Ruth Cadbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to five amendments tabled in my name and those of other members of the Transport Committee, and other Members of the House. They focus on two issues—the long-term rail strategy, and the important issue of accessibility—and they stem from specific recommendations in the report of our inquiry into the Bill. The Committee recognises the need for structural change on the railways, and it supports the main purpose of the Bill, which is to establish Great British Railways as a single organisation overseeing both track and train, and capable of acting as a directing mind for the railway. I thank the Government for their thorough and thoughtful response to our report, and for publishing yesterday, as promised, the list of documents and target publication timetables for the key policy documents and public consultations that will be required for GBR to be operational in 2027. I also thank them for the policy document on the draft GBR licence that was published a week or so ago. Amendments 37 and 38 to clause 15 would require the long-term rail strategy to be placed before Parliament, as well as any revisions to it. I welcome that the Government have committed to publish a discussion document with more detail on what the LTRS will include during the Bill’s passage through the House. The Government told us that a requirement to lay the LTRS before the House is not necessary because the documents will be published, thus guaranteeing transparency, and they have committed to place that document in the Libraries and make a written ministerial statement. However, transparency was not the Committee’s only concern, as we also wanted a disincentive to change the long-term rail strategy too frequently or trivially. The commitment to make a written ministerial statement is welcome, but will that also apply to updates? It will not bind future Governments. I now move to other amendments tabled in my name and those of members of the Committee, and by other Members of the House, including a number who are, and have always been, strong advocates for the needs of people with disabilities. The number of amendments tabled shows the strength of concern from Members across the House about the importance of accessibility, of getting it right in the Bill, and of making railways accessible to all. Whether for a long-term wheelchair user, someone who will always need support to buy tickets or navigate a large station, or anyone travelling with small children or luggage, accessible trains, stations, ticketing systems, and staff culture must benefit us all. When that is hardwired into the culture of the organisation, more people—all people—can feel confident in their ability to travel by train.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is entirely right. She is a passionate advocate—not just in transport, but across the piece—on the needs and rights of disabled people. To a large extent, this issue in transport is a subset of the societal challenge that she rightly raises. The barriers that I have described prevent access to employment, education and services, and prevent people from having social lives. Following long delays, eight Access for All station upgrades have been confirmed, with 23 more moving to detailed design, and another round may be funded in the next spending review. These upgrades are welcome, but they feel like a drop in the ocean. At current investment rates, the rail network will not be fully step-free for a century, according to the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee’s estimate in 2022. As Emma Vogelmann, formerly of Transport for All, has said: “Accessibility must be delivered as standard across the whole network, not rationed station by station over generations.” Judging by Transport questions this morning, as well as every previous one I have sat through, Members who have been waiting for station improvements in their constituencies clearly feel the same way. We also await the Government’s new rolling stock strategy, which must set out a clear approach to level boarding. On holiday in France and Italy last summer, I saw clear ambition for that, as demonstrated by the lift access being built, if not already installed, across a number of rural stations. I hope GBR will inject that missing ambition into the UK rail system. On electric vehicles, Transport Focus recently found that not a single charger on the strategic road network met voluntary accessibility standards, so we risk building new barriers into our future infrastructure, and those barriers will be expensive to fix later. This is not just about hardware; we must embed accessibility into decision making. Witnesses to our recent inquiry into the Railways Bill expressed concern that, under the Bill, GBR must balance the interests of disabled people with cost. Of course, cost is always relevant, but we have repeatedly seen accessibility lose out. So we have recommended that GBR be required not just to consider but to deliver tangible improvements to accessibility. On enforcement, we must ensure that rights are real. One of the most striking findings of our inquiry was that disabled people often have rights on paper that do not translate into real experiences. The reason is simple: enforcement is too weak.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Leaseholders in my constituency and across the country are being fleeced by freeholders and managing agents. They need relief from both, and we need to end the feudal leasehold system, so can the Prime Minister confirm when the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill will come to Parliament?

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is another issue that has come up in our inquiry, and I do hope that the Government are addressing the cross-border issue. I will come back briefly to that shortly. Passengers want to know that the same standards apply across the country, but there are no common standards. In fact, in England there are 270 different licensing offices and the more than 300,000 drivers operate under about 230 different sets of conditions and standards. The Transport Committee is in the middle of an inquiry on taxis and private hire vehicles. We have heard from drivers, their unions, operators, licensing officers, the Local Government Association, disability organisations, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and others. The single most common message we have heard in our inquiry is the need for common standards across England, and not basic minimum standards, but high and absolute standards. That is why I am delighted that the Government have brought forward new clauses 49 to 57 to be added to part 3 of the Bill. This will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards for granting, renewing, suspending and revoking driver and operator licences. It enables actions such as on what is included in driver training, what requires the installation of specific equipment such as CCTV and what level of background checks on drivers is used. By the way, such actions, particularly CCTV, protect drivers as well as passengers. I welcome the fact that the Government are responding to the calls of many, and not least to the issues raised in Baroness Casey’s report. The last Government set up a task and finish group, but they only published guidance on a set of standards for taxis and private hire vehicles, and they ignored the recommendations of the group, saying only that licensing authorities should “have regard to” standards. That Government ignored the calls, but this Government are delivering. One of the main issues raised during our Committee’s inquiry is that the current variation in standards encourages licence shopping, which refers to drivers or operators choosing to be licensed in local authorities that have the least onerous standards or the cheapest or fastest processes, even if most, if not all, of their work takes place elsewhere. That happens thanks to the 2015 deregulation brought in by the Conservative Government. According to one taxi firm that submitted evidence: “The lack of a national standard undermines passenger safety, fair competition and public confidence in the industry.” On the role of councillors in licensing decisions, we have been told that the councillors responsible for individual decisions on who gets, retains or loses their licence may be put under pressure to make a decision contrary to the recommendations of officers.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is an amazing ambassador for Shrewsbury—I have learned so much about Shrewsbury since getting to know her. Although it is possibly beyond the scope of today’s debate, she is absolutely right about the need to align transport policies and networks with our wider growth and development aspirations. I know that the Government are listening, and are working hard on that very issue. The point about new towns is also a very good one, and it has been welcome to see a Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), sitting alongside the Housing and Planning Minister for quite a lot of this debate—it is a good sign that the important need to break down the silos that built up in Government over the past 15 years is being recognised. We on the Committee corridor really appreciate that. The Transport Committee considered national networks in 2023, so we do not expect to see that national policy statement again until 2028—we will see what process is followed then, if indeed this change does go through. We published our view on the national policy statement on ports this morning, so it will be 2030 before that is due for revision again. As I said, airports is the only national policy statement that is specific to a particular development, and the Transport Committee expects to address it in the months ahead. Of course, we will be doing so following the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government wish to pursue the development of runway three. Although we honour the power and role of the Government, I pick up on what the Minister said on Report when he was keen to assure us that the Government’s changes were “not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made”, and that the Government “recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.” —[ Official Report , 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.] Our constituents want to be assured that any changes that have a disproportionate impact on them will be properly scrutinised by this House. I am glad that the Minister has said that the Government will lay a statement in the House, write to the relevant Select Committee and make themselves available, but I want to pick up on the phrase “as far as is practicable”. It is good that he went on to say that “the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes”, and that “Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted” —[ Official Report , 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.] , but Parliament needs time, access to Ministers, and assurance that significant changes will be able to be properly and fully scrutinised. Where a proposed change is significant enough—where it is not a relatively minor change—we must be able to use the full process.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We do have a canal. We also have the Thames, the River Crane and the Duke of Northumberland river, but I do not think any of them are chalk. The issues for chalk streams, particularly sewage going into them in Oxfordshire, causes us problems in the Thames as it goes past my constituency—I digress. I welcome the many changes that the Government will make to the planning system as a result of the Bill, and I welcome the amendments that have been made during its passage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) said so eloquently, the most important thing about the Bill is that will it bring more homes. There is high demand for housing in the borough of Hounslow; people desperately need adequate, affordable and good-quality housing but cannot get on to the housing ladder. Some people can afford to rent or buy privately, but I know from door-knocking that all the flats that have been built over the past 20 years are fully occupied. West London is desperately short of housing, for those already living in the area who want to stay close to their family and for those who want to come to live in the area to take advantage of the many job opportunities in growth sectors. Sadly, some developments that have planning permission have not yet been built, partly because of changes to designs following Grenfell, and partly because other building regulation and industry changes. I hope that those developments get on stream very quickly. I will focus on Lords amendment 1 to clause 2. In response to my intervention on the Minister earlier, he assured me that despite the significant changes and the new national policy statements, the existing process of parliamentary scrutiny—including a role for this Chamber and the Committees—will continue, and I thank him for that. The new procedure introduced in clause 2 applies to amendments to national policy statements that reflect policy or legislative changes, or decisions that have been through the courts. The implication is that the provision will enable the quicker implementation of light-touch amendments—those involving less material changes—to national policy statements. That concerns some of us, as the Chair of the Liaison Committee has already covered so eloquently. Some of these changes could be very significant, and they deserve proper scrutiny. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will come later to some examples specifically relating to transport. The Government’s changes will give “Parliament and the relevant select committee forewarning that Government intends to follow the reflective amendment procedure to update an NPS”. The “reflective amendment procedure” is what I would call “the reduced procedure”, but we will get forewarning—great. The Government will also have to formally announce a review of an NPS by making a statement in Parliament—great. When there is a partial review, the Government will “informally update the Liaison Committee and the relevant Select Committee” by writing to the relevant Select Committee at the commencement of the public consultation period on proposed changes to an NPS. In Committee, the Minister said that “Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical.” –– [ Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 105.] It is the words “so far as is practical” that have concerned the Chairs of the Select Committees. A letter received by the Liaison Committee also stated that if a Select Committee publishes a report on proposed NPS changes within the public consultation period, then the Government will take those views into account before the updated NPS is laid before Parliament and will seek to respond to the report around the time of laying the updated NPS “wherever feasible”. When the Minister sums up, I hope he will clarify those two phrases: “so far as is practical”, in relation to the Minister coming to the Select Committee; and “wherever feasible”, in terms of the Government responding to the Committee’s report. As I have just said, the reflective amendment process is expected to apply to changes to national policy statements that reflect legislative decisions, Government decisions, the publication of Government policy or changes to other documents referred to in the ANPS. I have a question, which I would really like to know the answer to: by what criteria will the new process be used, and who decides? When will the full-fat version, with the involvement of Parliament, be used?

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

  More

  I speak in the context of devolution within an overarching set of values. I will not go into the specifics of what level a bus fare should be, but the overall ridership and the sustainability of the bus system are a key objective. I know the Minister will say that with devolution, how that happens is up to the local transport authorities. Returning to the evidence we heard in Committee, as everybody here knows, buses remain the most used form of public transport, yet the number of bus journeys in England outside London has dropped from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024. Alongside the declining number of journeys, the need to improve services and increase ridership speaks to the evidence received by the Committee about the impact on social isolation of a lack of access to buses. Transport for the North told the Committee that in 2024 some 11.4 million people across England faced transport-related social exclusion, and there was evidence that the problem was worse in towns than in cities. The Minister told us that the Government intended the Bill to deliver services that were more affordable and reliable, faster and better integrated. However, when pressed on whether people in England would see more buses to more places by the end of this Parliament, he said that that is certainly their intention and they are doing everything possible to make it happen. My contention is that without that being baked into the body of the Bill, there is a risk that in many places there could be a continued decline in bus services over time. Amendment 66 to clause 14 relates to socially necessary services. It seeks to insert in line 5 of page 10 after the word “services”: “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”. It would be for the local transport authority to define that, but in a publicly visible way. The amendment asks that local authorities be required to produce a transparent methodology for how they determine these socially necessary services. The North West Surrey Bus Users Group made the argument to the Committee that a clear and consistently applied definition was essential for holding local authorities accountable for maintaining basic service levels on loss-making routes. It warned that in the absence of sufficient guidance to date, some authorities had, to a greater or lesser extent, abdicated their responsibilities. As a result of such evidence, the Committee’s report recommended that the Department should mandate local transport authorities to publish their own transparent methodology for how they determine which bus services qualify as socially necessary to ensure public accountability—hence the reason for this amendment.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Pavement Parking · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate. She and many other hon. Members have described the reasons for this debate and for a change in the law. As Chair of the Transport Committee, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, but I am not sure how many times in the 10 years since I have been in Parliament I have spoken on the issue of bringing in a default ban on pavement parking. As a London MP, and before that a London councillor and a London resident for 40 years, I know that a default ban—with specific exemptions where needed—would work. I have never understood the apparent reluctance among some to allow that nationwide. I was an active member of the Select Committee inquiry, along with the Minister, who was then the Committee Chair; the rural affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner); and the then Conservative Member for Bexhill and Battle, who took us to his constituency to show us the problems there. We recommended Government legislation for a nationwide ban on pavement parking across England outside London to give the Secretary of State for Transport the power to bring in secondary legislation. We also recommended a ban enforced by local authorities, not the police; a nationwide awareness campaign showing the problems of pavement parking for those affected; and revisions of the traffic regulation order process. The Secretary of State has shown that she and the Minister are passionate—