Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Nusrat Ghani

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Disabled People’s Access to Transport

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

I agree that the formation of Great British Railways provides an opportunity to bring together all the players in passenger rail, many of which have different standards, different policies and different training regimes. With a single commanding body, I think we have a real chance of bringing those processes together. However, that does not stop rail operators carrying out their responsibilities day to day. It is not just about policies, but about how it works every day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have several minutes only, so questions and answers must be short.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I compliment the Transport Committee and its Chair on this report, which, from what I have read so far, is absolutely excellent. I have two very short points for the hon. Lady. In London, ticket offices were closed by Transport for London some time ago. Does the report include anything about the possibility of reopening those ticket offices or having better information available for people, particularly those with sight or hearing difficulties, going to stations? Secondly, there are still a large number of underground stations with no lift access whatsoever. What evidence has she had that Transport for London will bring forward a programme to make all underground stations fully accessible for everyone?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Under our proposal, TfL would need to be part of that new process. Take the example of Vienna’s 100-year-old U-Bahn system, where there is a programme to make every station accessible within 30 years. London is bigger, and it is a bigger challenge, but it is not impossible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Transport Committee member Laurence Turner.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, whose determination as Chair has meant that this important report from the previous Committee has seen the light of day. Does she agree that the reasonable adjustments framework under the Equality Act is the right one, and that the problem is the lack of implementation and awareness? If we had clearer statutory guidance, as exists in some areas, disabled passengers and other transport users would face fewer barriers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In addition, thanks to digital technology, we now have real-time knowledge of when a lift is working or not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Transport Committee member Alex Mayer.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Our report highlights that the understanding of disabilities has changed since many of the relevant laws and regulations were put in place. This issue is about not only ramps for wheelchairs, for example, but conditions such as neurodiversity. Does my hon. Friend agree that making transport more accessible for those with hidden disabilities is important, not least because, for economic growth, we must use the talents of all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

People such as Sam are amazing activists. As I have said, they were major contributors to our inquiry, but they also need to be major contributors to the solutions.

Royal Assent

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act: Finance Act 2025.

Rail Performance

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Nusrat Ghani

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

The Transport Secretary’s statement is hugely welcome. Bringing privately owned train operating companies into public ownership as well as setting up GBR will inevitably add to her Department’s workload, so what preparations is she making to manage that additional workload?

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Ruth Cadbury and Nusrat Ghani

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I draw attention to my membership of the GMB. I support this landmark employment Bill, the biggest expansion of workers’ rights for a generation. Today we see the difference that a Labour Government can make for people up and down the country.

Although I support all aspects of the Bill, I will focus specifically on the transport sector. During and following the covid pandemic, transport workers faced the short end of the stick of poor employment practice. I welcome the end of fire and rehire. That unfair practice was used as a sledgehammer against workers, particularly during the pandemic, by companies such as British Airways, which tried it on more than 35,000 staff members, including many of my constituents in Hounslow. BA staff who had worked for decades faced the prospect of being sacked and rehired on poorer pay and weaker terms and conditions.

After huge pressure from trade unions, Labour MPs and the Transport Committee, BA dropped its plans, but other firms such as P&O have also exploited the weakness in UK employment law that the Bill is intended to address. Those practices are still happening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) highlighted in his intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister. When workers were facing fire and rehire, Labour was clear that a Labour Government would ban that practice, and I am pleased the Government are doing that. I welcome clause 22.

On minimum service levels, the Bill will also repeal and scrap the previous Government’s Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023—a farcical bit of legislation designed to limit strike action. In Committee, when I pushed the rail operators on the proposed legislation, it was clear that they had not sought it and they appeared to have no plans to use it. The fact that so few rail operators chose to use the powers once they were enacted showed that the companies themselves doubted their value and use.

This Bill also brings in much-needed modernisation of our maritime laws. In the last Parliament, the then Chairs of the Transport Committee and the Business and Trade Committee—one Conservative, one Labour—jointly wrote to the then Government about the need to update our laws to protect maritime workers. I welcome the Bill’s closure of the loophole whereby ships registered overseas previously did not have to inform the UK Government of collective redundancies, and the fact that this Government have committed to further strengthen workers’ rights at sea.

In conclusion—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Shivani Raja to make her maiden speech.