Transport Accessibility for Disabled People

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of transport accessibility for disabled people; notes the recommendations of the Transport Committee in its First Report of Session 2024-25, Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport, HC 770, and the Government’s response to that report, HC 931; and agrees with the Committee that there is an urgent need for review of the legislative framework and the enforcement regime to ensure that the gap between rights and obligations and the daily experience of disabled travellers is closed.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling today’s debate. The Transport Committee’s report, “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”, was published a year ago. It was reported to the House on 10 June, and the Government response was published on 1 July. The timing of this debate enables me to provide a timely update on the work achieved by the Government and transport sectors over the past year, and to cover areas where more needs to be done. I am going to cover strategy, infrastructure and enforcement, and I will conclude with a few questions for the Minister.

Our report follows an in-depth inquiry that started in 2023 under the leadership of my predecessor as Chair, Iain Stewart. We travelled with people with disabilities to understand their experiences and the challenges they face, and we heard from a wide variety of people and organisations, whose knowledge was invaluable. The report has also informed much of the Committee’s other work over the last year or so, on buses, taxis and the street environment—areas where poor design and maintenance, and a lack of priority, continue to inhibit transport access unnecessarily.

In the year since the report was published, several important steps have been taken, and I thank the Government and others for these. The accessible railways road map was published alongside the Railways Bill in November last year and includes actions ahead of the formation of Great British Railways, such as a minor works budget and improved lift information. GBR will later set out its own plans through the long-term rail investment strategy. The Bus Services Act 2025 requires accessible network plans, streamlines disability awareness training and supports more accessible bus stop design. The aviation accessibility implementation group was established to deliver improvements in air travel for disabled passengers following the earlier task and finish group recommendations.

On railcards, eligibility has been extended to Blue Badge holders and will soon expand further to cover a wider range of visible and non-visible disabilities. On pavement parking, after five years of waiting—most of that was under the last Government—the Government have finally announced their next steps, and we await legislation. On taxi licensing standards, we welcome the amendments to the devolution Bill, including new national minimum standards that will include robust accessibility requirements. The Railways Bill introduces a duty on the Secretary of State and GBR to consider disabled passengers’ needs, and ensures that GBR is covered by the public sector equality duty. We welcome the publication of the equality impact assessment, and we will scrutinise it closely.

Let me now cover three strands that are essential if we are to embed and deliver lasting change. First, there needs to be a practical, ambitious and integrated transport strategy. The last Government’s 2018 inclusive transport strategy aimed for equal access for disabled people by 2030, but when we gathered evidence for our report, it was clear that that ambition was not being met. Much of the strategy focused on “considering”, “exploring” or “consulting”, rather than on delivering substantive change. Our report called for a new inclusive transport strategy; instead, the Department said that accessibility would be embedded as a “golden thread” in the forthcoming integrated national transport strategy.

That may be positive, but we still have not seen the strategy, which was originally expected by the end of 2025. We cannot judge whether accessibility will truly be prioritised until it is published. The Department says that the strategy will include clear actions and milestones for accessibility, so I hope that Ministers will ensure that those actions are ambitious, properly funded and capable of delivering inclusive transport—not just in principle, but in practice. After a decade of best-practice sharing and awareness raising, disabled people do not need warm words; they need a practical pathway to full accessibility.

On infrastructure, we need to avoid embedded barriers. When people think about accessibility, they usually picture lifts, ramps, level boarding, tactile surfaces, accessible bus stops, hearing loops, and reliable audible and visible announcements—and rightly so, as these are basic enablers. Inaccessible infrastructure is one of the most stubborn barriers to people with disabilities accessing our transport system. Transport assets are long-term investments, so mistakes become embedded for generations. The built environment can be enabling or deeply disabling. As many disabled people tell us, people are not disabled; too often it is the environment that disables them.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her opening speech. Does she agree that society’s disabling barriers prevent disabled people from being able to have accessible transport, and that the Government and others need to understand that we have to change the infrastructure? That is how we are going to create an inclusive and fully accessible transport network.

[Ruth Cadbury]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on her sterling work as Chair of the Transport Committee, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for us to debate what I think is a very important issue.

It is no secret that I have been a lifelong campaigner for the rights, inclusion and equality of disabled people, not least due to my own lived experience. I have been calling for and pushing for all modes of transport to be fully accessible and inclusive. It is essential that disabled people should have equal participation in society at all times. I genuinely believe that having access to transport is a human right, and we really should look at it in that context, yet all too often we hear stories of the many barriers disabled people face when they travel. We have all heard the stories of disabled people being left on planes for hours on end, or turning up at a train station and their assistance not being there for them. When I travel and have booked assistance, I worry about whether that assistance will be there. That should never be somebody’s experience in daily life.

We know the issues around pavement parking. I introduced my own Bill to ban pavement parking 18 months ago. Having obstacles on the road, especially those awful e-scooters—everyone knows my views on those—creates many problems, not just for disabled people but for families with young children pushing a buggy and so on. And then there are buses. We all know that buses are one of the best forms of inclusive transport for disabled people. However, there are times when the ramps are not working or the allocated space on the bus is not available. We must ensure that we tackle that issue. It would be wrong of me not to mention floating bus stops, because I hate them too. They are huge problem, so I might as well tie them into this transport debate. Floating bus stops should be banned from all new infrastructure, because they prevent disabled people from being able to travel freely.

I am really proud of the work we have done in my constituency, in the nearly nine years I have been campaigning, to ensure that all the modes of transport that go through Battersea are inclusive. Clapham Junction, one of the busiest interchange stations in Europe, is partially accessible. I was proud that we secured funding for Wandsworth Town railway station to be made step-free. It is a shame that it no longer sits in my constituency after the boundary review, but I will claim that win, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think I should.

We all remember the fight we all had to go through to ensure that we kept ticket offices open, when the previous Government wanted to close them. That was a battle worth fighting. I cannot use ticket machines, and there are many others who cannot use them either. They are vital pieces of infrastructure.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I am trying to represent my constituents in four debates today. There was a Spanish Catholic priest called Padre Pio, who was made a saint because of the miracle of appearing in two places at once. I have not mastered that yet.

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to my chairing of the RMT parliamentary group. One of the key issues my hon. Friend has campaigned on—we campaigned on it together—is ensuring adequate staffing levels, not just in ticket offices, where we succeeded, but on the platform and on the trains themselves, for safety and security reasons. Does she agree that, under GBR, we need a very strong plan for the workforce, so that we have adequate staffing at all levels in all facilities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he is absolutely spot on. We can have all the infrastructure in the world, but if we do not have the workforce to manage it then it will not work. We have to value the workforce, because I rely on that workforce when I travel and I know that many others do, too. We successfully kept our ticket offices open, which is a good thing.

I am really proud of the changes we have made in my constituency, but that brings me back to this point. Why is it that, in 2026, disabled people are still fighting for an inclusive and accessible transport network? That cannot be right. Many people cannot engage in travel. The Select Committee’s brilliant report a year ago highlighted that 67% of disabled people experience problems when they are travelling—that is just staggering—from not enough priority seating to the poor quality of pavements for active travel, a lack of step-free access and so on. Talking of step-free access, in my constituency—I am sorry to keep referring back to it—we have Battersea Power Station tube station, which is an underground station but is step-free. That is so important, because we should be able to use all modes of transport; we should not be restricted to taxis, private hire or just buses.

Inaccessible travel can be the factor that locks disabled people out of so many things: going to work or study, attending health appointments, or just participating in life. Those are the effects that an inaccessible infrastructure and travel network have on disabled people. We must do better to move things forward. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not want to hear “We are going to work towards” or “We are going to look into”. I genuinely believe that we need to see proper action on creating an inclusive and accessible transport network. Frankly, as I said earlier, it is a crying shame that in 2026 disabled people still cannot travel independently. We need a strategy, and we are going to have one.

[John McDonnell]

One minute.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Thank you. This place is not accessible either, because I need someone to tell me when my time is running out, but we will work on that, too.

We need solid infrastructure, backed up by the right investment, and the workforce to deliver it. We need to tighten up enforcement, because without enforcement, the onus is on disabled people, which it should not be. There must be enforcement. We should focus on the UN convention on the rights of disabled people, and having an inclusive transport network is a key pillar of that. As disabled people say, there should be nothing about us without us.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I rise to support new clause 47, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I will also make a passing reference to his excellent new clause 2, which I wholeheartedly support and which—as we have heard—is designed to remove the time restrictions on when disabled persons’ concessionary bus passes can be used.

New clause 47 is very simple and, I would like to think, very logical. It simply requires that the Secretary of State should,

“within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.

I was first alerted to this problem by some very effective lobbying done in Parliament a few months ago, which other right hon. and hon. Members may well remember. I was lobbied by a number of my constituents, who said to me that there was not much point in having a concessionary pass to use buses free of charge if they were unable to do so except when helped by a companion. It rather made a mockery of the concession.

I followed this up with a visit to the New Forest branch of Mencap, and the implications of the scheme were impressed on me as being so obvious as to require little supporting argument. What is the point of giving somebody something for free if they cannot use it without the assistance of someone else, unless a designated companion is able to travel with them for free on the same bus pass? A number of county councils, for example, allow this, but it is a discretionary power. That seems rather strange, because a number of aspects of the scheme are statutory requirements. I believe this should be one of them, if it is not to make a nonsense—as I have already explained—of the statutory requirement that disabled persons should have a free bus pass.

I have tabled a couple of written questions on this topic. One in particular—number 48343, tabled on 27 April—asked the Government whether their review of the English national concessionary travel scheme had made a recommendation on the question of companion passes for the disabled. The answer read, in part:

“The Department for Transport conducted a review of the ENCTS and is currently considering next steps. The review did not consider adding companion passes to the statutory criteria for the scheme.”

The answer then added a standard formulation that I have received in response to other questions on this topic:

“Currently, local authorities in England have the power to go beyond their statutory obligations under the ENCTS and offer additional discretionary concessions, such as extending the travel time criteria for the ENCTS.”

I simply put it to the House that if a pass-issuing authority has a statutory duty to provide disabled people with a free bus pass, there ought to be a statutory duty to require a designated companion to be included on that same pass for those who cannot use it without a companion. That is probably not something that will be decided today, but I hope the impeccable logic of my argument will appeal to the Minister and that within 12 months he will take the action requested.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and to new clauses 23 and 24. I begin by commending the Minister for his engagement with me on this Bill. We have had some robust and good dialogue and conversation on floating bus stops, and I am sure he would agree with me on that.

Nobody in this place should be surprised to hear me speaking about floating bus stops. As we know, for more than a decade, floating bus stops have created a huge challenge for pedestrians. Active Travel England has rightly said:

“Bus stops should be easily accessible… The routes to the bus stops should be safe, direct, convenient and accessible for people of all abilities.”

Is there anybody in this House who does not agree with that?

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend knows that one of the busy floating bus stops in my constituency is right outside St Thomas’ hospital, which I will confess I have had a few bumps on. She and I did oppose its introduction. Does she agree that all floating bus stops should be reviewed, so that when patients are going to important sites such as hospital, they are not being knocked from their bikes or buggies?

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree 100% with her assessment. She is right; all those years ago—I do not want to say how long, because we will be showing our age—we opposed that floating bus stop outside St Thomas’ hospital, because we knew the challenges it would present for pedestrians.

Pedestrians continue to be injured at floating bus stops, with cyclists too often failing to give way. Even though some floating bus stops have small zebra crossings, it is rare to see cyclists stop. We know that blind and partially sighted people are having to walk into cycle lanes and into the way of cyclists, and they cannot see. That will be terrifying and a dangerous experience for them. The risk of injury can undermine their ability to travel independently and safely, and not being able to travel independently is life-limiting. It affects everything from, as my hon. Friend has just said, accessing vital health services, to holding down a job, or just being able to go out and socialise with friends.

Anecdotally, we know that people are experiencing injuries and collisions at floating bus stops. For that reason, I strongly believe that we need to have hard data if we are to address the problem properly. That is why my amendment 21 would ensure that data is gathered on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. As we know, they vary in their design and some pose more danger than others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so well. I am fairly certain that the Minister will have heard him loud and clear and will agree. It is so important that we get the design right. If we are seeking to do what is best, we need to know what needs to be changed, and we need to collect data on the design and location of all floating bus stops so that we can compare it with the number of collisions and injuries.

I very much welcome the fact that Active Travel England will undertake further research, including a national audit and safety review of all floating bus stops, to gain an accurate picture of where such bus stops are in use, what type they are, and so on. That could really help to shape future guidance. I hope that the Minister will say a little more about when the research will commence, because I am sure that many people will welcome it.

Although I appreciate that there will be an equality impact assessment of the Bill as a whole, and that impact assessments have already been produced, it is clear to me that there needs to be a particular focus on the concerns of blind and partially sighted people when it comes to shared-use bus boarders and floating bus stops, so my new clause 23 would require an equality impact assessment on their provision. If we are to have the truly accessible transport system that we are all striving for, we need to pay attention to the impact of our transport decisions on disabled people.

Floating bus stops were introduced in London in 2013, and they have caused havoc. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned the one just over the bridge outside St Thomas’ hospital, but even in my own Battersea constituency they just appear, and they really do create a challenge for many—and not just for disabled people or blind and partially sighted people, but for the elderly and for families with young children and buggies. I would go so far as to say that in many respects the safety interests of some groups of road users have sometimes been treated more favourably, to the detriment of others.

[Florence Eshalomi]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by getting this right and ensuring that we have bus stops that are accessible for everybody, including partially sighted people and disabled people, we will encourage more people to use public transport, because they will feel that it is safe and accessible for them?

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are encouraging people to do more active travel and to use public transport, so we need to ensure that the transport network is fully accessible and inclusive. The Minister has confirmed that an equality impact assessment will be published upon Royal Assent, and I press him again to clarify that for me.

Right now, we have a system that blind and partially sighted people say puts them at risk. It is not just me, with my own lived experience, saying that; many blind and partially sighted people say it, and the many organisations that support them have said the same. That tells me that we perhaps need to rethink floating bus stops. Indeed, if I had my way—I do not, unfortunately—I would ban them all, because they have created a challenge. None the less, we are where we are, and I am really pleased that the Government want to work to improve the situation. I welcome the fact that clause 31 seeks to address some of the challenges. My new clause 24 would place a duty on the Government to carry out an independent assessment.

I welcome the Government’s commitment on producing guidance for local services around the country in order to promote active travel, but also to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely and in reasonable comfort. In my view, that must be mandatory; it cannot be optional. I know the Minister has heard my concerns, and he has confirmed that that will be the case.

I also welcome the partial pause on some types of floating bus stops. As Members have said, it is so important that we address some of the safety concerns before moving to a full-scale roll-out of floating bus stops. I thank organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the National Federation of the Blind, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Transport for All, and the many blind, partially sighted and disabled people, for campaigning on this issue relentlessly to ensure that we really have a public realm that is fully accessible and fully inclusive, so that we can all benefit.

I will not push my new clauses and amendments to a vote. I fully support the Government in their endeavour, and I support this Bill.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

North Shropshire is a very rural constituency, and it is nestled in against the Welsh border, which is wiggly—I think that is the best way to describe it. That means that my constituents’ experience of using buses can be problematic, and I have tabled some new clauses that I hope the Minister will reflect on.

Shropshire is one of the worst-served counties for buses, having lost 66% of its bus miles since 2015. It has lost more bus miles, by percentage, than any other county in England. The average loss of bus miles is about 20.9%, so it has been a severe experience for my constituents. Towns such as Market Drayton have almost become isolated, because their bus service is so poor. I am sure the House has heard me say before that there is only one bus running in Shropshire on Sundays. I am lucky enough to be able to report that it runs from a town in my constituency, but it is hardly an acceptable situation for my constituents.

New clause 37 is sponsored by 30 colleagues from across the House, revealing that my constituents’ experience is shared by people in many parts of rural Britain. It tries to address the problem of poor bus services in market towns by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that a service must be available seven days a week, and that she consults the relevant bodies to ensure that constituents using the bus service can access essential services. My Bus Services Bill, which aims to get people to hospital and other health services when they need to do so, has that requirement, but it could equally be applied to schools, colleges and other important destinations for people who find themselves isolated.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend may know that in the Bill we commit ourselves to producing design guidance for local authorities so that they can look at what is best practice. She may also know that in the other place the Rail Minister said we were committing ourselves to a non-statutory pause on the type of floating bus stop that requires a passenger to alight directly on a cycle lane. I hope that that gives her some reassurance.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the work that she is doing in this regard. I am pleased to hear that the Bill requires guidance to be produced to enable authorities to make floating bus stops safe and accessible, but many blind and partially sighted people, including me, have experienced problems with them. Could a proper assessment of their safety be carried out to ensure that no passenger who uses a bus, whether it is to go to work or to attend a health appointment, will experience the challenges that so many people currently experience when trying to navigate them?

[Heidi Alexander]

We will be looking carefully at this issue. I am very conscious of the needs of the visually impaired community, but I am also very conscious of the need to protect cyclists and pedestrians on our roads, so I am keen for us to look at the issue in the round.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I do hope that the right hon. Member will not put himself in such danger. We are working with industry to address timetabling, financial, operational and infrastructure issues that need to be resolved before a service between Cleethorpes and London via Market Rasen could be introduced, once the east coast main line timetable change has been implemented. We will consider any proposals put forward, with approval subject to funding and a thorough business case process.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

One of the final acts of the last Tory Government was to cancel Access for All funding for Battersea Park station in my constituency, despite there being a costed plan in place with the local authority. The funding has been promised for more than a decade. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can get the project back on track and finally make Battersea Park station step-free?

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been campaigning on this issue since the moment she set foot in this House. I would be delighted to meet her to see how we can take forward this important project.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 632748 and 651094 relating to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and accessibility.

It is a pleasure, Mrs Harris, to serve under your chairmanship. The petitions call for an independent review and an exemption for blue badge holders, and were signed by more than 17,000 people. I congratulate the creators of the petitions, Mike Spenser and Mark De-Laurey, who are here today. Many thanks to the Petitions Committee for producing a survey, completed by 7,000 people, to which I will refer in my speech.

Low-traffic neighbourhoods, or LTNs, are traffic-control measures that reduce motorised traffic within a limited area. They are intended to make active travel more comfortable and enhance public spaces for pedestrians. Studies have shown that there are benefits, from improved road safety to better health outcomes, as people are encouraged to walk and cycle rather than drive. Their introduction, however, has proven to be controversial in some of our communities.

There is an irony in the fact that the introduction of LTNs was intended to bring communities together when, in some cases, they have now become a source of controversy. Of the respondents to the Petitions Committee survey, 78% said that LTNs had a “negative” or “very negative” effect on them, with only 17% saying that LTNs had a “positive” or “very positive” effect on them.

I support the efforts to create a more sustainable transport system, and actions to tackle what is a climate emergency. It is my intention to use this debate to present some of the challenges and to put forward recommendations for action that can be taken to prevent the problems that so many of our communities have experienced.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

More than 28,000 deaths a year are linked to air pollution. Does my hon. Friend, who has begun her speech excellently, agree that much more needs to be done to monitor and reduce air pollution, so that we can improve the quality of life for us and our constituents?

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree with her, and I will come on to that later in my speech. It is really important that we tackle not only air pollution and air quality but some of the inequalities that may come about as a result of some of the changes being introduced.

Although the basic idea of LTNs dates back to the 1970s, the latest wave and the name itself are far more recent. During the pandemic, the Conservative Government encouraged local authorities in areas with high public transport use to reallocate road space to help to enforce social distancing and encourage active travel. Statutory guidance was issued, and the Government’s active travel fund provided money for LTNs as experimental traffic orders, or ETOs. Many would argue that that is where the problem possibly started.

Although the reasoning behind the introduction of LTN measures was understandable given the circumstances, the way in which they were implemented has created problems. As they were introduced as ETOs, the usual legal obligations to carry out a full consultation were often waived, and some councils decided to perform their public sector equality duty on a rolling basis. This resulted in changes being imposed on communities without their input or approval, often without sufficient information, and with little regard for equality considerations.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I stated back in March ’22 that I was concerned that continuing with the roll-out of LTNs in my area before bus prioritisation would worsen congestion, further negatively impact bus uptake and increase division around active and public transport measures in Oxford’s communities. As my hon. Friend is stating clearly and eloquently, the timing of the introduction of LTNs in cities like Oxford has underlined the lack of a joined-up approach to the issues.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the manner in which the Conservative Government initially funded these projects, stating that LTN money could not be used for longer-term, more integrated transport plans? Does she agree that while many local residents will understandably support LTNs in the streets they live on, if we are to tackle the climate crisis, we have to ensure that everyone, not just those on higher incomes, can get from A to B and travel in a cleaner, greener way? People who live on council estates surrounding city centres also need their transport needs considered.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point that we must ensure that communities are brought along on this journey and that there are challenges that the Government have not addressed.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Marsha De Cordova]

I will make some progress.

Common complaints about LTNs have included the shifting of traffic to boundary or sacrificial roads, increased congestion, barriers for emergency services, worsening pollution and a negative knock-on effect on public transport. Many communities that have been impacted by traffic moving to densely populated areas are from poorer and black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds. One survey respondent described the impact, saying:

“The traffic was pushed out of [an] extremely wealthy [area] and onto the roads of the poor…The result was complete GRIDLOCK. The arterial roads remain highly congested to this day and it is horrible and stressful to be stuck in polluted traffic for hours on a journey that should take mere minutes.”

The introduction of LTNs has in some cases had a greater impact on disabled people, with 86% of those who responded to the survey saying that LTNs had a “negative” or “very negative” impact on them. Some of the concerns included the installation of bollards and planters, locked dropped kerbs, excessively longer journeys, which are not only inconvenient but lead to higher costs, and the failure to exempt blue badge holders from LTN schemes.

Increased travel times are not just mild inconveniences. Many disabled people often find commuting far more exhausting. In the most extreme cases, the added hassle caused by the longer journey time makes travel difficult, robbing them of the energy they need for when they arrive at their destination. Worryingly, travel times were also linked to the increased cost of petrol and taxi fares, adding to the financial burden borne by disabled people. That has the potential to prevent them from travelling or, worse, to keep them trapped in their homes. Someone living with multiple conditions said:

“The LTN has added to my journey times and costs and also my fatigue levels are increased due to the extra stress and travelling, added to this I suffer with anxiety as MS means I sometimes need access to a toilet quickly, with my journey time now increased threefold it makes it very difficult.”

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent speech she is making. The LTN she describes sounds as if it has physical barriers. Does she agree that where an LTN is enforced through camera technology and residents can enter or leave their homes by the route that suits them best, they do not suffer from the problems she has described so well?

[Marsha De Cordova]

Making sure that routes are accessible is crucial, and using technology such as cameras can be a way forward. I will come to that shortly.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Sorry.

[Marsha De Cordova]

That’s fine—no need to apologise!

Moreover, not all LTNs have blue badge exemptions; that is the focus of one of the petitions we are debating. Although LTN schemes are different everywhere and councils have different policies for blue badge holders, disability is not a geographical issue. The lack of exemptions has led to there being a postcode lottery. One respondent to the Petitions Committee survey said:

“I cannot take my mother who has a blue badge to medical appointments as it would result in going through an LTN and getting a fine.”

Southwark Council in London recently had to scrap its plans for a low-traffic neighbourhood after a backlash from residents, including local disability groups, as blue badge holders and disabled motorists would not be exempt. Many of the benefits of LTNs do not help disabled people. For instance, active travel measures such as cycling infrastructure are not always accessibly designed. Narrow cycle lanes, designed with a standard two-wheel bike in mind, cannot be used by trikes or other non-standard vehicles. This really is about creating an inclusive public realm.

The accessibility issues around LTNs show that society is rarely designed with the needs and interests of disabled people in mind, and that often leads to their exclusion. In fact, many of the issues predate the introduction of the schemes and stem instead from the existing barriers. LTNs are inaccessible because street spaces themselves are not inclusive, so simply removing them is not a solution, as the status quo ante was not always inclusive and accessible.

A basic principle of the disability rights movement has always been, “Nothing about us without us”, which signals the importance of consultation and co-production in any policymaking that impacts our lives. Given the sometimes routine exclusion of disabled people from decision making, the existing approach to policy development has had and will have a wide impact. Poor consultation on low-traffic neighbourhoods and their imposition in a time of national crisis has allowed controversy to arise.

At first glance, the Department for Transport’s review in March this year shows support for LTNs, but the responses were based on a limited set of data. The surveys featured were limited to residents of only four geographical areas, and they had a low response rate. The review also failed to consult public health professionals, older and disabled people’s groups, and those representing black, Asian and ethnic minority communities.

The Government have issued guidance on the implementation and monitoring of LTNs, which could help to ensure that future schemes are more inclusive and have community buy-in and support, but given some of the concerns about the Government’s review, there is a case, outlined in petition 632748, for an independent review that has a specific focus on the impact on disabled people and consults all the relevant people and stakeholders. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will agree to that? In the short term, LTNs must permit access to blue badge holders, as Mike Spenser called for in his petition.

A more sophisticated LTN design might include cameras, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned, to permit other vehicles and allow disabled people to access areas via any vehicle they choose, including taxis. Not all disabled people are blue badge holders, and many of them rely on public transport, including taxis.

Another recommendation could be for the temporary suspension of LTNs introduced during the pandemic until legal obligations are met and assessments and proper traffic baselines have been carried out. Although LTNs are the responsibility of local authorities, will the Government consider updating the guidance so that such an approach can be adopted? The current guidance is based on legislation that can lead to statutory requirements to consult, but if a traffic regulation order is made, key stakeholders such as the police and ambulance service must always be consulted.

There is also a requirement in the regulations to consult other organisations that represent people likely to be affected by the provisions of the order, as the local authorities see fit, but have the Government considered amending the legislation to put in place a mandatory requirement to consult other groups and stakeholders, such as those representing disabled people? LTNs can work in certain areas if they are supported by the community, which includes those who live on boundary and sacrificial roads. To enable that, will the Minister agree to develop a national framework for local authorities to use when planning new LTNs and monitoring existing and new schemes?

Successful and sustainable improvements to our transport system and public realm must always consider the interests of all who will be affected. Disabled people know this all too well; however, the interests of all communities everywhere can benefit from this simple lesson, and we can avoid the problems that we see today. I think all of us present can take that point. I am sure the House will agree that for a system or a scheme to work, it is important that we bring our communities together behind us so that all schemes can be successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. My experience is with Hounslow. I cannot say whether each local authority implemented change that was needed—or whether they plucked ideas out of thin air in 2020—but that is certainly the case in Hounslow.

The nightmare for residents who live on roads that are rat runs, particularly since the mass use of sat-navs, is that it varies; at some times of the day there is speeding, and at others there are continuous traffic jams, with vehicles spewing fumes and preventing residents from driving into or out of their own road. That environment takes away the freedom of children and older people to feel safe walking around their neighbourhood, particularly at junctions and crossroads. National figures show that more people cycle where they feel safe. Many of us own bikes but are not brave enough to cycle when roads are busy.

All the low-traffic neighbourhood measures that were implemented in Hounslow in 2020 were introduced in neighbourhoods or on roads where residents had long been angry about the impact of rat-running and had been calling on their councillors—I was one of them—for action for years. The measures introduced by the Government in 2020, during covid, which are probably the one thing I can compliment former Prime Minister Boris Johnson on, provided regulatory change and the funding to make implementation by local authorities happen quickly.

Local authorities, including Hounslow, used temporary measures to try out what worked. Some roads are now low-traffic neighbourhoods as a result of that work, including the whole south Chiswick area, which I will come to shortly; Green Dragon Lane, a road with almost all social rent housing where only a minority of people have use of a private vehicle; Occupation Lane in Brentford, at the top end of a council estate; and the Teesdales near West Middlesex University Hospital, where there were continuous battles between drivers trying to pass each other on a narrow road with resident parking.

Since they were implemented on those roads and others in Hounslow, the LTN measures have been achieving exactly what residents had asked of the council. They are stopping through traffic using the road as a shortcut while allowing residents to pass freely. Residents can drive into and out of their roads, and walk to and from their homes safely, especially when crossing and at corners. No longer are there long traffic jams with vehicles spewing out fumes and drivers getting angry when trying to pass.

Some of the schemes were revised. One was tried that removed through traffic from Turnham Green Terrace in Chiswick, a popular shopping street with very narrow pavements. The idea was to make it more business friendly, but local councillors asked for it to be removed, so it was. The schemes can be modified. Another popular shopping street, Devonshire Road, was closed completely. Concerns were expressed by the shop owners, but not by the restaurant and bar owners, so Devonshire Road is now open to through traffic during the day so that people can access the shops, but in the evening it reverts to a traffic-free road with tables and chairs outside on the carriageway, which benefits the restaurants and bars.

Physical barriers are not the only tool. In many cases there are often far better tools to create a low-traffic neighbourhood. Hounslow has made extensive use of camera technology and enforcement so that any vehicle can enter and leave a neighbourhood or road whichever way suits its driver, so long as it enters and leaves by the same way it came in, or arrives, stays and then leaves later.

I want briefly to address school streets, which are a subset of liveable neighbourhoods. There have been over 30 in Hounslow, and headteachers have told me of their benefits. They have cut out a lot of the conflict between the tiny minority of parents who insist on driving their children to school and the much larger number of parents who walk their children to school and get very angry at the behaviour of some selfish drivers. Those drivers are no longer able have close access to the school. One headteacher told me that an awful lot of families are now walking to and from school rather than making a trip of a couple of hundred yards in a vehicle every day.

Hounslow’s largest low-traffic neighbourhood started life before covid and was known as the south Chiswick liveable neighbourhood. Rat-running drivers seeking to avoid the Hogarth roundabout when travelling from the A3 or A316 to head west on the M4 or A4, or travelling either way between Chiswick bridge and Kew bridge parallel to the River Thames, had long been an issue. Thousands of vehicles a day were travelling straight through that neighbourhood without stopping, and most of them were long-distance; they were not local Chiswick vehicles.

In 2019, after full consultation, residents supported in principle the implementation of the liveable neighbourhood for south Chiswick. It was actually implemented in 2020 using the covid emergency measures, because funding had not been available prior to that. The impact has been significant: a 50% drop in through traffic, more people walking and cycling, and a drop in average vehicle speeds. On the boundary roads, there were not greater traffic jams and higher volumes, but a reduction in traffic of between 2.8% and 9.3%, despite the closure of Hammersmith bridge. That suggests that low-traffic neighbourhoods encourage a modal shift away from private vehicle use and towards public transport, walking and cycling.

The most remarkable impact we have seen in Chiswick is the loss of a council seat in the 2022 elections by the party that campaigned vigorously against the low-traffic neighbourhood that had been implemented two years earlier. For the first time in 48 years, a Labour councillor was elected to represent the Chiswick Riverside ward—hardly evidence that local people hate the LTN.

Following concerns raised locally, Hounslow has made improvements to the LTN scheme, and could perhaps make some more. I would like to see improved signage warning drivers that they are entering an LTN. Another suggestion is the use of a “one strike and then you’re fined” rule to warn people not to drive through the area again. I have been fined for not being able to see a sign in an area I did not know very well. I was a bit annoyed with myself. It was a school street and I was driving through at the very end of the school street restrictions. That annoys people, and does not help their ability to support what I believe overall are very good policies.

There is no doubt that restricting through traffic in an area achieves its purpose if it is done well and there is a need, with less pollution directly outside people’s homes, safer roads and easy access for residents. There is national evidence that there is more walking and cycling in quiet areas, and that more walking and cycling in retail areas—Walthamstow town in Waltham Forest being the best example—has strong economic benefits for local businesses and high streets. We know the benefits to tourism areas of easy, safe, segregated cycling infrastructure or quiet areas to cycle. I do not know how many other people look for cycling opportunities when they are going on holiday, but good cycling measures are a draw to tourists.

Low-traffic neighbourhoods, if they are implemented where they are needed, are properly consulted on and use clear signage and appropriate technology—camera enforcement or bollards and planters, as appropriate—can work.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend for her speech. As she is drawing it to a close, and as she has said that low-traffic neighbourhoods can work, I want to pick up again on the barriers that disabled people face. Does she agree that it is important to co-produce the design of any low-traffic neighbourhood with disabled people and their organisations to ensure that they are inclusive? Does she also agree that those who have a blue badge should be exempt from such schemes?

[Ruth Cadbury]

As Front Bencher myself, I will defer to my colleague on the Front Bench today, although it seems to me that exemptions for blue badge holders would make sense, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave in her speech.

Let us remember that disability is not one thing. Some disabled people rely on a private vehicle to get about. Many disabled people cannot drive, for all sorts of reasons. Many, particularly frail elderly people, can walk short distances, but need to feel safe. They want to know that they can be seen at the corners of roads when trying to cross, so pedestrian build-outs and clear crossings, and so on, are essential. Good design is important, as is segregation between pedestrians and cyclists, where appropriate, so that no one fears being mown down by somebody cycling too fast in an area that should be for pedestrians. That is particularly true of one form of low-traffic neighbourhood: pedestrianised retail areas or town centres—although I am not sure whether we are talking about those in this context.

Nobody likes getting a fine for driving a route that they have always driven, but there is no reason why councils cannot use a first strike and then a fine the second time for those who did not notice the changed signage. I agree that we should consider exempting blue badge holders, particularly for a barrier-based LTN where the alternative journey is a long way round. However, if the proposals are not working and not delivering the improved environment that residents said they wanted, they can be reversed and something else can be tried.

The majority of my constituents do not have sole use of a private car and, being in London, do have alternative travel choices. Those who live on roads in LTNs should have the choice, so that, should they want to restrict their road, they can. They should not have the choice to use their road as a shortcut imposed on them by other drivers, particularly those who are not even local, such as—in our case—those driving between Surrey and Heathrow airport. Why should our residents have to put up with those drivers using their small residential roads as a shortcut?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for her introduction. I particularly thank everybody who submitted their name in support of the respective petitions.

Let me gently push back on the hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood). There is not a question of trying to politicise something given that the very purpose of the Petitions Committee is that we in Parliament answer a petition. It is not from any of us; it is from the people who put forward their names for a petition. Then, there are criteria from the Petitions Committee, and we then try to address and answer those petitions.

While I will get into the substance of this particular debate, the first and fundamental point, surely, is that traffic management has existed under various statutory formats for some considerable time, and the implementation of what is now called low-traffic neighbourhoods dates back in statute to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. As the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) outlined regarding her area of Chiswick, there have been versions of that in some shape or form for a very long time, and local communities have co-existed with them on an ongoing basis.

However, there is no doubt that this issue has caused concern and is upsetting—and, in certain places, dividing—communities. It is also the case that the administration of the blue badge scheme, which dates back to section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, is something that is causing genuine concern—I am going to try to address that in detail—by reason of the implementation of low-traffic neighbourhoods.

I want to try to address this debate as calmly and even-handedly as I possibly can. There are a number of reasons for that: both because I think it is the right thing to do as a Government Minister—where we are trying to navigate different sets of priorities in different local communities—and because, clearly, the purpose of the original petition was for Government to have a review. The review that we published on 17 March sets out in quite some detail the approach that the Government take, but it is a first version. The final version will be produced later this summer.

[Marsha De Cordova]

The Minister will know that, as part of any review, it is best to gauge the views of all key stakeholders. One key stakeholder group that really did not have an opportunity to contribute was older and disabled people. For example, the leading charity for transport issues, Transport for All, was not engaged or consulted as part of this review. Will the Minister agree to ensure that, as he publishes the future review, they will be consulted? It is so important that the voices of disabled people and their organisations are heard in this. Will he commit to that?

[Guy Opperman]

With great respect, I am going to push back slightly because, clearly, one of the key purposes of this review, which I am going to set out in quite a lot of detail, is an assessment of issues in relation to what are called exemptions and exceptions. Included as part of that are vehicles exempted from restriction—generally indicated on the traffic signs; those can include permit holders, buses, taxis and disabled badge holders. There is a detailed section on exactly that point, and there are further sections about how implementation should take place for that. More particularly, we are, on an ongoing basis, engaging with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—or DPTAC—via the Local Government Association and individual local-government organisations. With respect, I will return to that in a little more detail later.

Low-traffic neighbourhoods clearly expanded during the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic. The rapid roll-out led to concerns that they were being imposed, and that communities had not been fully involved in their development. There were also concerns that the roll-out did not properly take into account the needs of many organisations, including disabled people, and representations were made in a whole host of ways, leading up to the actual review itself.

We have to accept that low-traffic neighbourhoods can work where they are well designed and where there is, crucially, local support for them. But they can also do harm where they are poorly thought through and introduced with insufficient public engagement and support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

First, I again thank not only the original petitioners for creating the petitions but the thousands of people who took the time to sign them, and the many thousands who responded to the Petitions Committee’s survey on low-traffic neighbourhoods and accessibility.

I also thank all the hon. Members who spoke today. It was a robust debate, despite the Minister’s response. I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is no longer in his place, and my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for their contributions.

I must say that in my view the Minister failed to address some of the points that I raised in my questions about the accessibility of the schemes and the need for an independent review. We ask for an independent review because sadly the Government carried out a review that was not exhaustive and did not include many key stakeholders, such as disabled people. We learned today that it was an interim review and that a review will be published in the summer. I am lost for words as to what to say about that, other than to make a final plea to the Government, once again, to ensure that disabled people are included as part of the review. Involving committees linked to the LGA is not the same as consulting the 14 million disabled people, potentially, who live in affected areas, including me.

On the issue of blue badges, it is a shame that, with the petitioners present, the Government have come forward with no solution to ensure that anybody who holds a blue badge is exempt from the schemes. Ultimately, this has been disappointing, but the conversation still needs to go on. As we have said, low-traffic neighbourhood schemes can work if they are done properly, are led by evidence and are fully inclusive and accessible to us all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 632748 and 651094 relating to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and accessibility.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I am happy to work with the Chair of the Select Committee, and I thank him for the evidence session we had on east-west rail. It was also brilliant to go to the Winslow and Calvert area to see that final link put in place. The first phase of east-west rail is ready for opening next year. Winslow station is looking absolutely superb, and I am so excited to see rail services come back there. On the second phase from Bletchley to Bedford, as he rightly says, money has been allocated from the last Budget to deliver that. I am certainly happy to meet him and the Bletchley team to see what more they can do to enhance the station for both the first and second phases.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Wandsworth Town and Battersea Park stations in my constituency will soon be made fully accessible, thanks to the Access for All funding. Queenstown Road has been nominated for the next round of funding, but a decision has still not been made. Can the Minister tell the House when the Department plans to announce which stations have been successful in control period 7? Will they include Queenstown Road in my Battersea constituency?

Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Vehicles parked on pavements continue to have a negative impact on disabled people, especially those who are blind or partially sighted like myself. It has been four years since the Government’s consultation on that, yet still no action has been taken. The Minister said that they were going to respond to that consultation soon. “Soon” is not good enough. When will they bring forward a plan to ban pavement parking?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady will understand that there are already provisions in place permitting action by local authorities. We intend to publish the Government review very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for the work he put into ensuring that his constituency station at Windsor is part of that. I can give him that assurance. As well as providing seamless tap-in, tap-out payments, fares will be simplified so that most adult passengers can be confident that pay-as-you-go will be the best price for them on the day of travel.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents in Battersea are concerned about the Government’s plans to close ticket offices at Wandsworth Town and Clapham Junction. Those closures will have a severe negative impact on disabled people, including blind and partially sighted people, and their ability to book assistance, buy tickets, or use the rail network. Only 3% of those with sight loss said that they can use a ticket machine, and nearly two-thirds said that it would be impossible. Will the Minister set out what assessment has been made on the impact of those closures, and will he publish it?

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Lady is a London MP, and she will be aware that when London Underground did exactly the same thing for the underground it was deemed a success. That is why the current Labour Mayor has no plans to reverse it. The first group I met was that representing disability and access issues, because I wanted to ensure that the reforms best help those individuals. The aim is to redeploy staff away from the ticket office, where not so many people are seen, to the front of the station where all passengers can access them. That will particularly benefit those who have accessibility and disability challenges.

Heathrow Airport Expansion

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for that useful intervention. The need for investment in other areas instead of this expansion is the whole argument.

If we are really going to meet the net zero target, we cannot rely on the increasing long-haul flights that we are talking about at Heathrow. Can the Minister be clear about the trade-offs? If a third runway is built, does that mean that growth must be curbed at all other UK airports in order for the UK not to breach its carbon targets?

Air quality is also a major issue for my constituents in Putney. The additional 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that an expanded Heathrow will produce must end up somewhere. Unfortunately for residents in Putney, it will be dumped on our high street, school playgrounds and green spaces such as Putney heath.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. My constituents in Battersea will be hugely negatively impacted if the expansion goes ahead. Heathrow is already one of the biggest polluters, and the assessments that it previously carried out—on air quality, noise and so on—are all now outdated. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to revisit those assessments before Heathrow begins revisiting the issue of expansion? My constituents and I believe that Heathrow should not be expanded.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for outlining what residents across south-west London are saying together. This is an outdated plan, it needs to be updated and it does not account for what we now know about the need to reduce air pollution and the damage it is doing to our children’s lungs and our health.

Putney has suffered—and continues to suffer—from some of the worst levels of air pollution in the UK, so my constituents will be devastated if Heathrow gets the green light to expand. The Government themselves accept that it would have a significant negative effect on air quality, but have provided no evidence to show how Heathrow can both expand and comply with legal limits on air quality simultaneously. It just does not seem to add up. I therefore ask the Minister: what safeguards on air quality can he offer to Putney residents today?

The constant noise, often from very early in the morning, is a serious health issue for Putney residents. The current level is already too much, and I know people who have moved away from the area because of it. We cannot take any more. According to the European Environment Agency, noise pollution is the second largest environmental threat to health, causing 12,000 premature deaths a year. It is not just an inconvenience. It is not just Putney residents who are suffering, either. The No 3rd Runway Coalition has calculated that an expanded Heathrow could see more than 650,000 people fall within the Department for Transport’s “significantly affected” noise pollution category. That is very serious.

The Government’s night-time noise abatement objective for noise-designated airports is simply not good enough. It could provide some answers, but the objective downplays the serious negative health impacts caused by aircraft noise at night. The negative health impacts should have been made the central tenet of the objective, to reduce the harm caused, but there is no definition of the objective

“to limit and where possible reduce…noise”.

The objective is far too vague; it should have much clearer commitment to noise-reduction targets, with measurable outcomes, so that successive interventions by airports and airlines can be determined, and enforcement action against noise can be taken. Otherwise, Heathrow can do what it likes. I urge the Minister to put himself in the shoes of my constituents and offer more than just vague promises that will not be kept.

Finally, on transport, an expanded Heathrow will see an increase in daily trips of 175,000 people, as I said before, and an additional 43,000 car park spaces. The biggest car park in the world is now about 20,000 spaces; this will be 43,000 spaces. Who is going to meet the extra demand of the cost of this extra transport, congestion and pollution? The cost is estimated to be £5 billion to £15 billion; to date, Heathrow has committed to contributing only £1 billion. I ask the Minister: who is going to pay for the additional transport needs? Will it be taxpayers, such as my constituents, who will be the ones losing sleep, losing out by breathing more polluted air as a result of the expansion, and losing out because of the transport costs?

I shall end with an unequivocal message for the incoming new chief executive of Heathrow. There is no version of an expanded Heathrow that is compatible with climate targets. There is no version of an expanded Heathrow that does not reduce the quality of the lives of the 650,000 people in my constituency and beyond who live under the flightpath. There is no version of an expanded Heathrow that does not make the air that our children breathe even more polluted. I implore them to put the quality of life and the planet first, and the pockets of shareholders second. The new chief executive can expect any future plans to be met with the fiercest opposition from me and colleagues present.

I look forward to the rest of the debate and the Minister’s response. When he responds, I would like answers to the following questions. Will he commit to reviewing and amending the airport’s national policy statement, to ensure that it is compatible with the UK’s climate targets? Will he commit to publishing an overall strategy setting out how greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are to be managed and reduced over the coming decades? I urge the Minister: listen to the Government’s own climate targets, listen to the experts, listen to residents and listen to MPs. It is high time that the prospect of an expanded Heathrow took flight.

Night Flights: Impact on Communities

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

Does the hon. Lady mind if I make a bit more progress?

In children, sleep disruption makes it more difficult for them to retain focus throughout the day. Studies have suggested that that has a negative impact on reading comprehension and memory, which can have a knock-on impact on their academic performance and general wellbeing. The human impact of night flights only intensified over the summer months, during which temperatures reached record highs. Many Londoners were left choosing between keeping their windows shut and suffering with unbearable heat or opening them and hearing the full roar of jet engines overhead. This opposition to night flights does not arise purely out of annoyance or inconvenience.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is being incredibly generous with her time. She is making the point that we have all been making: it is not about numbers; it also has to be about one’s quality of life. It is about family life, and we all have a right to that quality of life. Does she agree that the Government can no longer continue in this way? They must bring in this night flight restriction as soon as they possibly can, because my constituents in Battersea are also being impacted by this issue.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point and I thank her for intervention. What we are hearing from all parts of the House—well, certainly all the parties on the Opposition side of the House—is that night flights pose a real risk to the physical and mental wellbeing of thousands of Londoners and other communities across the country of all ages.

That brings me to Heathrow expansion. The Conservative Government’s constant mixed messaging and refusal to rule out Heathrow expansion is causing further anxiety for my constituents. Just four weeks ago, the former Prime Minister voiced her support for a third runway at Heathrow, having previously stated she would even support a fourth being built. That followed her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), stating that he would lie in front of the diggers to prevent such an expansion. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister clarified the Government’s current position in his remarks. Will this Government, the third Administration in as many months, rule out Heathrow expansion?