Ruth Cadbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  As Chair of the Transport Committee, my remarks on the Gracious Speech will focus mainly on transport; if there is time, I plan to touch on some of the other areas where the Government’s proposed legislation will benefit many of my constituents directly. This debate is entitled “Backing business to create economic growth”, and our transport system is key to growth. Economic growth is central to the ambition of the £45 billion investment to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail. That will start to address the 10% productivity gap between northern England and the UK average. Residents and businesses in the north endure longer and often unreliable journeys compared with international comparators. For instance, only 38% of residents can access the city centre of Leeds within 30 minutes by public transport, compared with 87% in Marseille, a city of a similar size. With the new rail infrastructure proposed from Liverpool to Hull, the whole of the economy across the north of England will benefit from Northern Powerhouse Rail. The highways financing Bill will introduce a new funding model for road infrastructure by introducing a regulated asset base, or RAB, funding model to unlock private capital investment in road infrastructure, with the lower Thames crossing to be the first road scheme to use the model. The Government point out that the RAB model has been successfully used in sectors such as energy and aviation, but I am also aware from the example of Heathrow that those paying the bills—in that case, the airlines—say that capital costs can be excessive and poor value for money. It seems natural that as the lower Thames crossing will be a whole new road, it could be funded by tolls, as the Severn bridge was and as is the norm for motorways in many similar economies, but what are the plans for the future? Are the Government considering implementing tolls on projects to improve and repair current highway infrastructure? Surely the Government are not seriously considering building new roads, or significant new capacity? Otherwise, we could be going back to the ’70s with “predict and provide” creating more road capacity, which in a system of infinite demand just continues to deliver congestion while eating up more and more of our land. I would like the Minister today or subsequently to explain more about the role of the Office of Rail and Road in the context of the regulatory role mentioned in the Government briefing. The civil aviation Bill will deliver consumer enforcement powers to the Civil Aviation Authority and allow for timely regulatory intervention to improve aviation safety, modernise UK airspace and provide for a revised slot allocation system to deal with unplanned disruptions. I welcome the proposed additional consumer enforcement powers, including compensation rules when airlines damage mobility aids. That will be welcome for disabled passengers whose mobility is dependent on, for instance, high-powered wheelchairs. The current compensation is wholly inadequate. However, His Majesty the King announced that the Bill “will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”. I am not sure that I quite see the direct link between that statement and the subsequent deal and detail that I have just covered. The overnight visitor levy brings UK tourist destinations into line with many places that I and others in this House will have visited in other countries. It will enable local areas to invest in their transport infrastructure and other facilities, which will benefit visitors and residents alike, whether that is shuttle buses to reduce traffic jams on country lanes or improving facilities at busy stations. The draft taxi and private hire vehicle Bill is also welcome. It addresses almost all the issues that witnesses raised in our recent inquiry into taxis and private hire licensing.

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

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and that is a good example of a systemic policy issue that could well be addressed. Enforcement currently relies on individual passengers pursuing complaints or court cases, which is unrealistic, expensive and often ineffective. Many people do not know who to complain to, court processes are costly and unpredictable, and even successful judgments do not always lead to improved practice. As a result, many people just give up travelling, because what is the point? For example, earlier this month the Office of Rail and Road secured commitments from Northern Trains to improve disability training and passenger assistance, which is welcome, but the ORR’s concerns dated back to 2019, with formal action emerging only years later. Such delays mean that disabled passengers continue to be failed daily, and a system that relies on individuals is unfair. On the enforcement gap, we concluded that regulators need more powers, more resources, a clearer mandate to intervene earlier and a cross-modal approach. The Government did not, unfortunately, accept these recommendations, and there is still no clear plan to close the enforcement gap. We appreciate the Department’s commitment to explore collective action on accountability, but we would ask the Minister for an update. When we raised enforcement with the Secretary of State in correspondence—it is listed on the Order Paper—and when she last appeared before us in November, she told us that she wanted operators simply to comply with the law rather than relying on enforcement. We agree that compliance is ideal, but robust enforcement is a necessary part of achieving that compliance, and disabled people should not be expected to force the system to uphold their own rights. We very much welcome one aspect of the Government response to our report, which is a commitment to review the overly complex and fragmented legal framework governing transport accessibility. The Department has agreed to take forward this work with the Law Commission, and I was delighted to see that the Law Commission has launched its review this week. That is long overdue, but it could bring long-term benefits. We appreciate the Minister’s engagement on the planned accessibility charter, but it must be more than a restatement of existing duties. The areas it must tackle include the street environment, enforcement of the public sector equality duty and clearer expectation on transport operators, and it must be genuinely co-produced with disabled people. My question is: how will the charter be enforced? As new statutory duties are created under the Railways Bill, enforcement routes need to follow. The new passenger watchdog is intended to be powerful, but it currently lacks the enforcement powers that we believe are needed. In conclusion, accessibility is not a “nice to have”; it is a fundamental right and a precondition for equality. From taxis to railways and from aviation to the street environment, enforcement should be at the heart of the strategy for accessibility. Do the Government agree that there is an enforcement gap, and if so, what steps will they take to deliver stronger, earlier and more effective enforcement across all modes of transport? How are disabled people directly shaping the integrated national transport strategy and the accessibility charter, and what measures will give the charter real teeth so that operators and local authorities are held accountable? Finally, I thank all the disabled people and disabled people’s organisations that contributed to our inquiry, those who have shared their experience since and those who continue to advise us. We will keep drawing on their expertise as we scrutinise the Government’s progress on all modes of transport.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There are questions about the relationship between the Secretary of State, GBR, the ORR and the passenger watchdog, which we will certainly pursue—and so, I am sure, will others. Devolution is central to the Government’s vision, so I welcome the fact that the Scottish and Welsh Governments and elected mayors will have greater control of their areas. Will there be an oversight role, so that local decisions do not conflict with national priorities, such as providing access to rail freight? In conclusion, I really welcome the Bill, although the two Opposition amendments do not. The Bill will work if it relieves the Secretary of State of day-to-day operational decision making, and lets those who understand the rail system get on with delivering for the benefit of passengers, the economy and the environment.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will start by welcoming some of measures in the Budget relating to transport, and if I have time, I will pick up on a couple of others. I welcome the freeze on rail fares, and I welcome the growth-enhancing capital investment projects like the lower Thames crossing. I note that that capital investment will be the final tranche of Government support for that project before the private sector takes over construction and long-term operation. It cannot always be assumed that the Treasury will write cheques to cover the cost of building infrastructure, particularly where a solid income stream—in the case of the lower Thames crossing—or high land values can be used to leverage private funding. I welcome the announcement about funding for the docklands light railway extension. I see that the Secretary of State for Transport is in her place; I hope that we can soon have similar good news about kick-start funding for the west London orbital rail link. Drivers and fleet managers of petrol and diesel vehicles will welcome the further extension of the temporary 5p cut in the rate of fuel duty to September 2026. While I congratulate the Chancellor on the support given to the automotive sector and our carbon commitments, including £1.5 billion for electric car grant funding and investment in EV charging infrastructure, the Government have also introduced a mileage charge for EVs that risks sending mixed signals to manufacturers and sellers of EVs, as well as fleet managers and individual buyers. That may be the right move, but I fear that it comes at the wrong time. For too many owners, the cost of running an EV is no lower than the cost of running a petrol or diesel vehicle, particularly because of the unit cost of non-domestic charging. I note that when New Zealand passed a similar piece of legislation, EV uptake fell off a cliff. I have some questions for the Secretary of State. What measures has the Department taken to assess the overall effectiveness of its EV policies? What impact assessment has been carried out in respect of EV taxation and subsequent displacement? How is the measure consistent with the Government’s agenda to decarbonise private transport? Is the Secretary of State planning to introduce a simple odometer check, which will carry with it all the risk and problems associated with fuel duty, or will she look at satellite-based tracking, which is more accurate and is based on equity, and which better manages the demands on our roads? It could be introduced for all vehicles on a non-mandatory basis, just as water metres were originally not mandatory. As for other measures to address the cost of living that my constituents welcome, we have the ending of the two-child benefit limit. I called for that, and I am glad that the Government have listened. It will make a measurable difference to almost 3,500 children in my constituency. The vast majority of their parents work full time but on low pay. They are forced to pay extremely high rents, and have little left over at the end of the month. We have £150 off home energy bills, freezes to prescription charges and fuel duty, and another big increase in the national minimum wage, on top of public sector pay increases and more children getting free school meals.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I look forward to the work she does on this ANPS coming to our Committee in due course. A third runway at Heathrow, combined with all the other agreed—or likely to be agreed—expansions of capacity in London and south-east airports would involve an increase of 177 million passengers, which would be 70% more than the number of passengers in London and the south-east from 2024. I look forward to the Climate Change Committee’s response to the proposal, because it has said that a 35% increase in capacity would be the maximum that would keep the UK compliant with our international legal commitments. To return to the specifics of the statement, the Secretary of State said that she seeks to minimise costs for passengers and customers, but given that the cost of a third runway will be between £25 billion and £49 billion, how exactly will that cost not be passed on to the airlines and therefore the passengers if the Treasury is not going to fund those costs, which we know it is not? On surface access, ever since the building of the fifth terminal, the local authorities all around Heathrow have been pushing for southern rail access to Heathrow. Heathrow Airport has long said—and has clarified recently—that it will not pay the cost of southern rail access, so how does she expect that to be funded? If the M25 and M4 are not to grind to a halt, and if passengers and workers from the west and south of the airport are to be able to get in and out of the airport, how is that to be achieved?

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Energy Secretary’s statement. Adequate electric vehicle charging infrastructure, depot charging and onshore power for shipping are all critical to the Government’s net zero challenge, and businesses and providers across the transport sector who are making investment decisions need a route map. What steps is he taking to prioritise grid connections? Will he commit to reforming the grid queuing system, so that projects that are essential to decarbonising our transport sector are brought forward more quickly?