Ruth Cadbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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

  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

  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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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

  More

  I will come on to that, but yes. For a Labour Government with a focus on growth, opportunity and clean energy, it is essential to transform bus services across England to make them more reliable, more accessible and better integrated into the fabric of local communities. That is important to ensure that residents of rural areas are not left behind, to support the growth and regeneration aspirations of our towns away from major conurbations, and to make sure that the most vulnerable have equal access and ability to travel. In its inquiry, the Committee has received valuable evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. When we looked at the impact of declining bus services, we heard evidence that described local bus services in 2025 as a “barrier” to opportunity rather than an “enabler”. We heard that the future of many services remains “precarious”. From a local authority perspective, the situation was described as “challenging”. We also heard about the economic hit to many town centres from fewer buses; if people cannot travel, they do not spend in local shops and businesses. This Bill is not a magic wand, however. For instance, the Local Government Association told us that “successful implementation will require practical support and local flexibility from central government.” I will address four key areas, the first of which is improved integration and co-ordination. Passenger groups told us that they need a system that works together as a whole, rather than the patchwork of disconnected services that they see at present. I therefore welcome the focus on enhanced partnerships and franchising powers for local authorities. The franchising model has long been used in London, and it has been seen more recently in Greater Manchester through the Bee Network. Franchising and even enhanced partnerships should make for co-ordinated timetables, simplified fare structures and greater accountability in service delivery so that passengers no longer have to navigate a confusing web of different operators, routes and fare structures.

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  At yesterday’s Transport Committee hearing, the Minister for Local Transport outlined the measures that the Government are taking to reverse the 15-year decline in bus services. The measures will protect many at-risk bus routes and may deliver a few more, but as they deliver growth and reduce congestion, do the Government have a wider ambition to ensure that all rural and non-city areas in England have at least a basic level of bus service so that everyone can get to school, work and the shops, and use public services without needing to drive a car?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Electric vehicle sales growth is at risk of slowing down. Many private car and fleet owners would transition to EVs, but patchy provision of public charging for those unable to charge at home and inadequate power capacity for rapid charging on our strategic road network for long-distance drivers are two key reasons for reluctance to buy EVs. What discussions are DESNZ Ministers having with power networks, charging providers and the Department for Transport to address this?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my neighbouring MP and the Liberal Democrat leader on education, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), on being granted this urgent question. Her constituents and mine benefit from the Purple Elephant Project, through which more than 50 families get much-needed therapy that ensures that children stay out of higher-cost services. Like other groups that MPs have been hearing from in their constituencies, those families have been devastated by the delay; not knowing whether this important therapy would continue was already having an impact on them. I therefore also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for listening—I know this issue is close to her heart, too—and for the work she has been doing with Treasury Ministers, which I assume has enabled her to make this announcement. How can we ensure that this does not happen again? It became the norm that groups serving vulnerable constituents would not know until right at the end of the financial year whether they would get continuation funding. How can we guarantee that that does not happen again for these groups and others serving vulnerable constituents?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  I also congratulate the Chancellor on her excellent statement, which addresses the challenge the previous Government left her with. In order to drive growth across the UK, new heavy and light rail infrastructure is badly needed. What work is the Chancellor doing to develop new models of funding to deliver those important projects?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Bill. When I studied for my planning diploma, I learned that since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, the power of national strategic policy versus the challenge of local politics in planning approvals has waxed and waned. It felt under the previous Government as though national powers over significant development decisions almost disappeared, and MPs of the Government party effectively pressured the then Secretary of State to refuse much-needed infrastructure developments that included new housing developments, prisons and more. There has to be a balance. The national Government have to be able to deliver on their national strategies. This is what the Bill does. I particularly welcome specific parts of the Bill. It fosters more certainty for critical national infrastructure such as electricity—that is so important, as we heard earlier in the Heathrow statement—clean energy, roads, public transport, water and sewerage. I welcome the certainty of decision making for planning applications, more effective land assembly through improving the compulsory purchase orders process and bringing back development corporations, and the return of effective spatial development strategies. The Bill will enable the Government to reform the planning system to deliver on growth, new housing, cutting carbon emissions and climate change resilience—all of which the UK badly needs. As an MP in London where buying a home or even renting is out of reach to most young people, I welcome the Government’s focus on delivering the 1.5 million new homes that are needed. The Bill and the excellent national planning policy framework enable new housing developments to no longer be designed with entrenched car dependence. The Bill is an excellent opportunity to ensure that new housing and other developments can be concentrated in locations with good public transport, so that schools, shops, health centres, parks and open spaces are easily reachable without the need to drive. This ensures access for all, not only those who have a car. It ensures access to jobs, education, training and shops—all essential building blocks for growth across the country.

• 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.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Transport Committee has looked at the economic growth case for the Heathrow expansion and has heard conflicting evidence on the project’s growth impact on regions away from London and the south-east, and also on other carbon-using sectors. Will the Chancellor ask Heathrow Airport to release the full text of the Frontier Economics report on which she made her decision to expand Heathrow?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Department for Transport analysis carried out in 2017 showed that expanding Heathrow would displace 27,000 jobs from the UK regions to London by 2050, with 17 million fewer passengers using non-London airports. Does the Minister hope that the same analysis, if done now, would come to a different conclusion in order to ensure that UK economic growth really does benefit all UK regions and not just west London?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I also welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement and the Chancellor’s announcement about the many excellent transport schemes that this country so badly needs. The Transport Committee will look at these proposals, starting with the new proposal for runway 3 at Heathrow. He links that proposal to UK-wide growth, but did the Treasury consider the Department for Transport’s 2020 figures predicting that between 2010 and 2050 there would be a 24% cut in flights between regional airports in the UK and Heathrow because of the way the market for slots at Heathrow operates, regardless of what regional airports might want?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Airport Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  A third runway at Heathrow has significant implications for UK-wide growth, for our carbon commitments, and for the 600,000 people who will live in the new 54 dB corridor of significant noise pollution, as well as air pollution. Does the Minister agree that such an announcement should be made in the context of a national aviation strategy? If he does, when will we see it?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Railway Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State to her place and I look forward to working with her. The original vision for HS2 was to link London with the midlands and the north, and to address the growing capacity challenge on the west coast main line with a whole new rail line. The last Government panicked and mothballed much of the project because of cost overruns on phase 1, thus incurring yet further costs. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to get a grip on the phase 1 cost overruns, but do the Government plan to deliver a rail solution linking phase 1, north of Birmingham, to the rest of the country, thus delivering the Government’s vision to drive growth for the whole country?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Israel’s behaviour towards Palestinians, as I saw 30 or 40 years ago, only worsens the chances of peace. It builds in children’s minds the idea that peace is a long way off. In that sense, I agree with the hon. Member. What we have seen in recent months goes beyond any reasonable definition of self-defence, with destruction on a scale that has left Gaza in ruins. The scale of the destruction and human misery shows Israel’s disregard for international law and the rights of Palestinians. The Palestinian people may well take heart from Britain’s decision formally to recognise Palestine as a state, but they might take greater comfort from knowing that the bombs will stop falling from the skies above them. A two-state solution is still the only route to lasting peace, but we need a ceasefire now. As well as causing intolerable suffering in Gaza, the conflict has helped to distract from the continued unlawful expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank; there are way more than when I first went 40 years ago. This is in violation of international law and provides one of the biggest obstacles to a lasting two-state solution. For as long as the conflict continues, illegal settlements and settler violence will continue, making the reality of Palestinian statehood all the more distant. Our Government must do more to put pressure on Israel and to end the conflict in Gaza. I ask the Government to take note of the concerns expressed last week by the Select Committee on Business and Trade. No conflict is inevitable, no matter how intractable. Within our lifetimes, we have seen conflicts that threatened to outlive us resolved, but we must not let such a conflict happen again. We must end this grim inheritance. We must have peace.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will focus my remarks on transport, a sector that is essential to delivering the Labour Government’s missions on growth and decarbonisation and to improving our health. On those, the Conservatives dodged the tough decisions and kicked the can down the potholed road. As the Chancellor said, just as in 1945 and 1997, it is up to the Labour party to clear up their mess. I welcome the investment for the HS2 tunnel to Euston, the trans-Pennine route upgrade, East West Rail and the Marston Vale line. I am delighted that combined authorities, local councils and directly elected Mayors will receive funding for supertrams and mass-transit projects. The £485 million for Transport for London for rolling stock on the Piccadilly and Elizabeth lines will be particularly welcome in my constituency and across London, but also in Derby and Goole, where the jobs are being created and protected. My Committee will take great interest in how those projects are delivered. We hope that they will be completed on time, on budget, and in a way that will help the UK to catch up and compete with the best transport systems around the world. Colleagues on both sides of the House have told me about the importance of local bus services, whether for work, study or shopping, and they are a lifeline for town centres. I welcome the £1 billion funding boost, and the fact that bus services are being put into the hands of local communities. I am pleased that a bus fare cap has been retained and that next month’s cliff edge has been avoided, but I hope that the Government will soon come up with a long-term solution for the revenue funding of buses across England, outside London. Motorists will welcome the freezing of fuel duty. The previous Transport Committee, however, concluded that the Government “must start an honest conversation with the public” on how to maintain funding for roads and other essential public services as electric vehicle use increases and the use of fossil-fuel vehicles decreases. That will mean a decline in fuel duty for the Exchequer, so I hope that the Front Benches will work together on this challenge, which will only become ever more urgent. As for the role of transport in decarbonisation, I am pleased that the Chancellor is increasing air passenger duty on private jets, but I hope that the Government will also address the electricity grid capacity challenge to ensure that there is adequate power when and where it is needed, to provide—among other things—confidence in electric vehicle take-up. This was a major infrastructure issue ducked by the last Government. I am pleased that the Chancellor has seized the mantle of investment to put our country on a strong footing for the future.

• 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—