunderland vote by post, while only 8% of voters in Lewisham do so. The most important thing of all—and why postal votes make such a difference to engagement in our democracy—is that 80% of people who have a postal vote use it. Would we not like that kind of overall voter turnout? That is hugely important.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. That is why voters in Wales and Scotland need equality of access with voters in England, and I hope that the Government will support the Bill. In 2023, the then Government launched online voting applications for postal and proxy voting. If I have read the explanatory notes correctly, that is the discrepancy that the Bill is set to address. We do not knock on doors only at elections—of course, we cannot get anybody to sign up for postal votes for the next election during the short campaign period. Most of us, and I hope all of us on the Labour Benches, are door knocking week in, week out, not just for the next election—and sometimes not even for the next election—but because, as elected representatives and community and party activists, we need and want to engage with our communities. Part of that conversation is, “I find it difficult to vote,” “I can’t vote,” or, “I missed the last vote because of this.” That is where we ask, “Well, what about a postal vote?”

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on initiating this high-quality debate. It has been an honour to hear the many contributions that have been made. New homes must be built with the years 2030, 2040 and 2050 in mind, not the year 2000, and I am glad that the national planning policy framework has been drafted in the context of the wider climate crisis, so that planning decisions on new homes apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. I look forward to the sunshine that the Minister will bring at the end of the debate, along with, I hope, more details about supplementing the NPPF. The domestic installation of solar panels has had a rough history in the UK since 2010. The previous Labour Government adopted zero-carbon homes regulations, but they were watered down in 2010 and largely scrapped in 2015. One million new homes have been built since 2010, most of them with minimal standards for water and energy efficiency. Sooner or later those, along with all the much older homes, will have to be retrofitted. All our constituents really care about the climate crisis. It is one of the most common topics in my mailbox; it is raised by children in schools, and by grandparents at residents’ meetings. Yesterday evening I attended a meeting of Osterley and Wyke Green residents’ association in my constituency, where we discussed solar panels. Many residents who live in conservation areas want to be able to install solar panels on their south-facing roofs where they face the road, and have asked me to see whether that is an issue of supplementary guidance or of national planning policy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate all those involved in bringing the petitions to Parliament, including all my constituents who signed them. After 15 months of horror, the death and destruction have to stop. To address the petition on Palestinian statehood, the most important and immediate precondition must be an immediate ceasefire, with the hostages released and adequate aid allowed to flow. When I visited the region for the third time in my life in 2017, I met with peacebuilders in the west bank, Jerusalem and Israel who reaffirmed my belief in a two-state solution, but also told me how distant the prospect of peace appeared even to them. We have seen a clear change in policy under the new UK Government. As well as calling for a ceasefire, the Government have restored funding to UNRWA, condemned attacks on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, and committed to upholding the ICC’s arrest warrants. The Government also remain committed to a two-state solution. The question we are debating today is how and when that might become a reality. For now, our efforts must be concentrated on providing humanitarian relief and achieving a ceasefire; from that, an independent Palestinian state can emerge. Like many other hon. Members and constituents, I have watched aghast at the scenes of suffering in Gaza. We have seen hospitals burned and aid convoys and schools bombed, and the return of ghastly, anachronistic diseases such as polio.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my membership of the GMB. I support this landmark employment Bill, the biggest expansion of workers’ rights for a generation. Today we see the difference that a Labour Government can make for people up and down the country. Although I support all aspects of the Bill, I will focus specifically on the transport sector. During and following the covid pandemic, transport workers faced the short end of the stick of poor employment practice. I welcome the end of fire and rehire. That unfair practice was used as a sledgehammer against workers, particularly during the pandemic, by companies such as British Airways, which tried it on more than 35,000 staff members, including many of my constituents in Hounslow. BA staff who had worked for decades faced the prospect of being sacked and rehired on poorer pay and weaker terms and conditions. After huge pressure from trade unions, Labour MPs and the Transport Committee, BA dropped its plans, but other firms such as P&O have also exploited the weakness in UK employment law that the Bill is intended to address. Those practices are still happening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) highlighted in his intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister. When workers were facing fire and rehire, Labour was clear that a Labour Government would ban that practice, and I am pleased the Government are doing that. I welcome clause 22. On minimum service levels, the Bill will also repeal and scrap the previous Government’s Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023—a farcical bit of legislation designed to limit strike action. In Committee, when I pushed the rail operators on the proposed legislation, it was clear that they had not sought it and they appeared to have no plans to use it. The fact that so few rail operators chose to use the powers once they were enacted showed that the companies themselves doubted their value and use. This Bill also brings in much-needed modernisation of our maritime laws. In the last Parliament, the then Chairs of the Transport Committee and the Business and Trade Committee—one Conservative, one Labour—jointly wrote to the then Government about the need to update our laws to protect maritime workers. I welcome the Bill’s closure of the loophole whereby ships registered overseas previously did not have to inform the UK Government of collective redundancies, and the fact that this Government have committed to further strengthen workers’ rights at sea. In conclusion—

• 4 Sept 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report · Hansard source

  More

  As the Prime Minister so painfully said, the Grenfell fire destroyed lives and ripped families apart, but constituents of mine are suffering, too. They are afraid to go to sleep at night, because they live in buildings that were built more recently than Grenfell, with fire safety risks. The building standards that informed the recladding of Grenfell and the building of more recent blocks of flats were strong on thermal insulation to save energy costs but very weak on fire safety, and their implementation, as we now know from this report, has been even worse. The building regulations of other jurisdictions cover both thermal insulation and fire safety risks. How long will it take for UK building regulations to catch up?

• 22 Jul 2024 · Economy, Welfare and Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to be re-elected for the fourth time to the redrawn seat of Brentford and Isleworth, and to follow such impressive maiden speeches, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), in whose constituency we all work. After nine years sitting in Opposition it is a pleasure to be on the Government side of the Chamber and to support this Government’s legislative programme, which brings hope, opportunity and change for my constituents and for the country at last. I will focus my response to the King’s Speech on the Government’s ambitious proposals around transport policy—not only because it is an area I have long been involved with, having served on the Transport Committee for five years and chaired five all-party parliamentary groups on transport, but because transport was brought up regularly on the doorsteps in this last election. The theme of today’s debate is economy, welfare and public services. Effective transport policies are essential to the change we need to see in all three areas, as well as in addressing our climate crisis, so I am pleased to see the bold and ambitious plans set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and her team to do just that. For access to work, education and health services, for supplying our manufacturing and retail sectors and for supporting our wellbeing and family life, decent transport choices are essential, and nowhere are they more needed than in the new communities that will be built, if the traffic on the roads to and around them is not to grind to a halt. Whether in city, town or countryside, we need the full range of transport options—ones that are affordable, accessible, efficient and environmentally sound. On buses, I am delighted that, through the better buses Bill, the Government will end the ideological and control-freakery policy of banning local authorities from running their own municipal bus companies. Such companies were killed off by the Thatcher Government in a bout of ideological rage, with only London retaining a regulated bus service. The rest of England should have what we have in London: regular day, evening and weekend services, simple fare structures, and high standards of safety, accessibility and passenger information. Those are being developed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and I look forward to seeing other local authorities—of all parties, I am sure—following his example. To be an alternative to driving, and for us to cut road congestion and pollution, rail travel must be reliable. I am therefore delighted to see Bills to create Great British Railways and to bring train operations into public ownership. That is essential for a simplified and unified rail system that focuses on improving passenger services while getting value for the taxpayer. Our constituents, and many Members of this House, have had terrible experiences of cancelled trains, or of sitting on the floor for hours despite booking a seat. We will now see a Government and a Department that do not use transport as a cudgel in our culture wars, or as a crude electoral hammer to override local authorities that want to introduce sensible measures to encourage cycling and walking. Transport is at the heart of the challenge of national renewal that we have set ourselves: kickstarting economic growth, boosting jobs and living standards, and building sufficient homes in sustainable communities. Of course there are challenges ahead—not least in further growing capacity in our overloaded rail network. I welcome the plan to improve east-west connectivity across the north of England, but funding further increases in rail capacity will unfortunately be financially unsustainable until we see the economic growth that the Chancellor is working on. Aviation expansion is acceptable only if it passes the four tests that we set ourselves in opposition: cutting carbon dioxide emissions, overcoming local environmental impacts, providing regional benefits across the UK, and deliverability. I know that the new Secretary of State and ministerial team will work across our travel and transport sectors to improve transport connections to the benefit of our country as a whole.