Transport Accessibility for Disabled People

Ruth Cadbury 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.

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

I apologise for not being able to contribute substantively to this debate, owing to a commitment to lead another debate in Westminster Hall shortly.

Bus passes are hugely valued by the disabled community, but there is a frustration along the lines that the hon. Lady has hinted at, which is that some people cannot make use of their bus passes without a companion, yet the inclusion of a companion bus pass in the entitlement to have a bus pass is discretionary, not mandatory. Would she agree with me that it is not much good giving a bus pass to a disabled person if that does not cover the companion they need with them to make use of it?

[Ruth Cadbury]

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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, and the Committee team for the contribution they have made to our work in this important area. I welcome the Minister’s commitment and ambition, and his list of Government initiatives in this area, and I am glad that the Law Commission will be involved in giving teeth to the charter. I just hope that in due course, Ministers will clarify whether disabled people will be involved in shaping the integrated national transport strategy, and will address my questions on the enforcement gap. A fully accessible transport system benefits us all, but we have to remember that—as others have said—disabled people often do not have the choice that many of us have about which mode of travel is available and accessible to them, given their specific needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

For HGV drivers, the ability to stop and rest is essential to our road safety, yet HGV drivers and freight sector representatives recently told my Committee that the long-known critical shortage of HGV parking spaces continues. The Government do not need another survey, so when can we expect a diagnosis of the causes of this problem and then a plan to deliver more HGV parking spaces on all parts of our network?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. Planning has historically been a barrier to the development of lorry parks. We have introduced a dedicated freight policy in the national planning policy framework to ensure that planning properly reflects freight needs, including parking and access to the transport network. Alongside that, our new national lorry parking survey will be published in the autumn and will give local authorities the evidence needed to deliver good-quality facilities in the right places.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

On Tuesday, the Committee published, as well as the report on the Railways Bill, a report called “Rail investment pipelines: ending boom and bust”, which includes discussion of the rolling stock that we need to run our trains. We found a pattern of boom and bust in investment decisions. No strategy means fluctuating orders, and that threatens small and medium-sized enterprise viability in the UK supply chain. When will the Government publish the promised long-term rolling stock investment strategy?

[Heidi Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and her Committee for its work on the important report that it published this week. We all want to see an end to the boom and bust in our rail supply chain, which damages capacity and skills retention and does not provide value for money. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Department plans to publish its rolling stock and infrastructure strategy this summer. That will set out how Great British Railways will help smooth demand and generate a steady pipeline of work for the supply chain.

Northern Powerhouse Rail

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

This is another hugely welcome transport statement from the Secretary of State for Transport and her team. Today’s announcement promises levels of rail connectivity for communities from Merseyside to Tyneside that will compare to those of the London travel to work area. The question that I and many others have is: when will we see more details about the timescales and potential funding sources for phases 1 and 2 and, most importantly, phase 3—linking Birmingham with the Northern Powerhouse Rail network, which is so desperately needed and was so cruelly and ridiculously cancelled by the Conservative party in government—so that we can relieve the pressure on the west coast main line and link up London and Birmingham with the cities of the north?

[Heidi Alexander]

The Chair of the Transport Committee is completely right that the proposals we are announcing today will deliver rail services for the north that are comparable to those in London and the south-east—a “turn up and go” railway where people do not have to check the timetable before they go to the station, because they know that a train will be there within a reasonable timeframe and that if they miss their train, they will not have to wait an hour for the next one. She is right to press me on when more information about the different phases will become available. The first phase of improvement relates to the corridors into Leeds from Sheffield, Bradford and York; we will be progressing with urgency on those, as well as the plans for the new line between Manchester and Liverpool. Phase 3 of NPR relates to further trans-Pennine improvements beyond the trans-Pennine route upgrade, and we will say more in due course about our plans for Birmingham to Manchester, noting that the delivery of those plans will come after NPR has been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

The Government have given mayoral authorities greater devolved powers to develop local transport infrastructure projects. Will the Secretary of State ensure that such powers provide the opportunity to speed up joint planning and decision making so that much-needed transport infrastructure, such as the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme, can be accelerated to meet the needs of communities and local economies?

[Keir Mather]

The Government fully support the Mayor of West Yorkshire’s ambition to deliver mass transit in the region. People in West Yorkshire have waited too long for better transport infrastructure and too many promises from the previous Government have been broken. We are determined to put that right.

Railways Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). I am still trying to work out what a Lib Dem Bill would include that this one does not.

I welcome the Bill, which is universally agreed to be long needed. It is the essential next step in ensuring that rail in Britain is more unified and that we deliver a rail system that is reliable and safe and provides value for money for passengers and the taxpayer.

The Railways Act 1993 led to 30 years of a poor deal for passengers, other customers and taxpayers, with 17 different organisations providing track and trains, multiple fare options and prices, hundreds of staff employed to attribute the cost of delays, staff shortages and no single voice to address individual systemic failures of service. Yet the railways have a workforce who are universally committed to delivering a high-quality service to passengers and customers.

I particularly welcome the proposal that the Secretary of State will issue a long-term rail strategy setting out objectives and the direction of travel for railways for the next 30 years. That will please so many stakeholders, including, in particular, investors in rail as well as mayoral authorities—in fact, all those who work in and use rail. I welcome that clause 18 includes duties on GBR to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, which specifically includes disabled passengers, and to run the railway in the public interest—in other words, to meet social, economic and environmental objectives.

Clause 18 sets out a series of significant duties for GBR, including the promotion the use of rail freight. But while clause 17 requires the Secretary of State for Transport to set out a target for growth in rail freight, there is no such target in the Bill for growth in passenger demand.

My Committee launched an inquiry on the Bill on 5 November—the day that the Bill was published—focusing in particular on three core aims of the reform: improving rail travel for passengers, network access, and devolution. We have published the evidence we have received so far, and the oral evidence taken on 26 November is tagged as a relevant document for this debate.

First, passenger experience is central to all our constituents who travel by rail—or who would do if it was more accessible, more reliable or cheaper. The passenger watchdog is a new voice providing advocacy and advice, sharing best practice and providing alternative dispute resolution. Clause 36 says that it will have a duty to have “particular regard” to the interests and needs of disabled passengers. It will set standards on how travel information is provided, including when there is a disruption. It will handle complaints and delay compensation, and it will require operators to make services accessible. Those powers in London and on Eurostar will be covered by an expanded London TravelWatch.

On the detail of enforcement powers, clauses 42 to 47 give the passenger watchdog powers to receive complaints. That is helpful, but I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. Will the Passengers’ Council be sufficiently independent, powerful and resourced to challenge GBR to deliver meaningful change if needed? What will the governance relationship be between the watchdog, the ORR and the rail ombudsman? What remedy will passengers have if the passenger watchdog’s recommendations are not adopted? Who will appoint the members of the council and the chair? Will passenger groups and disabled people be represented on the board?

Accessibility is a particular interest of the Transport Committee, following the publication of our report “Access denied” in February. I welcome the fact that clause 18 explicitly includes the needs of disabled passengers as a general duty, but that is only one of six duties that will have to be balanced. What guidance will be provided to GBR on balancing those needs, to ensure that disabled people do not lose out yet again? The wording in clause 18 on accessibility could also be said to be slightly objective. What safeguards are there against a future Secretary of State cutting costs and altering, diluting or even removing accessibility requirements?

On fairs and ticketing, we welcome a unified system. On network access, there is slightly less clarity on the future role of passenger open access. If the Government want to end open access for passengers, do they have a plan for retaining its benefits, such as filling gaps, opening up new routes and promoting price competition? On freight, how will the targets be aligned?

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that there is also a danger of a conflict of interest? At present, the ORR, an independent body, holds the power to grant track access rights. Under the Bill, those powers will transfer to GBR, while the ORR’s role is watered down. If GBR is able to block applications, it becomes judge and jury. Open access operators such as Go-op may struggle to get the access rights that they need to run new services, including through Melksham.

[Ruth Cadbury]

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.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

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?

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise these issues. We will give very careful and thorough consideration to them in the airports national policy statement review, which will take place in the coming months. She referred to the Climate Change Committee’s opinion on capacity expansion. We are making rapid progress in cleaning up the fuel that is used in planes, and we are making huge efforts to reform our airspace, so that we can have cleaner and more direct flights. The carbon intensity of flying has to come down if we are to have more planes in the air. She was also right to highlight the importance of the regulatory model. That is why we have asked the Civil Aviation Authority to do this piece of work over the coming months; it is aligned with the review in the airports national policy statement. We will say more on that in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

I, too, look forward to working with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), in his new role. Last week, the Transport Committee heard that car clubs, peer-to-peer ride-sharing and car-sharing schemes align with Government objectives on transport integration, reducing congestion, increasing electric vehicle use and supporting residents in rural areas where public transport is poor. Unlike France and other countries, the sector in the UK operates in a policy vacuum, particularly since the Government withdrew the car clubs toolkit guidance in May. Is the Minister planning to address that policy vacuum?

[Simon Lightwood]

My hon. Friend is completely right, and I thank the Transport Committee for raising that important point. I have commissioned officials to consider how we can support and promote the use of car club and car-sharing schemes, starting with a roundtable of industry stakeholders. I would be delighted if she could attend. I will ensure that that guidance is reinstated.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Will Members please be seated? Before I go to speeches from Back Benchers, I want to be clear about where we are and what we are debating, because there seems to be some confusion among colleagues. We are debating the remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, and we are on Report. Speeches should relate to the amendments listed on the amendment paper, not the Bill as a whole, so please check the amendment paper; I say that for Back Benchers who hope to contribute.

I know that the next Member knows exactly what they are doing. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, except to say it is no surprise that our first stand-alone inquiry in the Transport Committee was on buses in England outside of London. That issue affects Members in England from across the House and from all sorts of constituencies.

I speak in support of two amendments that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), myself and others: amendment 66 and new clause 46. Since Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the Transport Committee has published its “Buses connecting communities” report, which focuses on potential solutions to the long-term decline in bus ridership in England outside London. If the Government seek the reversal of bus decline in England, I hope the Minister will support our two amendments. They add to the Bill, because they specifically seek to improve bus services in a way that relying on future guidance may not. They provide the context in which local transport authorities can determine their specific bus provision. Merely devolving greater control to local authorities without any kind of overarching values-based vision will not help in areas that have no interest whatsoever in enhancing and extending their services, and could risk simply entrenching inequality and decline.

New clause 46 seeks to ensure that local transport authorities have a duty to consider funding for service enhancements. It is about

“whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.”

The local transport authority must have regard to six principles. These are the potential for increased ridership; the overall sustainability of the network; the service improvements, particularly the frequency of existing services; extending operating hours; improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; and extending the routes of local services.

We know that progressive local authorities are committed to enhancing and expanding the public transport in their areas, and they do that; we have great examples under Labour mayors in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. Having more people on more buses addresses the policy objectives that they and we in Labour seek to achieve, such as addressing congestion, air pollution, carbon emissions, social and economic isolation, and growth. However, I fear that there are—and that there could be more—local authorities that care little for those important objectives, which are central to this Government’s values.

New clause 46 would therefore bake in a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate funds to improve bus services where it would

“grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network”.

It sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. It would also enable bus user groups and others to measure the intentions of their local transport authorities against those basic objectives.

New clause 46 comes from the Transport Committee’s recommendation 117, which says that the Department should

“require local transport authorities to consider using grant or fare box funding to enhance existing local bus services.”

The need to improve local bus services while growing ridership was a focal point of the evidence received by our Committee.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

On that point, does the hon. Lady accept that increasing the fare cap from £2 to £3 is likely to reduce ridership, whatever is contained in the new clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I speak in the context of devolution within an overarching set of values. I will not go into the specifics of what level a bus fare should be, but the overall ridership and the sustainability of the bus system are a key objective. I know the Minister will say that with devolution, how that happens is up to the local transport authorities.

Returning to the evidence we heard in Committee, as everybody here knows, buses remain the most used form of public transport, yet the number of bus journeys in England outside London has dropped from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024. Alongside the declining number of journeys, the need to improve services and increase ridership speaks to the evidence received by the Committee about the impact on social isolation of a lack of access to buses. Transport for the North told the Committee that in 2024 some 11.4 million people across England faced transport-related social exclusion, and there was evidence that the problem was worse in towns than in cities.

The Minister told us that the Government intended the Bill to deliver services that were more affordable and reliable, faster and better integrated. However, when pressed on whether people in England would see more buses to more places by the end of this Parliament, he said that that is certainly their intention and they are doing everything possible to make it happen. My contention is that without that being baked into the body of the Bill, there is a risk that in many places there could be a continued decline in bus services over time.

Amendment 66 to clause 14 relates to socially necessary services. It seeks to insert in line 5 of page 10 after the word “services”:

“along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.

It would be for the local transport authority to define that, but in a publicly visible way. The amendment asks that local authorities be required to produce a transparent methodology for how they determine these socially necessary services.

The North West Surrey Bus Users Group made the argument to the Committee that a clear and consistently applied definition was essential for holding local authorities accountable for maintaining basic service levels on loss-making routes. It warned that in the absence of sufficient guidance to date, some authorities had, to a greater or lesser extent, abdicated their responsibilities. As a result of such evidence, the Committee’s report recommended that the Department should mandate local transport authorities to publish their own transparent methodology for how they determine which bus services qualify as socially necessary to ensure public accountability—hence the reason for this amendment.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

North East Surrey College of Technology in my constituency is not accessible by bus, leaving students having to travel even further for their education because local bus services are simply not serving young people. Does the hon. Member agree that the Bill must expand the definition of socially necessary local services to explicitly include schools and colleges?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which goes to the heart of what I am saying: it is not for this Bill and this Government to define whether or not colleges, schools and so forth should be included—one would hope they would be—but it is for the local authority to define their socially necessary services according to the needs in their area. They should publish it, and a requirement to do so should be in the Bill.

I am pretty sure that the Minister will say, “Don’t worry, Chair of the Select Committee, it’ll be in the guidance.” My concern is that guidance is to some extent discretionary and can be changed over time. I, Alex Mayer and others would like to see the need to have a definition and methodology for socially necessary services stated in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I talked so highly of the Select Committee Chair and said that she does everything right, but I think she mentioned a colleague by their name, not by their constituency. Can we try and stick to the etiquette?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I have only been here 10 and a bit years; I will get used to it. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill as currently drafted suggests that local transport authorities merely define their socially necessary services. That could mean services as they are now; it does not take into account changes in need. New housing developments might mean that a loss-making route becomes commercially viable. The closure of a major employer might mean that nearby housing loses a viable bus service. The Bill allows for change, but it should require local authorities to have a publicly available methodology, on which user groups, communities and residents can hold their local transport authority to account.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

In addition to the point about socially necessary routes, companies such as Stagecoach cut the frequency of essential buses—such as the No. 2 from Exeter through to Dawlish in my constituency and on down towards Paignton. That drives people away from the buses; when the frequency goes down from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes, it makes the service unusable and takes away the social value of the route.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member is entirely correct.

Our amendments would support local transport authorities to grow their local bus networks actively in response to demographic and economic changes, not just to manage the decline. Without the amendments, particularly amendment 66, the only requirement is for authorities to list their current services. While acknowledging the Government’s rightful drive on devolution, our Committee would not want any local transport authority to walk away from the Bill’s important objectives to promote growth, particularly in towns across England; to promote reliability and integration; and to address social isolation, inequality, traffic congestion and pollution.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Pavement Parking

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate. She and many other hon. Members have described the reasons for this debate and for a change in the law.

As Chair of the Transport Committee, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, but I am not sure how many times in the 10 years since I have been in Parliament I have spoken on the issue of bringing in a default ban on pavement parking. As a London MP, and before that a London councillor and a London resident for 40 years, I know that a default ban—with specific exemptions where needed—would work. I have never understood the apparent reluctance among some to allow that nationwide.

I was an active member of the Select Committee inquiry, along with the Minister, who was then the Committee Chair; the rural affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner); and the then Conservative Member for Bexhill and Battle, who took us to his constituency to show us the problems there. We recommended Government legislation for a nationwide ban on pavement parking across England outside London to give the Secretary of State for Transport the power to bring in secondary legislation. We also recommended a ban enforced by local authorities, not the police; a nationwide awareness campaign showing the problems of pavement parking for those affected; and revisions of the traffic regulation order process. The Secretary of State has shown that she and the Minister are passionate—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order.